Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd)

Thu Oct 30 13:22:35 PST 1997

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Tim May wrote:
>At 8:11 AM -0700 10/30/97, Tim Griffiths wrote:
>> We hear on TV etc people saying "If this draconian measure saves the
>> life of one innocent child its worth the loss of my right to walk in
>> the park, or whatever". This is clearly shit, but can people suggest a
>> sensible measure of when new legistlation is justified?
>
>If not, then the answer is "the Constitution."
>
>The longer version being that the Constitution and especially the
>Bill of Rights clearly enumerates rights held by the people, and
>there is no mention that such basic rights are to be stripped away
>because the "life of one innocent child" can be saved...

But this line of argument does not get to the heart of the matter.
Why is the Constitution so great?  After all, it's just a piece of
paper and if Americans generally decide not to respect it, it's gone.

In a related comment Steve Schear wrote:
>"Those who prefer security over liberty deserve neither."

More accurately, they will *get* neither!

Police states are not only unpleasant, they are terribly unsafe.

When somebody tells you they wish to trade security for liberty, offer
to handcuff them on the spot in exchange for protection.  If they
don't agree, they now have to explain why they believe you have less
integrity than the police and their political masters.

And, in almost every case, the draconian measure is orthogonal to
protecting children and is only a cynical ploy to institute a police
state.  While it will be different from ploy to ploy, it can be
productive to undermine the assumptions of the argument.

Consider cryptography.  We are told that it is bad for children.  We
also know that banning cryptography will cost at least $60 billion
every year.  Why isn't a $30 billion child protection fund being
advocated?  It would obviously be a good deal.  The reason is that
protecting children isn't on the agenda.  (And that child protection
bill better include a list of things not to spend money on: Do not
frame political dissidents.  Do not infiltrate church groups.  Do not
spy on Jewish children at summer camp.  Do not gun down antiwar
protesters.  Do not suppress the Press. etc. etc.)

In general, those who talk about "protecting children" shy away from
obvious and real measures that might actually protect children.  For
example, in most states child protective services are underfunded and
staffed by incompetents.  Real children are living miserable lives
every day, and yet Louis and the Gang are worrying about the use of
arithmetic.  Could it be they have some other motivation?

Or consider teenage prostitution.  In most big cities there are many
teenage prostitutes.  They don't want to be prostitutes for the most
part, but usually they were in a bad situation and they ran away from
home.  We can tell the situation is bad because when they get hungry
they still don't want to go back.

Typically, there are known places where the deals are done.  Yet we
see no noticeable enforcement effort occurring.  Could it be that the
police don't care that much?

More importantly, it is terribly easy to help these people.  All you
have to do is set up a home where they are welcome, feel safe, and
feel comfortable.  BTW, that means no religious indoctrination, no
drug indoctrination, or any other brainwashing.  It does mean finding
hosts who are warm emotional people and genuinely care.  (It may be
impossible for a bureaucracy to establish such an environment.)

Anybody who cares about teenagers can set something like this up.
Yet, it rarely happens.  The reason for this is that very few people
truly care enough to actually do anything about the situation.

When somebody tells you should go to jail for performing the wrong
kind of arithmetic because it's bad for children, ask them what they
*really* have done for any children anywhere.  Usually, they have done
nothing and will do nothing.

There is almost nothing lower than a person who would exploit concern
for children for his or her own political purposes.