Balancing act between personal liberties and governmental protection

[UF Gators]

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

[JGC2]

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

[Box]

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

[craigepo]

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?

[UF Gators]

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.

[Box]

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.

[bblhead672]

Originally Posted by UF Gators

"Is terrorism affectively centralizing power in democracies?"

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.