Flying isn't a right, it's a privilege, and IMO if you choose to travel that way then you should agree to follow the security procedures for EVERYONE'S safety.
So, it's okay to override the rights of citizens if they engage in activities that are not rights but are privileges? I don't quite know what this means. To what kinds of activities do we have rights and which are merely privileges in exchange for which I must be willing to give up rights? Are you suggesting that it's okay for the government to overlook basic rights if I want to, say, swim at the beach, go to the mall, buy a car, attend a hockey game, watch porn in my basement? why or why not?
Not really sure how much more invasive we can get than basically being able to see people naked. But personally I would only support a 100% guarantee, otherwise it's pointless. But can such a guarantee ever be made?
I don't follow your reasoning here. Apparently it's your position that the effectiveness of the procedure trumps concerns about rights? If so, why insist on 100% effectiveness, that just seems arbitrary. What if a procedure took the number of terrorist airplane attacks down from 10/year to 1/year? You'd have allowed it if had taken it down to 0, but because it only goes from 10 to 1, you won't?
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 24/11/10 17:30 (UTC)So, it's okay to override the rights of citizens if they engage in activities that are not rights but are privileges? I don't quite know what this means. To what kinds of activities do we have rights and which are merely privileges in exchange for which I must be willing to give up rights? Are you suggesting that it's okay for the government to overlook basic rights if I want to, say, swim at the beach, go to the mall, buy a car, attend a hockey game, watch porn in my basement? why or why not?
I don't follow your reasoning here. Apparently it's your position that the effectiveness of the procedure trumps concerns about rights? If so, why insist on 100% effectiveness, that just seems arbitrary. What if a procedure took the number of terrorist airplane attacks down from 10/year to 1/year? You'd have allowed it if had taken it down to 0, but because it only goes from 10 to 1, you won't?