Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, most times there really is no choice about how much more power Fed/state/city government is going to take.....the average citizen really has no say.
Exactly. And to say that being patted down at the airport is some sort of choice is really silly. Its not like there are two lines at the airport from which you can choose to go through security or not. If you have to fly - and yes many people DO have to fly - you aren't really getting a choice in the matter.
The security search at airports is an example of a constitutional right people have waived for safety. If your answer is no, then I assume you are for no searches being done at airports of all passengers. Am I correct?
Let the airlines bear the cost and responsibility to do the screening instead of the government. That would void any Constitutional issues.
The security search at airports is an example of a constitutional right people have waived for safety. If your answer is no, then I assume you are for no searches being done at airports of all passengers. Am I correct?
I don't believe that the security check at airports is an example of a waived Constitutional right. Rights have always been a balancing act, balancing one right against another, balancing the rights of individuals against the rights of other individuals. Security checks at airports aren't intended to limit the rights of Americans but to maximize those rights. While the right to travel isn't explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights, it is an implicit freedom that Americans enjoy, fundamental to the idea of freedom, and the efforts of terrorists threaten that freedom. Since Americans who do not want to endure the burden of security checks have other means of travel at their disposal, their rights aren't forfeited.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,428,613 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn
The security search at airports is an example of a constitutional right people have waived for safety. If your answer is no, then I assume you are for no searches being done at airports of all passengers. Am I correct?
Where does the Constitution give you the right to board an airplane without being checked for weapons, etc.?
I don't believe that the security check at airports is an example of a waived Constitutional right. Rights have always been a balancing act, balancing one right against another, balancing the rights of individuals against the rights of other individuals. Security checks at airports aren't intended to limit the rights of Americans but to maximize those rights. While the right to travel isn't explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights, it is an implicit freedom that Americans enjoy, fundamental to the idea of freedom, and the efforts of terrorists threaten that freedom. Since Americans who do not want to endure the burden of security checks have other means of travel at their disposal, their rights aren't forfeited.
There is no "balancing" act between natural rights of human actions. If no one initiates force upon another, no one's natural rights have been violated. Aggression, initiation of force, by one upon another is the only time a right has been violated. No person, group, or government ever has a fictional right to initiate force upon any person, group, or government.
The false "balancing" act is offered to justify one party using aggression upon another to impose one's will.
There is no "balancing" act between natural rights of human actions. If no one initiates force upon another, no one's natural rights have been violated. Aggression, initiation of force, by one upon another is the only time a right has been violated. No person, group, or government ever has a fictional right to initiate force upon any person, group, or government.
The false "balancing" act is offered to justify one party using aggression upon another to impose one's will.
Okay, so you are basically saying we should just act like sitting ducks to preserve rights over enacting common-sense security measures to preserve lives?
There is no "balancing" act between natural rights of human actions. If no one initiates force upon another, no one's natural rights have been violated. Aggression, initiation of force, by one upon another is the only time a right has been violated. No person, group, or government ever has a fictional right to initiate force upon any person, group, or government.
The false "balancing" act is offered to justify one party using aggression upon another to impose one's will.
It's all a balancing act. Society is constantly balancing the rights/freedoms of people against each other.
Force isn't a requisite.
And the balancing act is offered as plain and simple reality.
Where does the Constitution give you the right to board an airplane without being checked for weapons, etc.?
Hence why many at the time knew the "bill of rights" was the worst idea ever. Because tyrants would use the mention of some of the natural rights of individual human beings as an implication to assert that the people had only those rights mentioned.
The individual is entitled to all natural rights, all human action which is not an act of aggression upon another, and these natural rights were what were supposed to be protected. The "bill of rights" was never meant to interpreted as a list of natural rights, they were only introduced because some of the States feared that not mentioning the most obvious of them would open the door for the Federal government to deny them at a later stage, and they would not ratify the Constitution otherwise. The "bill of rights" was a tragic failure in protecting the nearly infinite number of natural rights that every individual human being is entitled to.
That is why government must be limited to being only a retaliatory force against aggression upon the individual to be moral. Sadly, the government is now only a institution of aggression upon the individual. It does not protect individual rights, but rather destroys human rights with every action of aggression it undertakes.
To clarify, you, and everyone else, have the natural human right to any human action which is not an initiation of force upon another. That is the state which maximizes human freedom for every individual human being. The only just use of force is a retaliatory force against those who initiate force. Hence why government's only just role is as a retaliatory force. (To protect the whole of the natural rights of the individual from the aggression of others.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
