Re: Something we can all agree on

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:23:10 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
<eatmyshorts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 22:35:59 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:46:02 -0800, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@xxxxxxxx>
>>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:50:40 -0800, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@xxxxxxxx>
>
>>>W apparently decided he doesn't need them. Or his handlers told him he
>>>doesn't need them.
>>>
>>>> I don't, and there's a couple thousand years of legal precedence that
>>>> says it's not.
>>>
>>>A couple thousand years of wiretapping?
>>>
>>>
>> A couple of thousand years of recognizing that a small crime is no crime
>> if it prevents a much bigger one.
>>
>
>That's an awfully slippery razor blade to find oneself sliding down.
>

There is, as George Will points out, not a slippery slope, but rather
a continuously shifting equilibrium between civil liberties and public
safety. The more we are seriously threatened, the more we must intrude
on things like "privacy." He points out that when threats decline, the
boundary has always shifted back.

What's wrong with that? Too reasonable to justify shrieking?

John


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Something we can all agree on
    ... >>> A couple of thousand years of recognizing that a small crime is no crime ... >>> if it prevents a much bigger one. ... >>That's an awfully slippery razor blade to find oneself sliding down. ... Too reasonable to justify shrieking? ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Something we can all agree on
    ... Or his handlers told him he ... > A couple of thousand years of recognizing that a small crime is no crime ... Rich ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: OT Court Rejects ACLU Challenge to Wiretaps
    ... types of crime. ... Wiretapping, yes. ... violates the rights of anyone. ... I don't care about the ...
    (alt.autos.toyota)