Saving a life vs. civil liberty

[KillerMuffin]

Do you think human life is always more important than civil liberties? Some of the time? Most of the time? When is civil liberty more important than someone's life? Is it ever? Why do you think what you think on this issue?

 

[Guest]

 

[KillerMuffin]

Sure, Eichmann, you're so right.

 

[HeavyStick]

Eichmann

Do they make English Muffins?

 

[Lost Cause]

In what context?

What constitutes "saving a life"? What's your desired outcome of this question?
If you're making a issue like, "everyone wearing motorcycle helmets even if it saves one life, it's worth it" bullshit, I can't support it.
Liberty for the whole is way more important than the protection of the absolute minority of fools, or perceived vunerabilities.

What point do you want to make?

 

[The Heretic]

Sure, Eichmann, you're so right.

I would post a reply to your original question, but I am going to take this opportunity to implement a new rule; after this post, I am going to try to not reply to people who encourage trolls by replying to their posts, by posting in the threads of trolls, or by creating threads about specific trolls, or by posting in those threads about specific trolls.

If you ignore them, they will go away - and I am now extending that policy to people who can't help themselves by ignoring trolls.

 

[Problem Child]

I would post a reply to your original question, but I am going to take this opportunity to implement a new rule; after this post, I am going to try to not reply to people who encourage trolls by replying to their posts, by posting in the threads of trolls, or by creating threads about specific trolls, or by posting in those threads about specific trolls.

If you ignore them, they will go away - and I am now extending that policy to people who can't help themselves by ignoring trolls.

Excellent rule.



Here's my answer to the question of this thread:

http://www.literotica.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=128059

 

[MissTaken]

Let's throw some spice into the original post.

If someone wishes to commit suicide, are you imposing on their civil liberties by contacting professionals, executing an involuntary admission to a psychiatric hospital and getting them treatment.

In so doing, are you not violating their freedom of choice?

 

[paganangel]

um....helllloooo?

I would post a reply to your original question, but I am going to take this opportunity to implement a new rule; after this post, I am going to try to not reply to people who encourage trolls by replying to their posts, by posting in the threads of trolls, or by creating threads about specific trolls, or by posting in those threads about specific trolls.

If you ignore them, they will go away - and I am now extending that policy to people who can't help themselves by ignoring trolls.

speaking of civil liberties....what about those who like the troll posts? unless you are simply talking about ignoring their particular post and not a total boycott of the poster.

 

[curious2c]

Ah...now we have a paradox of sorts.

Can a depressed person who is obvioulsy not in their right mind make a decision about their life in the form of suicide, or since they are depressed they are not in their right mind so therefore can't make such a desicion due to the fact they are not in their right mind.

Whew! That was a mouthful...anyway...I would say that freedoms and civil liberties are based on the premise of person's with mind intact. (As far as one can tell anyway) So...by infringing on their 'rights' you get them help that changes their minds...is not actually infringing on their rights. It is helping a person who needs help.

That said...there are of course exceptions to this rule. Those person's who might in the actions of excerising their 'civil liberties' actually impinge on someone else's freedoms have a responsibility and in fact a requirement to respect others civil rights also.

Then the cases of like say, snipers acting out in such a way as they believe they are right, even though they may be deemed 'insane' by a jury...

The bottom line is...in a society that has freedoms and rights to the individuals, there are also responsiblilties accorded them also. Each person has a responsibility to make sure that they do not impinge anothers rights. That is the general idea anyway. Each has the right to their beiliefs and practices, as long as those beliefs and practices dont' harm another's rights.

As with any 'freedom' there are responsiblities that require on to uphold the rights of others in order to hold their own freedoms too.

 

[Lost Cause]

Liberty = Personal Responsibility

How far do you go to "protect" someone from destructive behavior in your view? That's the approach of the minds in the fucking medical/insurance complex, that we do not have responsibility for our own choices in our lives. At what point does this neurosis stop? I already have morons telling me that a helmet MAY save me in a crash, even though I have equal counter-information to that bull. I have morons telling me I'd be safer with a compressed air cannon in my face (airbag) that would kill me just as often as save me. (more kids have been killed by airbags than in school shootings)
Civil liberty demands that each be afforded choices to make, and live with the result. Now don't start with the "public burden" garbage of everyone paying for the results of personal decisions, that is an insurance inspired urban legend.

 

[The Heretic]

Re: um....helllloooo?

speaking of civil liberties....what about those who like the troll posts? unless you are simply talking about ignoring their particular post and not a total boycott of the poster.

My ignoring the posts of trolls and ignoring those who play with trolls, in no way infringes on their civil rights. They can talk back and forth all they want - all I am saying is that I am not going to listen or participate in any such thread, or anytime someone feels they need to respond to a troll in a "non-trollish" thread, I will then ignore them from that point on (in that thread).

Whether that can be labeled a boycott or not doesn't bug me - I have the right to boycott anybody I want, and they can boycott me right back. *shrugs*

All I am saying is that I prefer to interact with people who don't interact with trolls, much less bait them or bring attention to them by starting threads about them. If I was a more suspicious person I would think those people were actually the trolls themselves, but it doesn't matter, from this point on I am going to treat them like they are the troll - they degrade my Lit. experience almost as much as the trolls themselves.

Go ahead, go have fun with the trolls - just don't expect me to hold my nose when you come back covered in troll shit; I will just leave the room.

 

[Chuckwrox]

the whole point of civil liberties is to make life more easier/enjoyable


How can you enjoy it if you're dead

So, life in a cage is better than no life at all. No, I don't think I agree with that. The whole point of liberty is a life worth living, but there is a point where life isn't worth living without basic freedoms. For many of us, the whole point of LIFE is LIBERTY.

I think that many of us have forgotten what our western liberty means. We've lived so long with it unthreatened that I see a lot of people take it for granted by not exercising their liberties. Look at the voting record in the USA. That's embarrassing. Australia's got it right by requiring their citizens to participate.

As John Ashcroft gets his way, we'll see more people understanding what it is that he's taking away.

 

[KillerMuffin]

Might as well stick me on ignore now, H. I not only enjoy playing with trolls, I consider myself something of a troll. Take me as I am,or ignore me, whatever makes you happy. I don't consider Hanns a threat or a pain or anything more than a toy. I have a bad attitude and a sharp tongue. Hanns is a gorgeous target.


I was thinking about civil liberty v. life in general. There are people who think that safety from terrorists is paramount, that the government should do all it can to protect the citizens from terrorists. But at what cost? How much liberty to lose? If we had instituted a strong racial profiling policy and an even stronger policy of screening all muslims that live in the country, and by doing so we could have saved 3,000 people from a horrible death, is that worth it?

On a smaller scale, the registered sex offender lists and Megan's law. I think that stats are 3 out 4 sex offenders get out of jail and commit the same crime again (don't quote me, I'm sure that's not totally correct). However, 1 out of 4 don't. 1 person out of every 4 who paid his/her debt to society goes out and sins no more, but is persecuted for his act for the rest of his life. However, by having Megan's Law, the lives of children are saved. Which is more important? One person's liberty or one child's life?

This also comes down to gun control, as well. If we got rid of all the guns, then the murder rate can't help but drop. But what about the millions upon millions of gun owners who go through their entire lives and never shoot anything but a piece of paper? Someone won't die, but millions upon millions of responsible people are no longer permitted to exercise responsibility on their own.

What about drug laws? With our current legislation drug use is lower than it would be otherwise. If we legalized drugs, we would be opening up whole new avenues to driving under the influence--the largest killer in the US today as it stands--and more and more people will die.

That sort of thing.

An ethical conundrum, no?

 

[curious2c]

Might as well stick me on ignore now, H. I not only enjoy playing with trolls, I consider myself something of a troll. Take me as I am,or ignore me, whatever makes you happy. I don't consider Hanns a threat or a pain or anything more than a toy. I have a bad attitude and a sharp tongue. Hanns is a gorgeous target.


I was thinking about civil liberty v. life in general. There are people who think that safety from terrorists is paramount, that the government should do all it can to protect the citizens from terrorists. But at what cost? How much liberty to lose? If we had instituted a strong racial profiling policy and an even stronger policy of screening all muslims that live in the country, and by doing so we could have saved 3,000 people from a horrible death, is that worth it?

On a smaller scale, the registered sex offender lists and Megan's law. I think that stats are 3 out 4 sex offenders get out of jail and commit the same crime again (don't quote me, I'm sure that's not totally correct). However, 1 out of 4 don't. 1 person out of every 4 who paid his/her debt to society goes out and sins no more, but is persecuted for his act for the rest of his life. However, by having Megan's Law, the lives of children are saved. Which is more important? One person's liberty or one child's life?

This also comes down to gun control, as well. If we got rid of all the guns, then the murder rate can't help but drop. But what about the millions upon millions of gun owners who go through their entire lives and never shoot anything but a piece of paper? Someone won't die, but millions upon millions of responsible people are no longer permitted to exercise responsibility on their own.

What about drug laws? With our current legislation drug use is lower than it would be otherwise. If we legalized drugs, we would be opening up whole new avenues to driving under the influence--the largest killer in the US today as it stands--and more and more people will die.

That sort of thing.

An ethical conundrum, no?

BUT Killer...all freedoms in this country are based on LAW ABIDING citizens...if you break the law and are convicted you lose those precious rights...in most cases. In order ot preserve the rights of all some, who do not conform to the laws, must forfeit their rights.

 

[Lost Cause]

Perpetual slavery.......

Banning:
Automobiles
Motorcycles
Airplanes
Trains
Swimming
Skiing
Rollerskating
Skydiving
Running
Mountainclimbing
Bicycles
Walking
Red Meat
Drinking
Smoking
Travelling

*We'd save millions of lives, at what cost?

 

[horny_giraffe]

I think that one of the most important things is to maintain a certain uniformity in the civil liberties that we do give up.

There are many things that are illegal--automatic weapons, unlicensed high explosives, certain drugs, etc. These are examples of uniform restrictions. They may not necessarily be uniformly enforced, in practice--but at least the spirit and intent is that they be uniformly enforced.

If we wish to infringe upon the the rights of our citizens, I think it is more important that we apply these restrictions uniformly. Racial profiling may be a very practical and successful way to limit certain kinds of activity. One might argue that it works. Nevertheless, racial profiling is unjust. The fact that it works does not change the fact that it is unjust. What we need to do is to discriminate based on behavior, not appearance or other immutable factors.

 

[Calamity Jane]

I was thinking about civil liberty v. life in general. There are people who think that safety from terrorists is paramount, that the government should do all it can to protect the citizens from terrorists. But at what cost? How much liberty to lose? If we had instituted a strong racial profiling policy and an even stronger policy of screening all muslims that live in the country, and by doing so we could have saved 3,000 people from a horrible death, is that worth it?

No, it's not worth it. Putting everyone who lives in the inner city in prison, based solely on where they reside, would sure cut down on gang violence, but the ends don't justify the means.

Is it sad that all those people died? Of course it was. Am I willing to give up my right to move freely within the borders of my own country, express myself verbally, physically, or in the ether, or let Uncle Sam know every single book/movie/game I purchase? Not if it will save all those lives all over again.

On a smaller scale, the registered sex offender lists and Megan's law. I think that stats are 3 out 4 sex offenders get out of jail and commit the same crime again (don't quote me, I'm sure that's not totally correct). However, 1 out of 4 don't. 1 person out of every 4 who paid his/her debt to society goes out and sins no more, but is persecuted for his act for the rest of his life. However, by having Megan's Law, the lives of children are saved. Which is more important? One person's liberty or one child's life?

I'm still not sure how I feel about registering sex offenders. On the one had, I'd like everyone to know who did what to me when I was a child. But, as far as I know, he's on a pretty straight and narrow path now. Ruining his life would do nothing for either of us.

 

[The Heretic]

I think that one of the most important things is to maintain a certain uniformity in the civil liberties that we do give up.

I strongly disagree - there is no reason to give up any civil liberties.

There are many things that are illegal--automatic weapons, unlicensed high explosives, certain drugs, etc. These are examples of uniform restrictions. They may not necessarily be uniformly enforced, in practice--but at least the spirit and intent is that they be uniformly enforced.

Actually "automatic weapons" are not illegal, you just have a longer waiting period and a higher tax to pay, but federally they are not illegal to own (some states ban them - I live in such a state, but 40+ states allow them and there are thousands of such weapons in the hands of private citizens).

If we wish to infringe upon the the rights of our citizens, I think it is more important that we apply these restrictions uniformly.

I think it more important that we not infringe on the Natural Rights of our citizens at all. Everytime we do we cause more harm than good. The so-called "War on Drugs", which I used to be a combatant in, is a sham, and has caused a lot more harm than good. As for gun control, let me repeat a post I made recently:

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics
showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into
effect in 1994, are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates,
which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a
smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense
--give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, a computer programmer for Y2K problems, and Sarah Brady [or Sheena Duncan, Adele Kirsten, Peter Storey, etc.] for firearms expertise.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard,
which was created by an act of Congress in 1***.

13. The National Guard, funded by the federal government, occupying
property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the
federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state
militia.

14. These phrases,"right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of
the people to be secure in their homes," "enumeration's herein of certain
rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,"
and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states
respectively, and to the people," all refer to individuals, but "the right
of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.

15. We don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the
Constitution has internal safeguards, but we should ban and seize all guns, thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense, which is why the army has millions of them.

17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they serve no
military purpose, and private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles,"
because they are military weapons.

18. The ready availability of guns today, with waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etc., is responsible for recent school shootings, compared to the lack of school shootings in the 40's, 50's and 60's, which resulted from the availability of guns at hardware stores, surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, mail order, etc., etc.

19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them
properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical
adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority
of the population supported owning slaves.

26. A self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns,
which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

28. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.

29. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

30. Charlton Heston as president of the NRA is a shill who should be
ignored, but Michael Douglas as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

31. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

32. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns
because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

33. Police officers, who qualify with their duty weapons once or twice a
year, have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private
citizens can never hope to obtain.

34. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the
police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

35. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police
chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

36. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people, which is why the police need them but "civilians" do not.

37. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft
preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government
pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

38. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for
defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

39. When Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands," they don't mean you.

 

[Spinaroonie]

Do you think human life is always more important than civil liberties? Some of the time? Most of the time? When is civil liberty more important than someone's life? Is it ever? Why do you think what you think on this issue?

1.) Nope
2.) Nope
3.) Never
4.) Read my answers before you ask another question!!!!!
5.) The projected population of the world eight years from now is six billion people. When we reach that scale how precious IS a human life? How many lives would we save if we banned alcohol? How many lives would be adversley affected (From the Jackasses across the street, to the man who has Cognac with his meals- DMX).

Isn't it my freedom to die? Isn't it my freedom to live dangerously? What is the point of living if you cannot be free to live?

There is a point where if you have your freedoms taken away in the name of security that you'll soon have your life taken away because you may pose a threat to the government. When we give up our rights either voluntarily or unvoluntarily, we move closer to facism. Then what happens?

 

[Spinaroonie]

If we had instituted a strong racial profiling policy and an even stronger policy of screening all muslims that live in the country, and by doing so we could have saved 3,000 people from a horrible death, is that worth it?

Ever notice how you only see white people say that?

 

[Problem Child]

Ever notice how you only see white people say that?

Spin, that made no sense.

-20

 

[KillerMuffin]

Spin thinks I'm white. It's the clorox, he should quit huffin it.

 

[The Heretic]

Re: Re: Saving a life vs. civil liberty

What is the point of living if you cannot be free to live?

 

[Spinaroonie]

Spin, that made no sense.

-20

I'm just saying that the people who haven't been descriminated against as a race as government policy in the US are the only ones to suggest it.