I suggested earlier that giving up freedoms in the name of safety does not protect someone from terrorism, and I pointed to England. (Read it here).
I got a couple of rebuttals in person, and one on my website. Everyone trying to make the point that the London bombings were smaller in scale and probably reduced freedoms had something to do with that. Then saying further, that if we gave up more freedoms, we'd obviously be safer.
I think that's rubbish. First, let's consider that that somehow sets up this notion of an exchange rate between people's lives and freedom, as if we just keep squeezing people's freedoms until we've somehow rediscovered our own warm fuzzies when we lay in bed. That's a very scary notion, all the more so because the majority's notion of security could change to something more sinister. What then?
Secondly, if giving up liberties really was the path to more security, then obviously places like Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia should never experience a terrorist attack. People in those countries have very few liberties compared to citizens in the US, but sure enough, there have been attacks in all of those countries.
So, how about it guys? Everyone who will sign on the dotted line to give up their freedoms, how much are you willing to give? Would you be willing to live in a place like North Korea if it meant you were safe from terrorist attacks? Or like Afghanistan during the Taliban? Because there comes a point where the terrorist you're in danger from ceases to be some radical working against the government and becomes the government itself.
