What an insubstantial article.
Who are the 'enemies' and what do you mean by a 'free country?' What stipulation obligates a 'free country' to dispense private information to 'enemies' against their own will? Is this the ground work for an argument or is this simply rhetoric employed with no basis?
Debatable. This past December HSBC was tried in court for money laundering i.e. helping wash hundreds of millions of dollars for Mexican drug cartels. The 'bank' moved money for organizations like Al Qaeda and Hezbollah and helped countries like Iran, the Sudan and North Korea evade sanctions. Violating any conscionable application of Trading With the Enemy Act and blatantly denying wrong doing even after being thoroughly charged, the Department of Justice chose settlement with a fine that equates to roughly two weeks of profit from the banking institution. When we weigh violations against humanity, they should be considered for the plurality of injustice. When you have a government institution that openly states they willingly choose to have no oversight on banks that have free reign over determining living cost on not only physical products, but also on intangible materials (like air & energy) to future desires (like loans & life insurance) we already have all witnessed the worst crime against humanity that could ever occur. Finances are the de facto standard of humanity. Unaccountable government agencies is something that could lead to horrendous crimes. However, the fact that government agencies that are held accountable have also failed to hold to the standard, arguably being unaccountable should consequently provide context of how much value the concept of your own humanity holds to anyone except yourself.
Tell me what rights? If we're discussing the rights that correlate to the Justice System, then we're talking about a medium that also bases itself around money. In such a medium, your rights are directly proportional to the quality of your lawyer. And the quality of the lawyer is proportional to the size of your pockets. Based on law firm alone, certain attorneys from lower-tier law practices will move instantly into settlement when paired in litigation with a lawyer representing an extremely prestigious firm. Security itself is a figurative concept that exists on the same intangible plane as human rights. The same goes with freedom. Everyone has freedom. Everyone possesses the ability to make an independent choice on some thought process. You can't technically lose freedom. However, it is wrong to imply that we'll lose to the government simply by making the personal decision to 'give up' to the 'forces at large'. People are subjugated because they choose to play by rules established by the very people you encourage them to be wary of. Compromise is understandable, but individuals don't compromise to abuse of authority because they expect the rules to change, but because they are cognizant that they are too weak to actually make a significant difference in the system. Freedom has no place when discussing standards that people must accept because they are aware that they cannot change the current status quo. That's subjugation.
Stereo Wrote:As far as I'm concerned, your enemies knowing your priorities is one of the prices of being a free country.
Who are the 'enemies' and what do you mean by a 'free country?' What stipulation obligates a 'free country' to dispense private information to 'enemies' against their own will? Is this the ground work for an argument or is this simply rhetoric employed with no basis?
Stereo Wrote:A secret government agency with no oversight by the people and free reign to write its own rules is a recipe for the most horrendous crimes against humanity we have on record.
Debatable. This past December HSBC was tried in court for money laundering i.e. helping wash hundreds of millions of dollars for Mexican drug cartels. The 'bank' moved money for organizations like Al Qaeda and Hezbollah and helped countries like Iran, the Sudan and North Korea evade sanctions. Violating any conscionable application of Trading With the Enemy Act and blatantly denying wrong doing even after being thoroughly charged, the Department of Justice chose settlement with a fine that equates to roughly two weeks of profit from the banking institution. When we weigh violations against humanity, they should be considered for the plurality of injustice. When you have a government institution that openly states they willingly choose to have no oversight on banks that have free reign over determining living cost on not only physical products, but also on intangible materials (like air & energy) to future desires (like loans & life insurance) we already have all witnessed the worst crime against humanity that could ever occur. Finances are the de facto standard of humanity. Unaccountable government agencies is something that could lead to horrendous crimes. However, the fact that government agencies that are held accountable have also failed to hold to the standard, arguably being unaccountable should consequently provide context of how much value the concept of your own humanity holds to anyone except yourself.
Stereo Wrote:We know they're imprisoning people with no trial. We know they're torturing people. How is it in any way alright to let them keep the rest of their activities a secret? Frankly your attitude towards Snowden terrifies me. If you give up on freedom this quickly, are you even going to notice when all your rights have been taken away in the name of security?
Tell me what rights? If we're discussing the rights that correlate to the Justice System, then we're talking about a medium that also bases itself around money. In such a medium, your rights are directly proportional to the quality of your lawyer. And the quality of the lawyer is proportional to the size of your pockets. Based on law firm alone, certain attorneys from lower-tier law practices will move instantly into settlement when paired in litigation with a lawyer representing an extremely prestigious firm. Security itself is a figurative concept that exists on the same intangible plane as human rights. The same goes with freedom. Everyone has freedom. Everyone possesses the ability to make an independent choice on some thought process. You can't technically lose freedom. However, it is wrong to imply that we'll lose to the government simply by making the personal decision to 'give up' to the 'forces at large'. People are subjugated because they choose to play by rules established by the very people you encourage them to be wary of. Compromise is understandable, but individuals don't compromise to abuse of authority because they expect the rules to change, but because they are cognizant that they are too weak to actually make a significant difference in the system. Freedom has no place when discussing standards that people must accept because they are aware that they cannot change the current status quo. That's subjugation.