Posted on 12/21/2002 11:33:05 AM PST by Libertarian Billy Graham
|
|
|
|||
|
|||||
|
|
||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|||||
|
|
||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|||
|
Nice to see you have your priorities in order.
Looks like this "airport" piece of, uh-hum, "writing" found a more receptive audience. Of course, those who believe him don't have the $15. to spend on any upcoming play. Hey, forget the play and sue! Lousy playwrights gotta eat, too.
I asked you if it matters to you, so therefore it's relevant for me. You keep throwing in this - I'd have to call it a phobia at this point - about "imposing" solutions on the American people, when I haven't suggested any such thing. What I'm trying to get from you is what you think our goals should be. Once we've determined that, then we can worry about how to get there.
It's not a "phobia" about imposing solutions, it's a matter of understanding what the real problem is. We're essentially presented with two possibilities here. One, there's some secret (or not-so-secret) cabal of power-brokers in Washington that are conspiring to gradually strip us of our rights and freedoms, against our wills. And this is not an uncommon position, especially around here - you can see the strains of that in the posts suggesting that "they" are "conditioning" us to become used to random searches, and so forth. Or, alternately, as I suggest, our rights and freedoms are gradually being stripped because that's what people want. They may not think that's what they want, but when it comes to security versus freedom, they will invariably choose security, or the appearance of it, over freedom.
Now, in both cases, the end result is the same, even though they are two entirely different problems, with two entirely different solutions. The solution to the first problem...well, you get your guns out and you go root 'em out. But the second problem is much more subtle and much more difficult to solve. And that's what we're faced with - there's no grand conspiracy, IMO, to take away your rights. Your neighbors are simply thinking with their bellies instead of their heads, and the solution to that problem can only be to educate them. Nothing else can stop what you and I might see as continuing violations of the Constitution.
Would you say it's doing so now when it says that exercise of what would otherwise be a generally unrestricted freedom shall be conditional upon "consensual" searches?
Saying "what would otherwise be a generally unrestricted freedom" is sort of like saying "if it wasn't for disease and old age, I'd otherwise generally live forever" - while it is trivially true, it has never been that way, and it never really will be that way. As I've been repeatedly trying to show, no freedoms are ever absolute. No freedoms have ever been absolute. And no freedoms can be absolute, in a society of more than one person. Libertarians (of which you are not one, of course) take an expansive, broad view of freedoms, but the "no force or fraud" principle still serves to draw a line, ruling some actions in pursuit of freedoms out-of-bounds, and not permissible by society. Others take a more constrained view of the proper exercise of ones liberties. But everyone recognizes that a line must be drawn, causing some activities to be impermissible. And once we all realize that, then the debate becomes about where we should draw that line, not whether we should draw that line.
So, the question is really "is this interpretation of the 4'th Amendment appropriate? Is it practical? Is it moral?" And I say, rights are meaningless to dead people. The right to life of the 3,000 people in the World Trade Center outweighs the right of the passengers to be free from any search. In this case, I am prepared to draw a limited exception to the 4'th Amendment, in the name of life. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact," as Justice Jackson famously said, and there is little point in adhering to a slavish interpretation that causes the deaths of countless thousands - it is, after all, intended for the use of the living, not the dead.
Obviously, this will not be a popular position with the "let justice be done, though the heavens fall" set. But here we have yet another case of one right conflicting with another, and I say that life is that most precious right of all. Without it, all other rights and freedoms are meaningless.
Then I guess I won't get customers to fly on Air Inquest with that approach. Such are the ways of the free market.
Something makes me think the free market will prevent Air Inquest from even getting that far - I predict Air Inquest will have a great deal of trouble obtaining insurance. In which case, Air Inquest will end up instituting searches anyway, and then what's the practical difference between Air Inquest and airlines now? ;)
We're essentially presented with two possibilities here. One, there's some secret (or not-so-secret) cabal of power-brokers in Washington that are conspiring to gradually strip us of our rights and freedoms, against our wills. And this is not an uncommon position, especially around here - you can see the strains of that in the posts suggesting that "they" are "conditioning" us to become used to random searches, and so forth. Or, alternately, as I suggest, our rights and freedoms are gradually being stripped because that's what people want. They may not think that's what they want, but when it comes to security versus freedom, they will invariably choose security, or the appearance of it, over freedom.
Actually, there is a third possibility, and that is that those in power do things to increase their power, not because they've "conspired" to do so, but because birds gotta fly, fish gotta swim, and politicians gotta control everything they can get their grubby hands on - and because the people are insufficiently opposed to it to want to go through the effort of putting a stop to it. And even if the first possibility you mentioned is correct, I'm not sure I'd agree that going in with guns blaring is the most advisable option, as I think you can see. But all that's neither here nor there at this particular juncture, because right now I'm interested in your views of how it should be. We'll deal later with the question of how to get there, if you're still so inclined.
But everyone recognizes that a line must be drawn, causing some activities to be impermissible. And once we all realize that, then the debate becomes about where we should draw that line, not whether we should draw that line.
I'd rather hear your thoughts on where to draw the line on government's actions. Hopefully I don't have to ask you whether the line needs to be drawn.
So, the question is really "is this interpretation of the 4'th Amendment appropriate? Is it practical? Is it moral?"
Silly me, I thought the question was "Is this interpretation correct?"
The right to life of the 3,000 people in the World Trade Center outweighs the right of the passengers to be free from any search. In this case, I am prepared to draw a limited exception to the 4'th Amendment, in the name of life.
So now you're making it clear that it's not a question of "interpretation" at all, but a question of whether to violate the Constitution. After all, if you speak of a "limited exception", then you're acknowledging that there's something to be excepted from. Seems you've answered the question I had for you earlier. And is it a justified violation? You asked me, "What's the practical difference between Air Inquest and airlines now? ;)" I'd like to turn that question upon you: What is the practical difference between a free-market system and a centrally commanded system of airline security, in terms of the safety it would provide? You've implied that insurance companies and other annoyances would constrain airlines to do things much the same way they're doing now. So is the difference enough to warrant a cafeteria approach to the Constitution?
I don't give a damn about your complaints. You repeatedly referred to me as someone who enjoyed "taking it up the ass" (something I guarantee you would never say to my face). You're a real tough-guy-Internet-warrior.
You have YET to say how you would defend American toddlers from the freaks who want to put them under the thumb of these murderous nazi-muslims who want to take over the world.
When you can engage in normal discourse instead of throwing around rhetoric, get back to me. I've no time for keyboard-commandos. Capice?
"Correctness" is itself a matter of interpretation. And it's a matter of degree, to boot. If we could all look at some action and instantly and unanimously agree upon whether it was consistent with the law, or look at some law and instantly and unanimously agree upon whether it was consistent with the Constitution, we wouldn't need courts in the first place. This isn't mathematics, you know, where we can logically prove that one particular answer is correct, and thereby exclude all other answers ;)
So now you're making it clear that it's not a question of "interpretation" at all, but a question of whether to violate the Constitution. After all, if you speak of a "limited exception", then you're acknowledging that there's something to be excepted from. Seems you've answered the question I had for you earlier.
I say that this is an exception under the 4'th Amendment, exactly as the 4'th Amendment says there are exceptions - it only protects you from "unreasonable" searches, not all searches. Given the conflicting rights in play, I do not find this to be "unreasonable".
"Let justice be done, though the heavens fall". Speaking more generally, what do you plan to do when my exercise of my rights interferes with your exercise of your rights? How will you arbitrate when rights conflict?
But, of course, you've already done that here, haven't you? You've decided that your 4'th Amendment right to be free from some search is more important than someone else's right to live, that your inconvenience is more important than theirs. Why is that? Why does your Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches outweigh someone else's fundamental right to live?
What is the practical difference between a free-market system and a centrally commanded system of airline security, in terms of the safety it would provide?
So your argument for change is "why not?" Do we seek change for change's sake now?
So is the difference enough to warrant a cafeteria approach to the Constitution?
Sometimes rights conflict. When they do, we must balance competing interests as best we can. If recognizing that your rights aren't absolute, and that some rights are more fundamental than others, is what passes for a "cafeteria approach" these days, so be it.
I didn't say we could determine the answer instantly, but we can most certainly determine it logically. The courts have certainly made things more difficult by inventing new meanings for various provisions in the Constitution, thereby reinforcing the notion that only they know how to divine its "true meaning", but the Constitution was written with the intention that ordinary people would be able to know what it says. Granted, "ordinary people" were considerably more literate back then, but it's still possible today for people who have an interest in the subject to understand it themselves.
I say that this is an exception under the 4'th Amendment, exactly as the 4'th Amendment says there are exceptions - it only protects you from "unreasonable" searches, not all searches.
The word "reasonable" can have absolutely no meaning in any legal sense, if there's no context to go along with it. Otherwise, we could just replace the entire Bill of Rights with "Just don't do anything unreasonable, OK?" In order for it to mean anything, it has to mean "reasonably tailored towards the attainment of a particular goal." The second half of the 4th amendment gives us an unmistakable clue as to what that goal is: investigation of a particular crime, where there's proper grounds for suspicion. You can argue all day whether a particular action is "reasonable" in some abstract sense, but if it's not reasonable within the context provided by the 4th amendment, then it's not reasonable within the meaning of the 4th amendment.
So your argument for change is "why not?" Do we seek change for change's sake now?
My argument for change is that the current policy looks very much like it conflicts with the Constitution, and that it sets (or rather perpetuates) a dangerous precedent. What exactly is your argument for "interpreting" the Constitution to allow the government to continue engaging in an activity which in all likelihood creates no measurable improvement in airline safety?
Oddly enough, the left says exactly the same thing, just before arriving at their preferred interpretation.
But that's neither here nor there, really. The key question is one of balancing competing interests. Why does your presumed 4'th Amendment right outweigh someone else's right to live?
What exactly is your argument for "interpreting" the Constitution to allow the government to continue engaging in an activity which in all likelihood creates no measurable improvement in airline safety?
How about the fact that your assertion of "no measurable improvement" is simply false? In 1961, before FAA-mandated universal passenger screening, there were four cases of hijackings on flights from US airports. From 1992-2000, after the FAA mandate in 1973, there were zero.
Why does your asserted right to be free from this search outweigh the right to life of others?
I've never heard a leftist make that argument. Their position has consistently been that the Constitution is a living document, and that it's up to the judges alone to decide what it says according to the "needs of society" - a position that bears a striking resemblance to that being promulgated by another poster on this thread.
In 1961, before FAA-mandated universal passenger screening, there were four cases of hijackings on flights from US airports. From 1992-2000, after the FAA mandate in 1973, there were zero.
Those aren't terribly conclusive numbers. How many from '61 to '73? From '73 to '92? And if left to their own devices, what do you expect that airlines would do differently that would be detrimental to safety?
That logic supports their position? No?
Everyone claims the mantle of logic and reason. Reasonable people will disagree on this issue. Therefore, unless we are prepared to define reason in terms of one's position on this issue, it seems to me that there are reasoned arguments on both sides, and we must all weigh those arguments to see which we find most persuasive. I happen to accept the inconvenience of minimal searches so that others might live. Am I "unreasonable"? Illogical?
Those aren't terribly conclusive numbers. How many from '61 to '73? From '73 to '92?
The first case of a hijacking in the US was in May of 1961. From 1961-1972, there were 132 hijackings, or an average of 11 per year. After the FAA's mandate, from 1973-2000 there were 107, or about 4 per year. From 1980-1998, 23,409 people were arrested in US airports for attempting to carry either firearms or explosives on board airlines. 1300 arrests per year, seven arrests every two days. "No measurable improvement"?
And if left to their own devices, what do you expect that airlines would do differently that would be detrimental to safety?
Nothing. Therefore there's no practical reason to change.
Why does your presumed right to be free from a search upon boarding a commercial airline outweigh the right of others to live?
No, that the Constitution has a fixed meaning that can be determined objectively. That is the virtual antithesis of the leftist position.
And if left to their own devices, what do you expect that airlines would do differently that would be detrimental to safety?
Nothing. Therefore there's no practical reason to change.
Good. Now that we're clear that requiring government to back off would not result in a decrease in safety, why get them involved? While there may not be a "practical" reason for making the change, there's an important constitutional reason. The difference between requiring that you be searched before being allowed to board a plane, and requiring that you be searched before being allowed to leave your house, is a difference of degree only, not of kind. Like Madison said, "It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late revolution. The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle." Of course, that's just an 18th-century gentleman's way of saying "Nip it in the bud!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.