DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Peterli** · 05-01-2007, 08:18 PM

There is no right to privacy in the constitution, in my opinion. The act of joining with others to gain mutual protection means that you have to give up some freedoms. Its only logical. This is why the constituion does protect the basic right to move freely and choose your leadership. Which is why I do not fear the govt. Once they step out of line they get booted. In addition, the govt is made of AMERICANS, and is run by AMERICAN representatives of AMERICANS, who have the same wish to not return to fascist dictatorships. This is why it is unlikely that the paranoias that everyone fears will ever come true. Everyone watches everyone and is a check on power.

In the end, we still have our guns, and are not shy about using them. So you guys can fear the govt all you want, but I think the real enemy is the terrorists, and that we should do what is neccesary to take them out.

I agree with some of what you're saying, but I think that you overestimate what it would take to turn the US into a fascist state. States such as that aren't created overnight from free and happy societies. Almost invariably, a state of "national emergency" is called with no definitive end in sight. This is then followed by a series of small acts of power consolidation within government (eliminating checks and balances, for example). Then, more egregious acts of power consolidation are carried out, with anyone who opposes branded as a traitor and with lots of nationalist propaganda. This is almost exactly what happened to bring Germany from the Weimars to the Third Reich.

Now, don't get me wrong - I don't believe we have a Reich of our own developing here, and the people who compare Bush to Hitler or our government to the Nazis are just going for shock value. What I am pointing out, however, is the attitude and perspective that encourage fascism. It's a series of seemingly moderate concessions that add up to a big loss of freedom. I don't worry about Hitler taking over, but I do worry about the trend, since 9/11, of trading liberty for the promise of security with seemingly little opposition or consideration.

I realize that there is no explicit right to privacy in the constitution. That has been established, over the years, through case law and jurisprudence, and I value it in the extreme. Not to be crass, but would you oppose legislation allowing FBI agents to videotape you having sex in the name of national security? It's not in the constitution, so why not, right? I realize that this is extreme, but it's to make a point - we shouldn't be in a hurry to give up freedoms that have been granted over the course of time. And, when it comes to our privacy, the question isn't whether or not government agents will abuse their power, but when, how often, and how badly.

I'd personally trade a heaping portion of ostensible security for a guarantee of my freedom.

05-01-2007, 08:18 PM	#39
Peterli Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 458 Senior Member	There is no right to privacy in the constitution, in my opinion. The act of joining with others to gain mutual protection means that you have to give up some freedoms. Its only logical. This is why the constituion does protect the basic right to move freely and choose your leadership. Which is why I do not fear the govt. Once they step out of line they get booted. In addition, the govt is made of AMERICANS, and is run by AMERICAN representatives of AMERICANS, who have the same wish to not return to fascist dictatorships. This is why it is unlikely that the paranoias that everyone fears will ever come true. Everyone watches everyone and is a check on power. In the end, we still have our guns, and are not shy about using them. So you guys can fear the govt all you want, but I think the real enemy is the terrorists, and that we should do what is neccesary to take them out. I agree with some of what you're saying, but I think that you overestimate what it would take to turn the US into a fascist state. States such as that aren't created overnight from free and happy societies. Almost invariably, a state of "national emergency" is called with no definitive end in sight. This is then followed by a series of small acts of power consolidation within government (eliminating checks and balances, for example). Then, more egregious acts of power consolidation are carried out, with anyone who opposes branded as a traitor and with lots of nationalist propaganda. This is almost exactly what happened to bring Germany from the Weimars to the Third Reich. Now, don't get me wrong - I don't believe we have a Reich of our own developing here, and the people who compare Bush to Hitler or our government to the Nazis are just going for shock value. What I am pointing out, however, is the attitude and perspective that encourage fascism. It's a series of seemingly moderate concessions that add up to a big loss of freedom. I don't worry about Hitler taking over, but I do worry about the trend, since 9/11, of trading liberty for the promise of security with seemingly little opposition or consideration. I realize that there is no explicit right to privacy in the constitution. That has been established, over the years, through case law and jurisprudence, and I value it in the extreme. Not to be crass, but would you oppose legislation allowing FBI agents to videotape you having sex in the name of national security? It's not in the constitution, so why not, right? I realize that this is extreme, but it's to make a point - we shouldn't be in a hurry to give up freedoms that have been granted over the course of time. And, when it comes to our privacy, the question isn't whether or not government agents will abuse their power, but when, how often, and how badly. I'd personally trade a heaping portion of ostensible security for a guarantee of my freedom.
	Quote