[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.

[manicbovine]

> 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.

I think you're missing a fine point here. You've already said that contaminated meat is criminal, presumably because it's very dangerous. Are bath salts very dangerous? Meth? Low quality meth with contaminants?

How should we permit the sale of narcotics while disallowing poisons? I think that a lot of people can answer that, but how can we do this in a reasonable way? Let's think it through... I don't have time to keep track of which things are safe. I'd probably rely on some organization to help me decide. It's reasonable for me to rely on the government because they're democratically accountable to me. In that system, I'd prefer them to really err on the side of caution. Erring on the side of caution, is heroin poison?

Do you want to live in a world where buying a simple OTC sleep pill at Walgreen's exposes you to the risk of ingesting heroin or some other decidedly narcotic substance?

I really support the legalization of certain drugs, but I'm advocating for a per substance approach. (Actually, I'm saying that it's functionally impossible to just "legalize drugs".)

[chc]

> That's not liberty. That's criminal behavior that stems from criminal thinking.

You seem to be using an idiosyncratic definition of either "liberty" or "criminal," because this seems to be tautological by the normal definitions. Something being criminal means your liberty to indulge in that thing has been taken away. So you could say this about any behavior — if you are at liberty to do it, it's not criminal, and if it's a crime, you are not at liberty to do it.

[stcredzero]

> That's criminal behavior that stems from criminal thinking.

There's a problem with how you define "criminal" here. Before the release of various chemicals into groundwater was recognized as harmful and his was taken into account in the formulation of laws and regulations, it was perfectly legal.

In many such instances, where harmful behaviors were not recognized then subsequently made illegal, there were many people who claimed they weren't aware they were doing anything wrong.

[tptacek]

"That's not liberty, that's criminal behavior" is a no-true-scotsman argument.

[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..."