Necessity: The Argument of Tyrants

[Bit_Happy]

Despite admitting that the National Security “vacuums up information about virtually every telephone call to, from, or within the United States,” William Pauley, a federal judge on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, decreed last week that the NSA’s dragnet approach is constitutional because, well, he believes that it is necessary.

As William Pitt the Younger observed, “necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

The world is an inherently dangerous place. The idea that the government can protect us is patently absurd. All the government can do is to destroy our liberties while promoting the illusion of safety.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/01/glenn-jacobs/necessity-the-argument-of-tyrants/

President Dwight Eisenhower acknowledged this fact when he said that if you wanted real safety, go to prison. You get three meals and a bunk. Heck, you even get government health care. The only thing missing is freedom.

ps. BTC NEEDS a strong foundation watching out for our interests.   

[Hawker]

Does it not bother you that you contradict yourself?  If you believe in liberty and rights, you believe in government.  Yet you say that governments can't provide liberty.  Its a bit like saying you believe in seawater but don't believe in the sea.

[Bit_Happy]

Does it not bother you that you contradict yourself?  If you believe in liberty and rights, you believe in government.  Yet you say that governments can't provide liberty.  Its a bit like saying you believe in seawater but don't believe in the sea.

The main point is that Tyrants use "Necessity" to increase their power.
I don't expect gov to "provide liberty", so we do not seem to be on the same page.

[zeeshanblc]

Being free is an illusion. You are only free if you are living alone on other planets.

[dank]

Does it not bother you that you contradict yourself?  If you believe in liberty and rights, you believe in government.  Yet you say that governments can't provide liberty.  Its a bit like saying you believe in seawater but don't believe in the sea.

In what way does a government who's sole purpose is to control populations through coercion grant you any form of liberties or rights?

[Khadaji]

Does it not bother you that you contradict yourself?  If you believe in liberty and rights, you believe in government.  Yet you say that governments can't provide liberty.  Its a bit like saying you believe in seawater but don't believe in the sea.

Governments can only restrict liberty, they can't 'give' it. What "right" can a government give that I don't already have in their absence?

I'm perfectly willing to concede that governments are necessary to any sort of advanced civilization, but I certainly don't make the mistake of believing that they can 'give' me freedom. They can only restrict it to one extent or another.

[Hawker]

Does it not bother you that you contradict yourself?  If you believe in liberty and rights, you believe in government.  Yet you say that governments can't provide liberty.  Its a bit like saying you believe in seawater but don't believe in the sea.

Governments can only restrict liberty, they can't 'give' it. What "right" can a government give that I don't already have in their absence?

I'm perfectly willing to concede that governments are necessary to any sort of advanced civilization, but I certainly don't make the mistake of believing that they can 'give' me freedom. They can only restrict it to one extent or another.

Freedom only exists as a legal concept.  Laws are government creations.  Take away government and law and you don't have freedom.

[Khadaji]

Does it not bother you that you contradict yourself?  If you believe in liberty and rights, you believe in government.  Yet you say that governments can't provide liberty.  Its a bit like saying you believe in seawater but don't believe in the sea.

Governments can only restrict liberty, they can't 'give' it. What "right" can a government give that I don't already have in their absence?

I'm perfectly willing to concede that governments are necessary to any sort of advanced civilization, but I certainly don't make the mistake of believing that they can 'give' me freedom. They can only restrict it to one extent or another.

Freedom only exists as a legal concept.  Laws are government creations.  Take away government and law and you don't have freedom.

Sounds like a secular argument to me.

But FACTUALLY, when I can do whatever I want, that is freedom. It's not defined by government or law. It's RESTRICTED by government or law.

Let's imagine that I'm living on an otherwise deserted island in the middle of the Pacific... and I can do ANYTHING I WANT, anytime I want. The ONLY restrictions on my freedom would be an inability to go to the nonexistent Casino, for example. But you'd argue that I have no freedom, because there's no government or law.

I think that freedom is being re-defined.

[Khadaji]

Let's imagine that I'm living on an otherwise deserted island in the middle of the Pacific... and I can do ANYTHING I WANT, anytime I want. The ONLY restrictions on my freedom would be an inability to go to the nonexistent Casino, for example. But you'd argue that I have no freedom, because there's no government or law.

Your rights and freedoms are identical to the limitations on other people's rights and freedoms - what if there are other people on the island?[ /quote]

I have no quarrel with the idea that adding even one person to the island restricts in theory with my freedom. But it's silly to say that because one more person has suddenly arrived at my island, that I no longer have freedom.

I think we have a fundamental difference of what "freedom" means. Let's look at what a dictionary says:

• The state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
• Exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
• The power to determine action without restraint.
• Political or national independence.
• Personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.

Notice that freedom isn't being defined as something given to you by government. I say again, government cannot give you freedom, it can only restrict it.

Some restrictions are perfectly normal and understandable... I might want the 'freedom' to murder anyone I want... the intended victim would surely appreciate the restriction of my 'freedom' to do so.

There's no government to take away your rights, but what good is your right to (e.g.) freedom of speech if the other people on the island are free to gag you? What good is your right to life if others are free to kill you?

That someone else has the 'freedom' to murder me doesn't restrict my freedom at all.

You clearly don't define 'freedom' the same way that the dictionary does.

At the moment of being 'murdered', I've obviously lost my freedom... but I lost it due to someone else's actions, or my inaction. Not because there wasn't a government.

Governments cannot give freedom... they can help create a level playing field, where everyone respects other's freedoms, BUT THAT'S ONLY DONE BY RESTRICTING FREEDOM.

If you're not the most powerful person on the island, you have no rights.

Not true. There are things that no-one can take from me. Think about it.

That is unless the most powerful person on the island is willing to protect your rights. In modern times, governments are the most powerful people on the island, and they do provide rights, because the only rights that you can rely on are the rights that governments are willing to defend.

I repeat, governments and law can only restrict freedom - they cannot give it, and indeed, cannot even assure true freedom.

In the dictionary meanings of the term "freedom" - which one depends on government or law?

In the dictionary meanings of the term "freedom" - which ones can be restricted by government or law?

[Hawker]

Does it not bother you that you contradict yourself?  If you believe in liberty and rights, you believe in government.  Yet you say that governments can't provide liberty.  Its a bit like saying you believe in seawater but don't believe in the sea.

Governments can only restrict liberty, they can't 'give' it. What "right" can a government give that I don't already have in their absence?

I'm perfectly willing to concede that governments are necessary to any sort of advanced civilization, but I certainly don't make the mistake of believing that they can 'give' me freedom. They can only restrict it to one extent or another.

Freedom only exists as a legal concept.  Laws are government creations.  Take away government and law and you don't have freedom.

Sounds like a secular argument to me.

But FACTUALLY, when I can do whatever I want, that is freedom. It's not defined by government or law. It's RESTRICTED by government or law.

Let's imagine that I'm living on an otherwise deserted island in the middle of the Pacific... and I can do ANYTHING I WANT, anytime I want. The ONLY restrictions on my freedom would be an inability to go to the nonexistent Casino, for example. But you'd argue that I have no freedom, because there's no government or law.

I think that freedom is being re-defined.

That assumes you are alone or you are the most powerful person on the island.  If someone random person who is stronger than you can take you as a slave, you are not free.

[Khadaji]

Does it not bother you that you contradict yourself?  If you believe in liberty and rights, you believe in government.  Yet you say that governments can't provide liberty.  Its a bit like saying you believe in seawater but don't believe in the sea.

Governments can only restrict liberty, they can't 'give' it. What "right" can a government give that I don't already have in their absence?

I'm perfectly willing to concede that governments are necessary to any sort of advanced civilization, but I certainly don't make the mistake of believing that they can 'give' me freedom. They can only restrict it to one extent or another.

Freedom only exists as a legal concept.  Laws are government creations.  Take away government and law and you don't have freedom.

Sounds like a secular argument to me.

But FACTUALLY, when I can do whatever I want, that is freedom. It's not defined by government or law. It's RESTRICTED by government or law.

Let's imagine that I'm living on an otherwise deserted island in the middle of the Pacific... and I can do ANYTHING I WANT, anytime I want. The ONLY restrictions on my freedom would be an inability to go to the nonexistent Casino, for example. But you'd argue that I have no freedom, because there's no government or law.

I think that freedom is being re-defined.

That assumes you are alone or you are the most powerful person on the island.  If someone random person who is stronger than you can take you as a slave, you are not free.

This debate cannot go anywhere until a definition of "freedom" has been agreed to. You define it quite differently than I do.

[Mike Christ]

free·dom
[free-duhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint.
2.
exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3.
the power to determine action without restraint.
4.
political or national independence.

I'll just leave this here for Hawker so he can explain how the external control of government equates to exemption from the external control of government.

[Hawker]

Does it not bother you that you contradict yourself?  If you believe in liberty and rights, you believe in government.  Yet you say that governments can't provide liberty.  Its a bit like saying you believe in seawater but don't believe in the sea.

Governments can only restrict liberty, they can't 'give' it. What "right" can a government give that I don't already have in their absence?

I'm perfectly willing to concede that governments are necessary to any sort of advanced civilization, but I certainly don't make the mistake of believing that they can 'give' me freedom. They can only restrict it to one extent or another.

Freedom only exists as a legal concept.  Laws are government creations.  Take away government and law and you don't have freedom.

Sounds like a secular argument to me.

But FACTUALLY, when I can do whatever I want, that is freedom. It's not defined by government or law. It's RESTRICTED by government or law.

Let's imagine that I'm living on an otherwise deserted island in the middle of the Pacific... and I can do ANYTHING I WANT, anytime I want. The ONLY restrictions on my freedom would be an inability to go to the nonexistent Casino, for example. But you'd argue that I have no freedom, because there's no government or law.

I think that freedom is being re-defined.

That assumes you are alone or you are the most powerful person on the island.  If someone random person who is stronger than you can take you as a slave, you are not free.

This debate cannot go anywhere until a definition of "freedom" has been agreed to. You define it quite differently than I do.

Fair point.  You see the noble savage that wanders naked on an island as being truly free.  I don't.  Noble savages wandering naked in the forests have been the raw material for the slave trade throughout history.  If there is no law to stop his being enslaved, the noble savage spends his time hiding and avoiding slavers.  To me, a life spent hiding from people who can take you away as a slave is not freedom.

[Khadaji]

Does it not bother you that you contradict yourself?  If you believe in liberty and rights, you believe in government.  Yet you say that governments can't provide liberty.  Its a bit like saying you believe in seawater but don't believe in the sea.

Governments can only restrict liberty, they can't 'give' it. What "right" can a government give that I don't already have in their absence?

I'm perfectly willing to concede that governments are necessary to any sort of advanced civilization, but I certainly don't make the mistake of believing that they can 'give' me freedom. They can only restrict it to one extent or another.

Freedom only exists as a legal concept.  Laws are government creations.  Take away government and law and you don't have freedom.

Sounds like a secular argument to me.

But FACTUALLY, when I can do whatever I want, that is freedom. It's not defined by government or law. It's RESTRICTED by government or law.

Let's imagine that I'm living on an otherwise deserted island in the middle of the Pacific... and I can do ANYTHING I WANT, anytime I want. The ONLY restrictions on my freedom would be an inability to go to the nonexistent Casino, for example. But you'd argue that I have no freedom, because there's no government or law.

I think that freedom is being re-defined.

That assumes you are alone or you are the most powerful person on the island.  If someone random person who is stronger than you can take you as a slave, you are not free.

This debate cannot go anywhere until a definition of "freedom" has been agreed to. You define it quite differently than I do.

Fair point.  You see the noble savage that wanders naked on an island as being truly free.  I don't.  Noble savages wandering naked in the forests have been the raw material for the slave trade throughout history.  If there is no law to stop his being enslaved, the noble savage spends his time hiding and avoiding slavers.  To me, a life spent hiding from people who can take you away as a slave is not freedom.

Your argument then implies that there is *NO* such thing as real freedom. Governments & law *BY DEFINITION* restrict freedom, so, in your argument, does a lack of government.

[BCEmporium]

The argument of tyrants is "SECURITY". It works best and allows them to run over any civilian freedom without much contest.
At some point however people will need some security against those who are pretending to be looking after its security. In the end it all sum up to the words of Benjamin Franklin: "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

[Khadaji]

The argument of tyrants is "SECURITY". It works best and allows them to run over any civilian freedom without much contest.
At some point however people will need some security against those who are pretending to be looking after its security. In the end it all sum up to the words of Benjamin Franklin: "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

I'm sure he meant it in a broader context.

Any country that doesn't provide for the common defense is going to very quickly lose their freedom. But providing for the common defense normally entails at least a few years of greatly reduced freedom for the young men who are drafted.

I can't imagine that Benjamin Franklin didn't understand that.

In a broader context, I do agree with him. We see it today in our greatly expanding social services society.

[BCEmporium]

I believe Benjamin Franklin referred to individual freedom, not to be confused with State independence. Free men are well able to defend themselves.
Got the people scared out with terrorism, often hired by the "defender" itself, is a way to open the Pandora box. And after the first group of scared slaves other States hop in to take the profit of a scared mob. My country even has "terrorist laws" and "terrorist task forces", still we have no terrorism of any sort or any separatist movement, but they take the "terrorist scare crow" to spy on whatever they want for unknown purposes. It's an everything goes "for your security" kind of stinky "shaite"!

[Khadaji]

I believe Benjamin Franklin referred to individual freedom...

Better stated and more accurately than I did. Thanks!

[Bonam]

The necessity arguments have some weight if a society is faced with an existential threat, a war which threatens the extermination or subjugation of its people, etc. In WWII, European nations defending against German aggression, for example, could use the necessity arguments to implement whatever policies they could to try to defend themselves or to win the war. But the threat we now face, "terrorism" is such a tiny threat, the chance of being killed by terrorism so low... why would we take extreme measures against it? Why sacrifice liberty for security when we are secure anyway? Why respond to an unwanted pimple on your face by cutting off your head?

No, the response to the terrorist threat has been a pure power grab by governments and security apparatuses. The response is completely out of scale to the threat, and only further harms the population rather than protecting it.

[BCEmporium]

But there are limits for what is legit or not for the government, or its armed branch, the police, to intervene or legislate about and the means to it. Without this notion we have governments even ruling on such a personal subject as masturbation.
The means of surveillance in the so called "preventive crime fight", are obnoxious as they intend to condemn people for something they didn't but probably think of. Someone can fantasize his entire life about rape someone, but as long as he never does it there should be no way to condemn him for "think about it".
In the end, and because obviously there can't be a totally free World, laws can only be designed for actions and actions that includes interaction with others, specially if those others are unwilling to participate. This is in fact not diminish freedom but rule over freedom collisions; the freedom to do a thing and the freedom to not want to do a thing.