Originally Posted by
essxjay
I guess the impasse' we're at with you, Bart, is about the degree of tolerance for government intrusion in our lives as citizens. It's a matter of principle rather than one of pragmatism.
The tyrannies in other countries that you've experienced, while germane to your reasoning, is not a relevant feature in a discussion about what we in the U.S. should accept as our way of life -- that is, one modeled on liberty.
TSA's procedures are based on Constitutional principles. I know you find that very difficult to believe; however, the legality of each TSA procedure has been reviewed by staff lawyers. There have been a number of TSA procedures challenged in court as well. This isn't illegal government intrusion. If your argument is based on general principle, then that's something that can be applied to everything else ranging from sales taxes to seat belt laws. And this perspective can't be debated logically because it doesn't recognize the validity of laws passed by Congress. It then becomes an emotional argument, which, IMHO, is the root of many of these disagreements.
Originally Posted by essxjay
A "by comparison" line of argumentation is not reasoning from principles: it's reasoning from exigencies. This is distasteful to me, and perhaps that's what the fundamental difference is between the position I take as a just one and what I am guessing that you take as a given and immutable practicality of modern life. In short, my thesis is this: The moral is the practical.
I'm just challenging the hyperbole about how we've become a nation oppressed by tyrants. The people who truly believe this are either naive about what truly is tyranny or they're just exaggerating.
Originally Posted by essxjay
And by the way, I don't love my country any less than those who proclaim it explicitly. Just because I'm vocal in my disagreements with some here about how to defend it doesn't mean I'm ambivalent about its continuance or my obligations toward that end.
My comment was directed specifically against an individual who constantly characterizes me and other TSOs as jack-booted thugs who take some sort of perverse pleasure out of abusing our authority over hapless travelers. I find those comments tiresome and decided to call him on it...much to my chagrin, I might add.
Originally Posted by essxjay
I'm unpersuaded by what's implied in your statements, that because the hard fist of government exists elsewhere -- when, really, it's unnecessary anywhere -- I should just be thankful for what I've got, when what I've got is life under a constitution in shreds. On top of that, I have to tolerate representatives who attend to their personal and political interests far more than to those of their electorate. This is to say nothing of the modal tyrant occupying the White House. Living with this hideousness is far more than any U.S. citizen deserves.
LOL. And I am unpersuaded by your comments that our Constitution is in shreds. I respect a healthy disagreement over the policies of this current administration; however, to portray it in such a fashion is truly disingenuous to a sound debate. Our Constitution is still in great shape. The checks and balances still work. The remarkable thing about our government over the past seven years is that we've had a relatively even balance between the two major political parties, and we've had a pretty even balance on the major issues. No one party has had a decisive advantage over the other. I see it; I'm genuinely surprised that you don't.
Originally Posted by essxjay
Thanks, but I've observed enough of the lives of others by now to know how fragile my own liberties are right here at home.
Liberty is very fragile, and we should protect it jealously. Nothing I've said has contradicted this. All I ask for is a little bit of perspective and context. Perhaps I expect too much.