We WILL lose our liberties, even with Liberal Presidents & congress.

[Silverhair]

This is a prediction. I AM NOT, REPEAT - NOT, ADVOCATING THAT THIS HAPPEN. But I am convinced that it is inevitable. It probably won't happen in the next Presidency, or even the next, but it WILL happen within the next 50 years. Probably much sooner.

Here is why:

INDIVIDUAL VS THE STATE

Consider an indivual in isolation. The only person on the planet. He is totally free, restricted only by the laws of nature itself. But if there are other people and they are in contact, (Local tribe of hunter gatherers.) then some level of organization has to happen for the group to function, with rewards for those who exceed expectations, and punisments for those who transgress. The punishment can be as simple as a bad reputation and shunning contact. The individual has lost some freedom, but the gains of comunity are considered worth it. We are a social animal. How much freedom the individual has, and how much authority the group (State) has exists in a balance. To little authority yields anarchy and an ineffective state, too much yields an oppressive state.

It has been discovered that everything works best if the individual has the greatest liberty and the state is restricted to the bare minimum authority needed to be effective. Here is why:

WHO CAN DO THE GREATEST HARM?

Who can do the most damage - a free but deranged and dangerous human, or an oppressive state? One human, at the worst, can only kill a "few" people, while the a really bad state can kill by the millions. In the case of Pol Pot, he killed about 25% of his own population. So we seek to restrict the powers of the state. That is why we make the gov't jump through so many hoops to prove a defendent guiltly of a crime. It isn't that we are worried that we may accidently punish an innocent person. It is because the obviously guilty killer that goes loose because the state made some technical errors will do less damage to society, even he goes on a mass murder spree - than will the state if it has the power of summary trial. (Summary trial, for those that don't know, means an official of the gov't is both your trial judge, prosectation and defense atty. Guess what your chances are?)
We are more afraid of the state than the individual, and rightly so.

THE TIMES ARE CHANGING

But that is rapidly changing such that the free madman may be more dangerous. (Suggested book - "The White Plague by Frank Herbert" Entertaining reading while it explores that possibility.)
It may soon be possible for one person, working in a home lab, to develop a mutated bioweapon that would wipe out most of humanity. Not now, but 20years from now? Maybe 30? That is within the lifetimes of most of the DUers here.
For that matter, a small group (About 20) of skilled terrorists with ordinary C-4, approriate supplies (also reasonably ordinary) and about a year to work with, could have as much effect on the U.S. as several nukes. (No, I won't go into more detail as to how.)

Sooner or later, some such super attack will occur. It doesn't really matter what country, or countries get hit with the super attack. It will spark a general concensus that the individual or the small group are more to be feared than the gov't. (Already we are seening much better international cooperation at sharing police information as a result of 9-11. Other countries are scared of Al Qaeda & other radicals too.)

When that happens, law enforcement will shift from reactive to preventive. People will be watched for signs of radicalism and reported to the gov't. Gov't computers will track your movements, (Your cell phone will, in less than two years, be reporting your position to within 100 meters, 24/7) track your purchases, the web sites you visit, the information you download, etc. To help track funding of terrorist, all financial transaction will be computerized and reported, where giant supercomputers can look for suspicious pattterns. And your friends and neighbors will be watching for anything suspicious too.

If you think I am being paranoid, ask yourself what you think would happen in the event of a really, really, BIG terrorist attack, with damage on the scale of a Hiroshima. Do you think life would go on as normal, even with a Liberal President and a liberal congress?

Once again: I DO NOT ADVOCATE THIS. DO NOT ACCUSE ME OF THAT. BUT I DO BELIEVE IT WILL HAPPEN AS THE RADICAL INDIVIDUAL OR SMALL GROUP COMES TO BE FEARED MORE THAN THE GOV'T.

[mhr]

1. When People Fear The Government, Tyranny Prevails

When Government Fears The People, Liberty Prevails

Thomas Jefferson

[Silverhair]

10. I agree, but that doesn't address the trend. n/t

[Yupster]

2. Natural tendency

for every government over long time periods to gather up more and more power to itself.

Each time there's a problem, people naturally tend to look for the government to solve it, thus giving up just one more little piece of their freedoms. if there's a crisis, the people are willing to give up a large piece of their freedom for government "help."

I think it's pretty much the natural march of history.

[HFishbine]

3. If that were the case

wouldn't we all be living under totalitarian regimes by now? I mean, considering all the crisises throughout human history, if your theory is correct, the emergence of democracy would have been an impossibility.

[Cocoa]

6. I agree

I think the inevitability of it is not true.

If you conclude that there's no hope, then you're giving up on it. Better to keep working on it like the ACLU and many others are doing instead of just throwing up one's hands.

The same argument could be made about nuclear war, and fortunately a lot of work has been and is done to keep working on it.

[Silverhair]

12. The key difference is the ability of the individual or small group...

to do really great harm.

[Selwynn]

8. No.

Democracies of various forms have emerged throughout history - societies with free folk have come and gone all through history. Inevitably democracy never lasts. Ever.

Either because of conquest or the slide towards tyranny. The nature of every instutition that weilds power is to gather more power to itself. This is probably the one unyielding constant in the world: given enough time, freedom deteriorates until a new uprising establishes a new freedom, and until that too deteriorates and the cycle starts again ... and again... and again.

[Silverhair]

15. Yes, but the scale of the cycles changes.

The cycles now encompass larger portions of the globe. The early cycles may have involved only one country, then groups of countries. I think the cycle is now at global proportions.

[Silverhair]

11. No, because only recently has the individual become super dangerous.

Until now, and for a little while longer, the state is potentially more dangerous than the individual. But the balance is changing.

[Fovea]

4. It has been discovered that everything works best if the individual has th

I disagree with this statement as being reductionist and wrong.
It assumes that syndicates and corporate bodies cannot be harmful in ways like states.

But actions of corporate entities can be easily as destructive as state sponsored violence.

You later state that there is a proper balance between liberty and constraint, so I am not accusing you of being an Anarchist. But I think that unfettered personal freedom is not a state I think most of us could live in.

[Silverhair]

14. I am saying that an act of super-terrorism will open the door to tryanny.

Yes, corporations can be harmful too, as can any powerful body, but gov'ts are the most powerful of all, so that's why I talked about them.

[bpilgrim]

5. unless we RESIST

you are right... and we will only gain them back, once we lose them via incredible struggle and sacrifice

psst... pass the word

peace

[Sting]

7. All we can do is...

not give up, fight to keep our freedoms, and let the government know when/if it's getting too powerful. We cannot sit on our bums and expect someone else to do it. We have to keep unity and make sure that never happens, even if a large-scale terrorist attack were to come.

[IndianaGreen]

9. We already lost our freedoms under PATRIOT Act

How many of the Democratic candidates for President advocate outright repeal of PATRIOT? There's your answer!

[Silverhair]

13. Someday, there will be a super-terrorist act. One that will dwaft 9-11.

At that time the door will be opened to the things I have written about. At that time the acts passed then will make the Patriot Act seem like a Magna Carta. For now, yes, the Patriot Act needs to be repealed. I am looking beyond next year, maybe even beyond the next decade. But it will happen.

[bloom]

16. Thinking about the constitution and all

it's interesting that at the time they weren't worried about people having guns..."the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

In a discussion recently with an NRA fan - it occurred to me that the equivalent of everyone having a gun in 1780 would be if everyone had their own mini-nuke to keep them "safe" (OK maybe in 10-20 years). Which of course seems ludicrous.

But then how safe are we with everyone with a gun. :shrug:


And presumably anyone could make a truck bomb or whatever.


So much for hoping for and trying to maintain civility.