[ferdo]

> governments are ultimately the overseers that permit networking infrastructure comprising the internet to be built...society depends on accountability

There are two conflicting thoughts here. If we're not entitled to the same anonymity that those spying on us have, then we're servants, not members of a just society.

We can have a government as overseer of communications or we can have a just society. We can't have both.

It's an adage so old that it seems trite but it's still true: We can have Liberty or Security but if we pick Security over Liberty, we'll lose both.

[slg]

>We can have Liberty or Security but if we pick Security over Liberty, we'll lose both.

I hate this false dichotomy. It simply isn't true as we give up a wide range of liberties in order to live in a safer world. That is what laws inherently are, rules that limit an individuals ability for the greater good of society. Whether is it preventing people from driving down a highway at 100 mph, whether they can grow and consume marijuana, or whether they can expect that all their internet communication is 100% private, we simply need to do an analysis of the costs and benefits to figure out if a particular liberty is worth giving up to give us a particular level of safety.

[macspoofing]

>I hate this false dichotomy.

No it isn't. By and large there is actually a trade off.

>we simply need to do an analysis of the costs and benefits to figure out if a particular liberty is worth giving up to give us a particular level of safety.

The fact that there may be some worth in trading some liberty for some security, doesn't negate the fact that a trade did indeed happen. Apart from that, this is an incredibly naive statement. Humans aren't perfectly rational beings. Political decisions are emotional and driven by pressures from wide variety of stakeholders (who themselves are driven by self-interest, ideology, bias, religion etc.)

[ferdo]

> That is what laws inherently are, rules that limit an individuals ability for the greater good of society.

Not to be unkind, but this is a simplistic view of law and realpolitiks. As an example, can you honestly say that arresting hundreds of thousands of peaceful weed smokers annually is a "greater good"?

[slg]

I should have thrown the word perceived in there. I don't necessarily think it is for the greater good, but I am not sure if that is the overall perception today and certainly wasn't when those laws were created.

[ferdo]

In the 1930's, people traded the liberty of growing hemp for the security of keeping stoned black jazz musicians from raping their daughters (that was one of the reasons put forth by Harry Anslinger[1] in the era). We see how that trade has worked out, much as giving up the liberty of privacy for the security of government oversight of communications has put us where we are now.

Point being that the liberty/security trade isn't a false dichotomy.

[1] "Most marijuana smokers are Negroes, Hispanics, jazz musicians, and entertainers. Their satanic music is driven by marijuana, and marijuana smoking by white women makes them want to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and others. It is a drug that causes insanity, criminality, and death — the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger

[tptacek]

People have also traded the liberty of selling contaminated meat for the security of minimizing deaths due to foodborne pathogens. That trade seems to have worked out well.

People have also traded the liberty of people able to discard carcinogenic industrial waste wherever they please for the security of the world's most reliable potable water delivery systems. That trade seems to have worked out well.

He's right, and you're wrong. The simplistic argument is the one that draws a sharp line between security and liberty. It's incumbent on both sides to defend the security/freedom principles on a case-by-case basis.

[ferdo]

> the liberty of selling contaminated meat

That's not liberty. That's criminal behavior that stems from criminal thinking. If government has any legitimate function at all, it's to prevent injustice from criminals and other predators.

When government becomes the seat of criminality and predation, quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

> He's right, and you're wrong.

I parse this as, "I agree with him, not you" as these are all just our opinions anyway.

[superuser2]

Your problem here isn't with government, it's with Republicans (and conservative Democrats) who do believe that arresting pot smokers is a greater good.

[sliverstorm]

The main problem is people twist the quote, change its meaning almost entirely, and still posit it to be an authentic quote.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Those qualifiers change the meaning dramatically- Essential Liberty, Temporary Safety

[betterunix]

"That is what laws inherently are, rules that limit an individuals ability for the greater good of society"

That is a description of just and fair laws. Unfortunately many of today's laws are neither just nor fair. You gave a good example:

"...grow and consume marijuana..."