Balancing act between personal liberties and governmental protection
 

Democracy, as envisioned by the Athenians, has evolved into our modern world to fit the trials of today. However, the core of terrorism affects the delicate balance of freedom and governmental authority. Sixteen short years ago having to take off ones shoes to board an airplane would have been perplexing, to say the least. In congruence, "big surveillance" has broadened its spectrum of power by taxing people of certain personal liberties. This balancing act resembles the sacrifice one must make, in Jocke Locke's Second Treatise, to leave the "State of Nature" and enter into civil society. Do y'all think the balancing act between sacrificing personal liberties for protection is worth it? If so, what measures do y'all think need to be improved upon, or scaled back to ensure the protection of the people?

Thank you for your time

Respectfully,
Cody

There is no balancing act. Liberties are non-negotiable and the people are ultimately responsible for defending themselves.

Interesting topic…

So…
,,,the political “religion” espoused by modern democrats is something we should “balance with long dead civilizations?
…the type of government that would paint citizens red if they did not participate in the process?

Not that it matters, only free adult male landowners enjoyed the rights of citizenship, and only if they were originally from Athens.
Citizens ship wasn’t for everyone - not women, not slaves (because slavery was ok in Athens), and certainly not immigrants.

The majority ruled – so a 51-49 ruling means turn in your guns, submit your pay to the government for redistribution, surrender your children to be taught according to the desires of the 51%...
…because it only takes 1% to redefine the word “equal.” Much like the clintons, obamas, pelosis, shumers, et al would have done in modern America if given the chance.

A legal system chosen by drawing straws however doesn’t seem like a bad idea – it would keep activist presidents from appointing activist judges. So, I have to give them props for drawing straws to pick judges.
Good job on that one Greek dudes !!! (yes – I meant dudes, because women didn’t count)

Even the hero of democracy, Pericles was quoted as saying that Athens democracy ‘respects not the interests of the minority, but the whole of the people.’
Sweet… so according to this Athenian democracy, fuck a bunch of minorities – if you aren’t part of the main stream, GOOOOOOOOOO fuck yourself.

Also interesting to note that Athenian democracy was the birthplace of the term “demagogue”
…a method still used by democrats today to help “balance” their positions by throwing out words like racist, misogynist, sexist, homophobe, greed, xenophobe, or bigot to stir up trouble when they have no real defense for their positions.

Sort of the same way that “democracy” was used to accuse, try, and sentence Socrates to death because he criticized the government.
Again… a pretty equal balance based on the way modern democrats work as well. It’s ok to criticize the state, as long as it isn’t the “democratic” state…
…just ask the clintons, obamas, pelosis, shumers, et al




We should be more like other countries… since they are all doing so well

Good sir, your question is rather overbroad. Might I ask that you refine your question, so that I don't have to recite our culture's 500+ years worth of constitutional and philosophical thought?

QP's,

I apologize for my question being wordy and hard to understand. I was not asking for a huge exposition on the history of democracy. I was simply trying to add an intro to the question, "Is terrorism affectively centralizing power in democracies?"

JGC2,

I agree that the people are responsible for defending themselves, but at what cost? A society may be more protected from foreign incursions, but this protection may lead a government to further centralize power away from the people.

Thank y'all for taking time to respond. I appreciate it.

Short answer...
"Is terrorism affectively centralizing power in democracies?"

No.
Terrorism focuses on destroying established governance in favor of anarchy until the terrorist faction can fill the void with their own leaders.

The only people interested in centralizing power in a democracy are the democrats within that democracy.

Succinct thought from the Gipper:

"The kind of government that is strong enough to give you everything you need is also strong enough to take away everything that you have."

~RR

Nice quote. I approve of the sentiments; however, you might want to check attribution. (Hint - RR wasn't the first.)

Thank you.

I believe (but could be wrong) that Ronald Reagan said it - and he was probably the most famous person to recently share that little piece of wisdom.

The earlier and more correct provenance ? Well, there are various (rightly or wrongly) attributions to a number of folks including: Thomas Jefferson, Barry Goldwater, Gerald Ford and even one to Paul Harvey.

All wise and accomplished men, indeed - however I don't really know - so mea maxima culpa !!!

But, I too love the sentiment - particularly in the context of balancing personal liberties and governmental protection.

In my humble, non QP, opinion: No, governments are using terrorists to exercise increasingly total power over their citizenry with the goal of becoming socialist instead of democratic governments. What better way to have the sheeple submit willingly to massive invasions of their liberty?
That's why governments will not undertake solutions to overcoming Islamic terrorism, the methods required aren't in the comfort zone of those in power...yet.

Hell, the US government allowed terrorists to run rampant throughout the country in the 70's bombing, kidnapping, robbing and killing. The terrorists "punishment"? Influence in academia for the last 30 years and in the highest levels of government the last 8.

But that's just my opinion...I could be wrong.

"Give me liberty, or give me death" Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775. A reason the founders chose a Constitutional Republic over a pure democracy or a monarchy and set forth to give the power of governance to the people.

Over time the people have surrendered that power and ceded control to a central government that cannot and is not capable of providing the type of protection it is charged with. Another quote of relevance prior to this one in 1755: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” (Benjamin Franklin) Franklin and others saw clearly at the time that Individual Liberty trumped the collective whole of centralized power and control. That is the starting point of "balance of power."

Moving forward 200 years we change the words 'patriot' and 'invader' to 'freedom fighter' and 'terrorist' (a relatively new word) and another famous quote by Gerald Seymour, who in 1975 wrote in his book Harry's Game: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

The balance of power is a fickle thing and if one is not willing or prepared to maintain that balance we get one more historical quote to add that predates our short history. Lingchi "Death by a thousand cuts" ancient Chinese method of execution and exacting revenge.

What "Democracy" in our current form of centralized government has brought forward is the slow process of slicing away at the freedoms granted to the individual American citizen in the BOR and the Constitution to prevent such abuses of power have resulted in all foretold conclusions. The balance is lost we gradually ceded power and our "freedoms" to the government and are now feeling each cut of "temporary security."

The government (state or federal) cannot protect you and the courts have said time and again the police are not there to provide individual protections.

There is no 'balance' (the OP) speaks of - it's a fairy tale promoted to gain and maintain absolute power over the people. Al Qeada, the IRA, ISIS, the Weather-Underground, the Red Army Faction and all the others weren't just concocted in a basement of mom's house. They were permitted to exist and allowed to grow because in order for good to destroy evil you first need to identify what evil looks like. I'd wager money that while both parties are complicit, Democrats lead the way in looking the other way and promoting the self-licking ice cream that has become known as "terrorism."

Answering this question is going to require looking back through history, and I would propose using America's history as a proper exemplar.

Pre-Revolution, the Colonies did not have much, if any, standing army or navy. The military was, essentially, a citizen-based militia. Even as late as WWI, officers were elected in many units. As the nation progressed, we saw a need for a larger standing professional military. Today, we have four large and expensive military forces. Has this centralized power? Undoubtedly yes.

This new enemy, let's denominate it "terrorism", forces upon us a new type of battle. There are few "front lines" or clearly-marked opposing forces. The several states and local governments would be impotent in putting up much of a fight. Again, our reply has been to task the military, as well as several federal law enforcement agencies, with combatting "terrorism". Has this centralized power in the federal government? Again, I would answer yes.

Today, much of our governance is similarly centralized. Taxation, environmental protection, labor relations, federal courts, , medicine, education, aviation, national parks, etc., are all handled, in whole or in part, by the Federal government. The question becomes, "Is this (centralizing/federalizing the fight against terrorism) bad"? Another question might be, "Is this (centralizing/federalizing the fight against terrorism) necessary"?

Personally, I would argue that centralizing the fight against terrorism is necessary, and that it is bad. Accordingly, we need good Constitutional vigilance, as well as a temporal checkpoints, to ensure that we don't permanently lose Constitutional freedoms.

QP's,

Thank you all for taking time out of your day to provide me with your insight into the matter. I will heed the knowledge that has been shared with me.

New-Dog,
I believe your argument to hold concurrently with my point of view on the situation. When I said, "balance" I was referring to the modern evolution of our citizenry allowing the government to centralize at the cost of their personal liberties. As J.J. Rousseau so eloquently stated, "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." (Social Contract) The "give", or devolution of governmental power, is almost non-existent in our modern era of federalism. We must be very wary of any government action to further transgress our liberties. I never thought of the government allowing them to exist in order to have an "enemy at the gates" in this modern era. Thank you very much for your observations on the subject.

Craigepo,

I agree with your point of view. Sadly, Constitutional vigilance is slowly becoming a relic to our representatives (although, mostly the liberal leaning delegation).