Poll: Four in Five Americans Would Give Up Some Freedom for More Security (MORON ALERT)

Tampa Bay Online (AP) ^ | 6-11-02 | Jennifer L. Brown

[Boonie Rat]

Poll: Four in Five Americans Would Give Up Some Freedom for More Security

By Jennifer L. Brown Associated Press Writer

Published: Jun 11, 2002

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - Four in five Americans would give up some freedoms to gain security and four in 10 worry terrorists will harm them or their family, a new Gallup poll shows.

About one-third of those polled favor making it easier for authorities to access private e-mail and telephone conversations. More than 70 percent are in favor of requiring U.S. citizens to carry identification cards with fingerprints, and 77 percent believe all Americans should have smallpox vaccinations.

"It was amazing the percentage of people who are willing to give up freedom to get back some sense of personal security," said Elaine Christiansen, senior research director for The Gallup Organization. "These aren't people who were necessarily near the twin towers, near the Pentagon, near the Murrah building. These are average people."

The telephone survey, conducted in March, included 934 people across the country. Researchers also polled about 500 people in each of three cities where terrorist attacks occurred - New York City, Washington, D.C., and Oklahoma City - to compare results with the general population survey.

The poll showed 8 percent of Americans are very worried and 31 percent are somewhat worried that they or someone in their family will become victims of a terrorist attack in the United States. In New York City, the level of worry is higher - 19 percent said they are very worried and 34 percent said they are somewhat worried.

Washington, D.C, and Oklahoma City reported levels of fear close to the national average.

Scientists involved in the poll said they were not surprised many Americans remain fearful after Sept. 11.

"The magnitude of the event was just so profound," said Carol North, a psychiatry professor at Washington University in St. Louis, who said talk of the war in Afghanistan, airline security and terrorist threats is propelling the fear.

The study was co-sponsored by The University of Oklahoma psychiatry department through a grant from the Oklahoma City National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism. The main survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points, while the margin of error for the survey in the three cities is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Meanwhile, a New York Times/CBS News poll found that 60 percent of New York City residents think the threat of a terrorist attack in their city is greater than it is in any other big city.

Barely 40 percent of respondents believe the city is safer than it had been four years ago, a decrease of 20 percent from those polled in August. Even so, nearly two-thirds of those surveyed said that given a choice, they would prefer to be living in the city four years from now than any other place.

The poll, conducted by telephone in English or Spanish June 4 through Sunday, surveyed 940 adults. It has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.

[Kevin Curry]

Laws are passed, adjusted, and repealed all the time, mconder, to better target the devil. You're taking an absolutist comic book approach typical of libertarians. It's the easy way out because it doesn't require much in the way of thought.

Again, Jefferson wrote about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in the conjunctive--not the disjunctive. Unless life is preserved first and foremost, the other two have no meaning.

[Reagan Man]

Ah yes...if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear. I suppose you won't mind random searches of your home to ensure that you aren't harboring any terrorists or plotting to overthrow the government, right?

Right! I've got nothing to hide. Stop being so paranoid.

[Kevin Curry]

Poor baby. Languishing in statist hell. No hope, no future, nothing good allowed in life. Nothing but the the chains of your comfortable middle-class existence in the greatest, richest, and most free nation ever to exist on the face of the planet.

*Sigh* *Sigh* and *Sigh* again.

[Reagan Man]

I don't have the exact numbers. You tell me.

[poet]

Do you think the daily warnings of impending attacks are designed to keep us on edge and fearful so new laws can be passed? Just asking. I'll put my tin foil hat on now. :8)

I, for one, will not live in fear and will go on with earning a living and paying my bills. I'd rather be free than "safe".

Flame away, good people.

[Reagan Man]

And now goofs like you...

Ah yes, more personal attacks.

Frankly, I think you're the goofy one. Btw, how's Minnie doing?

[First_Salute]

No amazement; see FR sampling.

[Dimensio]

Ah, well okay...Personally I would be looking to join an anti-government group if the feds decided that they could just enter and search my home without a warrant or even probable cause.

[mconder]

Again, Jefferson wrote about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in the conjunctive--not the disjunctive. Unless life is preserved first and foremost, the other two have no meaning.

Since you like TJ so much you must love the fact that he also said revolution was neccisary every 20 years to protect the liberties of the people.

[T Roosevelt]

"If you aren't a terrorist, wishing to harm America and kill American's, you've got nothing to worry about. Go about your life and stop being paranoid and scared of your own shadow."

You seem to have missed the point entirely. The breakdown in your logic comes from the "If you aren't a terrorist". The problem is - who decides that? You? Your neighbor? The government? I'm secure in my belief that I'm not a terrorist, but that does not prevent our attorney general from deciding otherwise because he doesn't care for my political or religious views. One goal of the Constitution is to prevent this very thing from happening, but with every decree and law passed (particularly the USA Patriot Act, probably the most unconstitutional piece of legislation ever), our freedoms, liberties, and protections are eroded more and more. This is not libertarian nonsense, it is just pure common sense.

I take the following to heart, and perhaps you should too:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~ Benjamin Franklin

[aruanan]

Four in Five Americans Would Give Up Some Freedom for More Security

What it should read is, "Four in five Amvericans would give up some freedom they actually enjoy now for the promise of more security somewhere down the road."

Those who are willing to give up liberty for security have the mentality such that they don't really enjoy their liberty in the present and won't ever feel secure.

[headsonpikes]

I cannot let your thoughtful post #29 go unremarked.

This is a needlessly 'screamy' thread; the issues you raise are surely the crucial ones, and yet this is one post that sparked no replies, from either side of the ongoing debate.

Obviously, we can enjoy liberty AND security. The problem is, that outcome requires intelligent and measured policy from the government.

Some of us are more doubtful about that possibility than others. ;^)

[Stew Padasso]

You stepped on this thread with the attitude.

[Benson_Carter]

so ok, you have nothing to hide

it's really no problem for the Feds to search your house without a warrent?

I'm just curious here as to exactly where you stand...

[registereSCvoter]

If any loss of freedoms would, truely, just be tempory, I may have fewer qualms. My government isn't known for their honesty. I do NOT trust THEM! My generation also questioned the government and tried to get the Public sheep top open their eyes before. Maybe we can help them do it again. Open your eyes and engage your brains. Do not be an enabler.

[ppaul]

ATTENTION: rjaynej

PRIME CANDIDATES for FR Quote of the Week
For trenchant, hard-hitting, thought provoking debate.

All on this thread!

Anymore personal insults? If so, stuff it. - Reagan Man

Enjoy the stuffing. - KirklandJunction

[Y]ou have every right to be as arrogant and ignorant as you want. Makes no difference to me. I'm not the one pissed off at the world, you are. So enjoy stuffing that, bucko! - Reagan Man

I just don't like stupidity and there seems to be an over abundance of it on this thread, by FReepers...Btw, whats your problem? - Reagan Man

Now you call me arrogant, ignorant and pissed off. Your lack of civility is an insult to the fine man of your screen name. You should get along well with the infamous Kevin Curry, he's known internationally as one of the boors of Free Republic. - KirklandJunction

You are a blind fool. - mconder

What a dipwad. - Kevin Curry

And you are an unthinking anarchist, a libertarian loon. - Kevin Curry

I have no intent to challenge God and His principles of liberty. Obviously, you think your wiser than this. - mconder

Go about your life and stop being paranoid and scared of your own shadow. - Reagan Man

I will not insult you, but will count you among the 80%. - HoustonCurmudgeon

LOL Your credibility is lost...You expect to be taken seriously? Never! - Reagan Man

What an insane comment. - homeschool mama

You are so full of crap... - mconder

I see you're still whining. If you're that unhappy here in the good old USA, I suggest you move, to a place more your liking. - Reagan Man

I think you are the paranoid coward. - Stew Padasso

It appears you never passed reading comprehension in grade school. - Reagan Man

Hit "refresh" for other new quotable gems appearing regularly.

[Liberal Classic]

That's a good question. I don't know exact figures, either, but my sense is that the majority of the time when the government assumes some authority it does not relinquish it easily.

We are still operating under many of the emergency programs enacted by FDR in the 30s, such as the powers of the Secretery of Agriculture to buy tons of produce to manipulate the market. The the minimum wage was started as an emergency measure, also. Likewise the federal imcome tax was started as a war tax that never went away.

If federal law enforcement officers are given new powers to spy on us, what are the chances that those powers will be taken away once the war on the Base is over? I do not believe that any provisions of the Patriot Act will ever be repealed.

[poet]

Perhaps enforce the laws already on the books and put the predators away?

There 20,000+ gun laws on the books and they have'nt stopped one shooting.
There are laws against rape and that hasn't stopped one rape..
There are laws against murder and murders still happen
There are laws against burglary/theft and they still occur
There are laws against hijacking and that didn't stop the devils.
There are laws against hostage taken and they took hostages
There are laws against destruction of property and they destroyed buildings
They stole the planes so theft laws did not stop them

Since they crossed state lines they were under Federal law, someone please tell me why we needed new laws?

So, what good are all the laws if only the law abiding obey them?

Be careful in embracing new laws because every new law restricts another freedom.

[mconder]

Laws are passed, adjusted, and repealed all the time, mconder, to better target the devil. You're taking an absolutist comic book approach typical of libertarians. It's the easy way out because it doesn't require much in the way of thought.

I suppose it would be far to comic book to allow private citizens their right of defense with private arms in all places public, including aircraft.

Furthermore, it would a halariously comical approach to have closed borders and to view all border crossings as a foriegn invasion.

I suppose it would just make you double over laughing if we were to round up people who's visas have expired and send them back from whence they came.

If there was imminent threat of getting the chair for people like john walker and this latest traitor, I suspect you would have to do alot less pre-emptive spying on innocent people.

[First_Salute]

That "the leadership hasn't much stomach" for directly taking on the problems, is indeed the basis for trying to satisfy the appearance, and perhaps their feelings, that they are "doing something about it" ... by other means, such as new organizations.

Lots of "make do" work and "expertise" of "policy makers" maintaining the cash flow Inside the Beltway.