Some people could say that a dictatorship is the safest place in the world to live. It makes sense because of all of the laws and the law enforcement, things generally run well. But at a certain point it becomes worth it to have rights rather than an absolute security. It's like airport security today with the new TSA rules. When do the security measures taken go too far and violate personal space? When does it become worth it to take a small risk safety-wise, and allow people to go through security without getting a pat-down or an x-ray-like machine?
Just like people in a dictatorship would want the right to free speech, don't people at the airport want the right to not be subjected to a full-body search every time they go through security?
Boy, wouldn't a dictatorship be great! We wouldn't have to deal with the pressures of decision making: our food is chosen for us, our books are chosen for us, our curfew is chosen for us, our laws are chosen for us, and best of all our government is chosen for us!!
ReplyDeleteBut in all seriousness, these TSA rules are causing quite a controversy. Now, I know you weren't comparing a dictatorship and the TSA rules as if they were the same, but I do see how more and more "security" laws could be a problem. Heck, with book censorship, snack food taxes, and the decline of internet anonymity, who knows? Maybe the US is becoming a dictatorship! (:o)
Haha, Henry makes me laugh. But I agree and disagree. I agree that censorship is becoming overpowering in this counrty, and it is unconstitutional in my opinion. It goes against free speech completely, and sometimes we need to give up 100% safety for our right to free speech. But at the same time, I don't think intense airport security is a time to give up safety. There is a reason all these new security measures are being taken- 9/11 and every other event that occured that could've been prevented with tighter security. So yes, the new TSA rules seem a little ridiculous, but in the end they're just there to protect us.
ReplyDelete