The Not War is preferable to Actual War, which is one of the alternatives, and would become the position of most of the public if another large-scale attack is pulled off inside the US.
Quote:
|
It is a breach of EVERYONE's freedom when the government is given free reign to do this kind of thing.
|
Believing in slippery slope arguments as if they were logical and inevitable was what drove me into the Libertarian Party. Noticing that the world doesn't actually work that way is what pulled me out of it.
It is in fact not a breach of everyone's freedom when the government is given free reign to do this kind of thing.
For starters, although they restrict particular people's freedom, the police aren't the people who restrict
freedom. They are the ones who maintain the conditions in which freedom can exist. And strangely, it's still mostly true even if the cops suck (although not if they are corrupt).
But more importantly, I can't for the life of me think of one actual freedom that I personally have lost if some gentleman overseas is water-boarded. I am still free to say what I want, assemble with others, shoot off a big ol cannon at the local range, kiss mah woman (or man!) in the public square, sell my computing services to the highest bidder, and heavens, I may even engage in dancing, if I so desire.
Also, "free reign" is actually worse than slippery slope: it's inventing the conditions that make your argument. The government doesn't have "free reign" to do anything, as there are huge checks and balances everywhere. Some of these checks are enumerated in the Constitution, but there are many more that you don't usually notice. Some that are extremely powerful yet you never even realize they are there.
And in the end, our government answers to a higher power: the voters. A big sector of the American government has just been de-elected and replaced.