- Calendar
- Map
- Site Feedback
- IDEA Sites
- Languages
- Projects
- Digital Freedoms
- 2012 Presidential Debates Guide
- Asia Youth Forum
- Big Apple Cogers
- Debate@Europe
- Debate Changing Europe
- Debate in the Neighborhood
- Debating and Producing Media
- Debating the Future of Youth in Africa and Europe
- Digital Debating Blog
- Free Speech Debate
- Global Youth Forum
- Global Debate and Public Policy Challenge
- International Public Policy Forum
- Online Mentoring
- The Freedom Series
- Youth and Sports Mega-Events
This House Believes civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good
This House Believes civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good
This is a discussion on the Debatabase item titled: This House Believes civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good.Below is the discussion so far. Feel free to add your own comments!
46 weeks 1 day ago
trade their freedom for temporary security
Would it make a difference for if the trade was for permanent security? Is that not pretty much what we do when we accept the idea of a police force? Or indeed if you want to get more fundamental what is the state for if not to provide some security (particularly against other states) at the cost of some liberty (I want to be allowed to run my own foreign relations!)
46 weeks 1 day ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
Or indeed if you want to get more fundamental what is the state for if not to provide some security (particularly against other states) at the cost of some liberty (I want to be allowed to run my own foreign relations!)
The debate is however talking about trading security in the context of the 9/11 attacks and terrorism. Any security provided by taking away liberty in the context of terrorism tends to be temporary because the intelligence agencies cant stop every terrorist from getting through.
46 weeks 6 hours ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
The US has not yet seen another fatal attack on its soil since 9/11 so even if it is 'temporary' security it has probably been beneficial. My point generally was however that we always are looking to strike a balance between freedom and security. Almost everyone accepts that some security is needed and are willing to sacrifice some freedom in order to create a workable society. The debate is therefore simply about whether to nudge us slightly more towards the security side or the freedom side.
The original quote I belive is unfair in including the word 'temporary' on the security side as that word ensures that anyone sensible will go for the freedom option.
45 weeks 6 days ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
The original quote I belive is unfair in including the word 'temporary' on the security side as that word ensures that anyone sensible will go for the freedom option.
And if you turn it round; would you be willing to sacrifice freedom temporarily in return for permanent security? Some would certainly make that choice but for many freedom is an absolute that should not be taken away unless that person has done something that requires that liberty being taken away from them (crime resulting in being sent to jail).
45 weeks 3 days ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
Since the security we are talking about is ultimately saving lives then it seems to be a reasonable sacrifice; when someone has lost their life then they have obviously lost their freedom as well.
45 weeks 2 days ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
The system was breached on 9/11, it was breached before 9/11 and it has been breached since 9/11. People have successfully passed body scanners with bomb parts and other weapons. The point is people will always find a way to breach the system. There is no extent of security that could be enforced that will not one day be breached. So the fine line is that when you start infringing on the rights of citizens, without probable cause, you are going too far. Since 9/11 the focus has been airports, so why would people try to repeat that when there are several other places they could attack? So to protect against it all should we enforce security in our train stations, bus stations, ferry terminals, schools and other public buildings to the same level as our airports? Would you like to go through metal detectors and body scanners and get pat downs EVERYWHERE you go, just to feel safe? Do you sit up all night with a shotgun in your hands guarding your front door that has 27 bolts and padlocks on it next to your 3 dogs, just to make sure that nobody ever breaks into your house? If you or anyone else were to do that you would NOT be FREE.
44 weeks 1 day ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
There is no extent of security that could be enforced that will not one day be breached. So the fine line is that when you start infringing on the rights of citizens, without probable cause, you are going too far.
Surely the whole point of a discussion between security and liberty is to think about what constitutes a 'probable cause'. Is the threat of terrorism big enough to be worth these searches and ever increasing security? If yes then there is probable cause, if not then there isnt.
44 weeks 1 day ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Probable cause must be based on factual evidence and not just on suspicion.
42 weeks 6 days ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
And how do you get the factual evidence without some form of searches first? Are you against all form of searches - so no airport security at all? There is certainly not probable cause for the millions of searches carried out every day. Yet it is difficult to think of another way to stop people smuggling bombs onto planes if you cant pass them through x rays.
The thing is of course is that we dont tend to consider this 'unreasonable' even if there is not factual evidence. So clearly we already dont believe that there always needs to be factual evidence before there can be a search in some instances. Once this is the case then the same justification can clearly be used for more extensive searches.
The question then becomes pretty much what I asked earlier of when is it appropriate and what justifications are big enough?
p.s. I admit I was misinterpreting what 'probable cause' is but I dont think it makes much difference to the overall argument.
42 weeks 6 days ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
Understand this about the role of government. It is not its own entity, rather an extension of our liberties and rights. In other words we dictate what the government does not vice versa. Because of our unalienable rights we can appoint government and government officials to "act in our stead" to carry out things we already have the right to do. To have a "police force" is not to give up any rights for security. We have the right to defend ourselves and because we have other things we'd rather be doing, we can organize a police department and extend our rights to them to be carried out on our behalf.
Nobody has the right to search and sieze anything without probable cause, therefore we can't extend that to the government or its officials. TSA is a prime example of usurpation of power with body scanners. Just because you are a passenger on an airplane does not constitute probable cause and they should not be able to perform extensive searching. Nobody has the right the require customers entering a public facility to go through an extensive search without "PROBABLE CAUSE" and therefore cannot pass that duty on to government.
I agree that security measures do need to be taken, but they need to be done within the proper role of government, which is within the bounds of our own personal rights.
44 weeks 1 day ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
Is that not exactly what the people are doing; defining the role of the government. When the people scream for 'more security!' after an attack are they not saying they want the government to step in?
You say the government is an extention of our rights and liberties and while I disagree with the idea of how governments are formed (usually the people need to fight for their liberties and constrain the government rather than 'having' liberties and granting the government certain rights) I certainly agree that this should be the case.
However here are are encountering the main problem that liberties are what we define as liberties. You may state "Nobody has the right to search and sieze anything without probable cause" but if no one else agreed with you would it really be a liberty? It is the community that defines what liberties we have as much as the individual.
"Nobody has the right the require customers entering a public facility... and therefore cannot pass that duty on to government" Forgive me if I am wrong but are planes not private so why cant they demand extensive searches as part of the conditions of carriage?
41 weeks 3 days ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
Amen! Thank you! I agree completly.
3 weeks 3 days ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
Benjamin Franklin : “People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both”