Ok but maybe there are some things we can allow knowledge sharing of to solve some problems ? Not 'everything'.
Let's explore the idea and give examples using the cost-/benefit analysis framework.
We also have to acknowledge that we live in a liberal democracy. We are all born free until government restricts our natural freedom using violence (police using fists, clubs and guns to drag lawbreakers away and forced behind bars) to enforce their laws. This coercion is sometimes necessary, but is not to be taken lightly. It might be better for "the greater good" if people needing organs or blood can have government force others against their will to give organs and blood to save lives, it doesn't mean they should have that right.
How about earnings over a certain amount ? What if we restrict it to people/businesses who get government 'support' ? Is that such a bad idea ?
Can't they make that law today? Do you want gov to peer inside everyone's bank accounts to make sure the rich aren't getting money under the table? They could use cash. Ban cash because its not trackable?
I don't know. I'm saying that we can stop considering an idea like privacy sacrosanct if it serves a public interest to infringe on it. Because... we do that today. Privacy isn't sacrosanct. The government monitors our communications. Today.
They do it unconstitutionally. They are corrupt. Like I said, everyone has the responsibility to follow the law. How far are you willing to go to make sure everyone does?
There are public cameras in the UK and Canada too. They serve a purpose.
They are unconstitutional also, except the Charter guarantees nothing, it isn't worth the paper its written on if a judge can determine anything as a worthy infringement "in a free and democratic society", which is the most vague & subjective nonsense ever written. But maybe red light cameras are worth the infringement?
That's a hysterical response IMO.
You think its unreasonable to say that having public cameras on every street corner and satellites above and the gov peering into our emails, texts, tapping our phones, and tracking all of our movements for the sake of "public safety and the rule of law" is akin to a mass surveillance police state like 1984, where thought police exist? Would you consider the fascist dictatorship of CCP China a dystopia? They have the most public cameras in the world (google it).
Rights are traded off, legislated and changed all the time. Why can't we discuss it ?
We can, we're doing right now. I'm not trying to censor you, i'm debating you.
What if left-wing activists were very protective of these rights, and what if they were so offended by your ideas that they would want them banned from Youtube and twitter, and professors and celebrities and Hardner who mouthed them would be cancelled? Does this give you a new perspective on the importance of free speech? The moment the mob turns on you, and they decide your opinions are offensive to the moral mainstream, you're done, and so is any discussion.
All of these philosophies were applied to the topography of the societies of the day. Nation states, money, communication, religion, the press, and employment were entirely different. There is no reason to review our current topography and examine what could be done differently.
Sure let's do it. Your ideas (in all honesty) offend me greatly but i'm willing to discuss them. And maybe you're right, or wrong? There is also no reason to not review our lockdown policies and examine what could be done differently. Or our views on abortion, immigration, vaccine mandates, trans rights policies, or literally any other idea. Or we could just shut yours and their ideas down because the status quo is sacrosanct and the mere discussion of dissenting opinions is so offensive it justifies banning these views from social media and college campuses and getting you and them fired as a warning to anyone else who dares speak them. What is the name of your professional organization so anonymous people on twitter can send in a dozen complains to get you reeducated or fired. You are a drug-addict dietary nutjob Burning Man-enthusiast who sounds like Kermit the Frog.
Your political views are typically fairly close to what the zeitgeist consensus is (ie: majority of mainstream liberal types think). Do you now understand what it might be like to have a dissenting opinion challenging that? How does it feel? I bet it doesn't feel very good...
Home
Contact
Login
Register