When does public good supersede personal safety?

[F4lconF16]

Last edited Sat Nov 1, 2014, 01:29 PM - Edit history (1)

In light of recent events at the White House, as well as various threats that I am sure have been made to certain liberals, I have a question: when, in your opinion, when is the right to personal safety overridden by the need to protect the common good?

For instance, let's say Obama is threatened by the CIA. The house and senate have magically come together and passed a bill that provides food for those in need. The funding comes from closing corporate loopholes. He will be killed, or his family taken, or something like that, unless he vetos the bill. Should he veto the bill, knowing that millions may now go hungry so that he and his family may be okay? Or should he pass it, taking the risk to his family so that millions of others don't suffer?

I am of the opinion that he should pass it. The public good outweighs personal safety. When you are elected to office, you are given both power and the trust to do what's right with that power. Though I would wish the situation on no one, if it happens, those in office need to have the courage to do what's right. People have been killed and brutalized for years while trying to achieve equality. In order that we may advance as a society we need to put aside our fears and our individual concerns and act in the best interest of the whole, at least with respect to public office.

Also, yes, it is a terrible example that would never happen. I'm exhausted, and you'll just have to work with it. My first example started like this: "A senator on the House Ways and Means committee...", so it could be a lot worse

Edit: read my reply #8 for a better, slightly less sleep-deprived reason for the OP.

[FSogol]

1. Whenever a Republican Governor needs to grandstand right before an election.

Actually, the correct answer is: Someone watches too much tv.

[alarimer]

2. Very rarely.

Because then you get started down this road (which we have been on at least since 9/11) of the government doing things that we do not know about in the name of "safety." I'm talking about the spying, the indefinite detention, the rendition of terrorist suspects to countries where certain methods are allowed. All of which is still going on, despite electing a Democrats. But this idea that democrats were somehow better on this question was always nonsense anyway.

Also, security theater at airports. Probably, whatever happens next won't happen at an airport.

But I also think that we have been conditioned by the media and by our own elected officials to fear all the time. We are supposed to fear people who have gone to help a country stricken with ebola, when there is no evidence those people are a danger to us when they return. We are supposed to fear people who wear turbans or beards or somehow dress differently. The expression I hear a lot, even on this website with its supposedly liberal users, is "You can't be too careful." When in fact you actually can.

[Chemisse]

3. He "should" go with the public good, but it might be too much to expect.

Even the best of us would choose to protect our families over the general public.

And politicians in office (not Obama specifically) are not noted for their altruism. I am betting that many would sell our secrets to the enemy just to be reelected. They certainly are not concerned with the public good when they threaten to shut down the government to get their way, when they go on vacation when important issues are on the table.

Obama is a better man than most, but you can only expect so much. Most of us would do ANYTHING to protect our children.

[Xipe Totec]

4. When a nurse steps in to care for ebola patients, that's public good superseding personal safety

When a floating gasbag quarantines said nurse, that's political grandstanding for personal gain.

[SheilaT]

5. This scenario is the sibling to the

one about having a terrorist in custody who knows that a bomb is going to go off in the next hour and therefore it's okay to torture that person to find out where the bomb is.

It's a degree of speculation that does not warrant serious consideration. Why not look at a more plausible possibility, rather than something like this?

[F4lconF16]

8. I agree for the most part.

My example probably didn't help you take it seriously, either. However, I ask the question because I've seen some DUrs claim and defend (and very seriously) that part of the rationale behind Obama's decisions not to pursue a more liberal course of action in some policy areas is because he is being threatened. I think that is both a, an unlikely situation, and b, a stupid reason for the leader of 300+ million not to do something. The OP was a rather clumsy attempt to show that.

Edit to add that though it is unlikely, it isn't necessarily impossible. It has happened (though maybe not at the presidential level) and will happen again as long as thugs rule our country.

[99th_Monkey]

11. If one studies the back story lead-up to JFK's assassination, they will have a perfect example.

JFK was at complete logger-heads with the Pentagon and the CIA, and was receiving death threats just prior to being killed.
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/11/21/exclusive-jfk-death-threat-note-in-nov-1963-in-miami-revealed-for-1st-time/

[kiva]

6. Actually I remember someone here

sincerely presenting a similar scenario shortly after his first election to explain why the president did something counter to his campaign promises; I believe they were trying to float the 'someone may be threatening his family' as their explanation. This person was a very prolific pro-Obama poster during the 2008 campaign and is still a member of DU, though I don't think I've seen them post for some time.

[GeorgeGist]

7. A third option would be to inform the public of his dilemma.

[F4lconF16]

9. I think this is the option I prefer.

I should have added that in the OP.

[SheilaT]

10. This is always, in my opinion, the best option.

Think about Kaci Hickox. She is not just quietly submitting to a stupid and unnecessary quarantine. She's making sure everyone knows about her, and how stupid and unnecessary the quarantine is.

Every time I see someone saying they can't talk about something because of threats to them, I think, bullshit. Stuff like that does not survive the light of day.

[99th_Monkey]

12. I think JFK might disagree with you.

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/11/21/exclusive-jfk-death-threat-note-in-nov-1963-in-miami-revealed-for-1st-time/

[SheilaT]

13. I think there is a difference betwen death threats to a President,

and someone claiming to know something, but can't talk about it because of supposed death threats.

With a President, the Secret Service needs to take all threats seriously, and the last thing you want is others getting the idea they should threaten the President also.

But when someone says they know something important, something that we should all know about, but won't speak up because of supposed death threats, I want to call that person's bluff. Notice that Snowden went public with what he knew, and even though he wound up having to live in Russia, not his first choice of homes, he's still alive. Yeah, someone might still take him out -- and I sincerely hope that doesn't happen -- but meanwhile he's put a heck of a lot of information out there that needs to be out there.

I am not impressed with most claims of a need for secrecy. I worked for a brief time for the Department of the Army, and my experience there led me to conclude that they'd classify the location of your anus if they thought they could get away with it.

In the end, I'm simply a huge believer in information being public, for the most part. As a corollary, note that science in the West advanced by leaps and bounds in the very same decades when most Soviet science stagnated. Do I need to tell you which place had open exchange of information and which didn't?