Originally Posted by
Trollkiller
That is a fair question, is the fight worth bankruptcy? Yes it most certainly is. Unfortunately that is not my problem. I have no house to hock for legal fees, I have no savings to tap for legal fees, I can't sell my car for more than enough to cover one billable hour of legal fees. I can't afford the filing fees to defend this myself. This is not a case of being scared of losing the money, this is a case of the money simply not being there. All I have at my disposal to offer is myself, so that is what I have done.
A perfectly reasonable position. Now, let's return to TSORon's position on the defense of personal rights, which is how this tangent got started:
Originally Posted by
TSORon
Refuse [to defend those rights] and you get exactly what you deserve.
According to TSORon, since you refuse to defend your rights at a TSA checkpoint, you deserve to lose those rights. The fact that you don't have the financial means to defend those rights is irrelevant. Conclusion: rights only belong to people who have the means (financially, primarily) to defend those rights.
And that conclusion bothers me. This is supposed to be a democracy, not a feudal society where only the aristocracy have rights and the serfs have none. Having rights shouldn't depend on the ability to hire a lawyer.
And yes, I know that the real world doesn't work that way; the rich always have more options than the poor. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to make it better.
Originally Posted by
Trollkiller
I offer me, what do you offer?
A cheering section?
Seriously, there are lots of things in the world to care about, and I care about other things more passionately than this issue. So I'll stick with the whole "petition the government for a redress of grievances" approach. There's no reason why the problem can't be approached from multiple directions.
Originally Posted by
Trollkiller
(serious question, not a slap)
Absolutely. Thanks for a thoughtful response.