Originally Posted by
bocastephen
1) liberty comes with risk - people need to accept that
True, but we do place restrictions on things to minimize risk to, or do you generally drive on the left side of the street?
2) liberty is more important than security - people need to accept that
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Notice the order.
3) life itself offers neither security nor any guarantee
I would accept this as a truism. I would also say, just because you'll never reach it doesn't mean you should just throw up your hands and give up. You do what you can to minimize risk while balancing that against civil rights. Its a razor edge at times. To stick to my driving comparison, there's no guarantee I'll reach my destination alive but we do have speed laws, to minimize traffic accidents. We don't say, "oh well, we'll never have perfect safety so drive however you want."
I only expect the government to make its best effort, while respecting the law, the Constitution, my liberty and privacy - and without trying to push the envelope in respect to those items, nor singling people out for special attention because their background or appearance makes them 'suspect'
The totality of law enforcement is looking for those things that are not like the other. You establish a norm (65 mph) and then look for those things that aren't what you've established. Most times you look it will be nothing. But many times you look it will be. For instance, that perfect driver. Going under the speed limit, perfect everything. Most times, they are what they appear to be. Other times there drunk as lords and overcompensating, like a drunk who enunciates each word trying not to appear drunk.
I expect the government to spend MY money wisely and not pi$$ it away on wild goose chases or by unjustly enriching political supporters
Define "wisely" in terms other than "what you personally agree with."
I expect the government to use the resources of intelligent, learned and experienced people to create policies and procedures which balance effectiveness with efficiency, security with liberty, and risk avoidance with risk aversion
See above.
I expect the government to leverage available and feasible technology to aid in this endeavor - not fund pie-in-the-sky nonsense or roll out devices which are potentially harmful to my health in the name of security
See above.
I expect the government to embrace proactive thinking by developing processes and procedures which are not just attempts to counter past events, but rather take a holistic approach to protection and security regardless of what schemes or plans a future attacker might have - with the understanding that I accept no process or procedure is foolproof, guaranteed nor absolute
Ditto to the above.
I expect the government to take terrorism and dangerous people seriously, and not just use them as vague shadows to generate universal fear for political gain
I expect the government to respect both our laws as well as international laws and treaties, and the traditions of democracy and the free will of men which date back to the Magna Carta - and not use vague or unsubstantiated threats or the fear of potentially threatening people to ignore these traditions
I'll stick with those who recognize that life is risky, liberty requires sacrifice, that bogeymen are not hiding under every bed and making a "best" effort is sufficient, provided that effort is realistic, fair, and effective
All this reminds me of the George Carlin line "Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?"
So long as you agree with what's happening you'll consider it "wise" and "intelligent" and "learned" and "experienced", etc. If you don't, then we're back to idiot land.