Debateful

Do you think that giving up some civil freedoms in exchange for greater securities are beneficial to America? For example, there would be mail screening and many tapping. We would lose some of our freedom, but the security would be much better which protects us from many perilous events. Do you think that government shouldn't have the right to take some of our liberties away, although, it could mean that we won't be as protected? Many people seem to desire such securities at the times of national emergencies and war, therefore, do you think it should only be fine if we give up our civil freedoms in those time in exchange for stronger securities?

To respond to the question above, I ask this question

What was the purpose of America?

The key thing to look at is "promote the general Welfare" and "secure the Blessings of Liberty"

The national government need to somehow do both without compromising the other.

I think this is one of those things that the majority population have to decide, not just by 9 people in supreme court.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." said Ben Franklin. Never should we give up our precious, hard-earned liberties and freedoms. Everyone clamors for a strong-man in a time of turmoil, whether it's the rise of Hitler in the wake of economic depression in the Weimar republic, or Lenin promising "Peace, land, and bread" and enslaved the Russian people in poverty and totalitarianism. The more personal liberties that are given to the people, the more security there is in the country. I trust the Founders in preserving the very spirit of America. Believe me, it would do more destruction to America to take freedoms away than anything the terrorists can do to us. No 1984 for me, thank you very much.

I can't seem to decide. I mean, on one hand it makes me really mad to think that the government would take away some of my freedoms. But on the other hand, I have nothing to hide.

The things is, this isn't a blanket wiretapping over every citizen of the US, its tapping into phones of known international terror suspects making calls to known terror states. This isn't evesdropping on your call to grandma. This is something protestors leave out, making people think that everyone is being monitored. The manpower required for that is too great, our technology is too far behind for it, and it just isn't feasable or legal.

Excuse me for saying this, but the "I have nothing to hide" arguement is extremely farcical. The truth is that the innocent actually do have something to fear from state intrusion into their private lives.
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." — Thomas Jefferson

"This is a version of the very popular.The innocent have nothing to fear argument, which is wheeled out whenever authorities wish to bring in new measures which increase surveillance or limit freedoms in the name of increasing security. For example, someone demands to search your luggage. You object to this intrusion on your privacy, but you are told that if you are innocent, you have no reason to object. After all, what are you trying to hide?
The argument is a particular species of false dichotomy. You are presented with a simple either/or choice. Either you're guilty, and so should be exposed; or you are innocent, in which case nothing will be exposed, and so you have nothing to worry about. Either way, you have no legitimate reason to be concerned. Like all false dichotomies, the problem is that there is at least one more option than the two offered in the either/or choice." — Julian Baggini

Former Federal Bureau of Investigation director J. Edgar Hoover was famous for abusing his power, as was his president, Richard Nixon. And so were countless bureaucrats before and after them. In 2004 and 2005, the FBI arrested and convicted 1,060 of them, in fact. Despite making corruption in government one of their top priorities just behind counterterrorism, the FBI has hardly made a dent in the problem, and humans being what they are, they probably never will.

You think you’re so innocent, try proving it. That’s what “nothing to hide” is about: destroying the notion of innocent until proven guilty, meant to protect we the people from abuse of power, and instituting the barbaric notion of guilty until proven innocent, where anyone can be searched, anyone can be seized, and sometimes, even the trial can be dispensed with. It’s about getting Americans used to the idea of proving their innocence at every opportunity, putting them on trial at the airport or at the roadside. After all, anybody who doesn’t want to prove their innocence must be guilty of something.

"It is better to risk saving a guilty man than to condemn an innocent one." — Voltaire

I reject the notion of guilty until proven innocent, and every American should as well. If you think I’m guilty, you prove it. I have nothing to prove. And I may have nothing to hide either, but you can’t see it.

In the latter part of my Senior year, just a few months ago, this guy and I got into a discussion about this after the wiretapping scandal hit the mainstream. I was vehemently opposed to them, because I don't like living in a police state. Upon hearing my opinion, he came out swinging with the gem, "Would you rather have another 9/11?"

Yes, in a sense.

I would rather die than lose my liberties. If it came to it.

"It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata

Yeah, it's a quote that's been thrown around a lot, and because of that, has become some sort of a cliche. But cliches become cliches for a reason.

Wait, so you would rather die instead of being protected? Sure, we're giving up some of our freedom but due to giving up "some" freedom, we are protected. If you deeply think about it, we've already lost some of our freedom and due to that, a lot of us are still alive and functioning for the reason that we have protection. Imagine a nation with absolutely no freedom at all; when does the government come in? Due to that, the absence of government, it is anarchy. I'm not necessarily saying that taking away certain aspects of our freedom is terrible, however, I am implying that due to the freedom that was taken away from us, we've been protected in numerous ways that we don't really look closely at.

Now, we must be careful to not give an abundant amount of power to the government or too much because if we do, we probably would dislike it and we're inclined to turn the entire situation into an atrocious event. Do I think we are entirely free? No, we're bounded by rules and due to these rules, we're more likely to be safe, correct?

John Locke created the idea of a social contract. One where the individual in a society would give up some rights to get the benefits from the group. Now, I am fine with that within reason.

Obviously, there is a clear distinction between an anarchistic state and a totalitarian fascist rule. I think that everyone can agree with that. It's common sense. It's black and white.

But, what isn't so clear is the area in between the two. The gray area. We're in that gray area. We've always been in that gray area. It's the basis of Locke's social contract. But we're slowly moving closer to the black.

I don't want to live in a fascist nation. I don't want the country to tell me what is good for me. I know what is good for me. If I don't know what is good for me, then I find it out.

Attacks will always be a possibility. That is a fact that we have to live with. No one can ever be completely safe. Another attack can, and will happen. Whether it is today, or in a hundred years, I don't know, but it will happen. I won't live in fear every day that it doesn't. And I don't need the government to try and scare me into supporting them. Everyone dies. It is inevitable.

So if I die one day in the future because I had more rights the rest of the days that came before it, then I would be fine. I wouldn't mind. Because I would have lived a life that was my own. Not the governments.

---

I apologize for the ranting nature of my post. I kind of went all over.

Whoa buddy, you better kill yourself now like you said you would because you won't find a single country in this world that will have the chaotic ideas of yours. I think communism might have been the only system that was even close to your idea, but look how that backfired. It's a dictatorship. Therefore, good luck and I hope you were lying and won't kill yourself.