“Society would be safer if we had security cameras in public places to catch potential criminals”
After reading this book, my opinion for this statement hasn’t change at all from the first blog. We need cameras for criminal purposes, but not for everything. We still need cameras in the public places such as malls, stores, outside in the some streets, parking lots, but not private houses. We need them for protection, but not for finding mistakes to be putted into jail.
In 1984, the telescreens were everywhere. Just one unusual movement that you make could have you arrested. Just looking at someone straight in the eyes could cause to be arrested. That’s why when Winston and Julia met in the park; they didn’t dare to face each other while they were talking, because they were afraid if the telescreen detected something is mysterious going on between them.
Overall, cameras will make the environment better than before since people are aware of their actions. Since in 1984, everything that seems like abnormal you will get arrested, but in our society, people will violent actions that are disturbing will be caught.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Marvin Eng - "Torture of a person who is a threat to our country's freedom is acceptable as long as the person does not die"
i don't believe that torture in any form is acceptable, no matter how dangerous a person is to the country. Our country believes in freedom and justice, and torture in many cases is worse than death which is not justice. Near the end of the book Winston is captured by the Party and is tortured by O'Brien. Winston was not even very dangerous to the Party and Winston was tortured to the point of close insanity. No matter what the situation torture should not be the answer.
-Marvin Eng
-Marvin Eng
Max David - Part threeeee
The only way to prepare for peace is to be prepared for war.
At first reading this, I didn't think much of it and said that it was an untrue statement. I thought "oh that's not true, we can use cupcakes to offer peace, it'll be great." However, after reading the book and thinking more deeply on the subject, I realize that warfare very essential for not only countries for peace, but for all countries in general.
Having no weapons or warfare just means you’re leaving yourself exposed to others. Why would you leave yourself and your country an open target? If a country has anything of value to anyone (land, wealth, resources, etc), then someone else is going to envy it. Having nothing to fight with will just provide more incentive to invade, as nothing can stop them. Or, maybe you're on the other end of the bargain and YOU want to take something from someone else. You'll have no resources to invade or conquer anyone. Having a ready army, navy, and air force is necessary for stopping fights and starting fights, especially in today's modern age.
The fact that nearly every, if not every country has means of killing and threats serves as proof to this. It’s good to have power, and power is easily derived from a full arsenal. Just look at all of the nuclear conflicts of today. The struggle for and against armaments is an ongoing conflict, and will most likely never stop. Warfare is important to own, for protection and domination.
At first reading this, I didn't think much of it and said that it was an untrue statement. I thought "oh that's not true, we can use cupcakes to offer peace, it'll be great." However, after reading the book and thinking more deeply on the subject, I realize that warfare very essential for not only countries for peace, but for all countries in general.
Having no weapons or warfare just means you’re leaving yourself exposed to others. Why would you leave yourself and your country an open target? If a country has anything of value to anyone (land, wealth, resources, etc), then someone else is going to envy it. Having nothing to fight with will just provide more incentive to invade, as nothing can stop them. Or, maybe you're on the other end of the bargain and YOU want to take something from someone else. You'll have no resources to invade or conquer anyone. Having a ready army, navy, and air force is necessary for stopping fights and starting fights, especially in today's modern age.
The fact that nearly every, if not every country has means of killing and threats serves as proof to this. It’s good to have power, and power is easily derived from a full arsenal. Just look at all of the nuclear conflicts of today. The struggle for and against armaments is an ongoing conflict, and will most likely never stop. Warfare is important to own, for protection and domination.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Aidan Lawrence- Part Tres
"We should have security cameras in public places to catch potential criminals"
I agree with this to a certain extent, in and that it would definitely cut down on crimes, particularly shoplifting and pickpocketing. I agree with this because almost all public places already have them, such as stores, bus stations, and shopping malls. The only place we don't have them is in our homes, and in parks. I don't think that having them in parks is a terrible idea, but i strongly disagree with having them in our homes. No one needs to know what goes on inside some else's house, not even the government. Right to privacy is in our constitution, and no one should be able to take that away from us. If we're in public, then nothing we do necessitates the right to privacy, because anyone could see us doing it anyway.
I agree with this to a certain extent, in and that it would definitely cut down on crimes, particularly shoplifting and pickpocketing. I agree with this because almost all public places already have them, such as stores, bus stations, and shopping malls. The only place we don't have them is in our homes, and in parks. I don't think that having them in parks is a terrible idea, but i strongly disagree with having them in our homes. No one needs to know what goes on inside some else's house, not even the government. Right to privacy is in our constitution, and no one should be able to take that away from us. If we're in public, then nothing we do necessitates the right to privacy, because anyone could see us doing it anyway.
Lillian Brown "Torture" II
"Torture of a person who is a threat to our country's freedom is acceptable as long as the person does not die."
Previously I stated that I believed strategic torture which did not damage the sanity of the subject who was a threat could be acceptable. After completing the book, however, I've changed my mind. I now believe you cannot torture someone in any manner and not damage their sanity and their values. Torture, whether the individual dies or not, is violating the person's personal knowledge and can lead to such mental destitution, whatever information they can provide maybe faulty.
The torture of a person who is simply a threat, but where no new knowledge can be gleaned from their torture, is simply heartless. They have made decisions and have had experiences which defined their current state by torturing them, in hopes of reform, their mental state will simply become confused and unreliable.
Previously I stated that I believed strategic torture which did not damage the sanity of the subject who was a threat could be acceptable. After completing the book, however, I've changed my mind. I now believe you cannot torture someone in any manner and not damage their sanity and their values. Torture, whether the individual dies or not, is violating the person's personal knowledge and can lead to such mental destitution, whatever information they can provide maybe faulty.
The torture of a person who is simply a threat, but where no new knowledge can be gleaned from their torture, is simply heartless. They have made decisions and have had experiences which defined their current state by torturing them, in hopes of reform, their mental state will simply become confused and unreliable.
Melissa Wong: PART III - Tourture of a person who is a threat to our country's freedom is acceptable as long as the person does not die.
I still disagree with this statement. In the book, 1984, no one has "freedom" in that society. There are telescreens everywhere, watching your every move. They spy on people who have their own thoughts, and arrest them. The Party tortures people who has the desire for freedom. Winston tries every way to obtain freedom, even if he has to go against the Party. But when he gets caught trying to be "free," he get tortured. Winston gets tortured by his greatest fear in Room 101. This book and the Party contradicts the whole statement.
Even though they are a threat to our country's freedom, it doesn't mean it's okay for them to be tortured. It's inhumane. In the book, Winston is tortured, but he's basically dead in the inside. "Inner-Winston" is dead and its only remains are an empty shell. After he gets tortured, he has no feelings of his own, no point of view, and no thoughts. He is dead internally.
Even though they are a threat to our country's freedom, it doesn't mean it's okay for them to be tortured. It's inhumane. In the book, Winston is tortured, but he's basically dead in the inside. "Inner-Winston" is dead and its only remains are an empty shell. After he gets tortured, he has no feelings of his own, no point of view, and no thoughts. He is dead internally.
Johannes Harkins - Part 3 - Prompt 5
"People who are a serious threat to the government should be able to held in prison without being charged."
I believe that people who are improsined have a right to fail trial and to have knowledge of the charges pressed against them. The contistution gives everyone the right to a fair trial & to know their charges. However the Patriot Act allows enemy combatants to be held without a charge or a trial, a law that I belive is incredibly uncostitutional and is immoral.
I believe that people who are improsined have a right to fail trial and to have knowledge of the charges pressed against them. The contistution gives everyone the right to a fair trial & to know their charges. However the Patriot Act allows enemy combatants to be held without a charge or a trial, a law that I belive is incredibly uncostitutional and is immoral.
Paige Paulsen "freedom and security II"
I still mostly agree with what I said the first time which was that you can't have freedom without security of that freedom.
The only thing that I would add to that since reading 1984 is that I think you have to have freedom to ensure security. You must have autonomy to know that you are secure. It does depend on what you want security from, if you're looking for security from everything that could threaten the way of life that we enjoy then you do have to make sure that your freedoms are secure because otherwise you won't know their gone and then you have no security from them being taken away. This sounds like a circular argument, but none the less I think you have to have both to ensure either.
The only thing that I would add to that since reading 1984 is that I think you have to have freedom to ensure security. You must have autonomy to know that you are secure. It does depend on what you want security from, if you're looking for security from everything that could threaten the way of life that we enjoy then you do have to make sure that your freedoms are secure because otherwise you won't know their gone and then you have no security from them being taken away. This sounds like a circular argument, but none the less I think you have to have both to ensure either.
Eric Lombardo-Pt. 3 prompt 1
My previous response argued that question 7 (security cameras in public places) was false, and I have not changed my view. So instead I will answer 1. Those who would exchange freedom for security deserve neither.
I would argue against this. It is certainly true that if you give freedom for security, those to whom you gave your rights will most probably use their own new abilities not to make your life safer, but in fact the opposite. As you give rights, the amount of laws and therefore the ability to break them becomes larger. Rendering you possibly safer from your fellow citizens, but not from your own government. Examples of this in real life exist in dictatorships such as Hitler's Germany, or even more so France during the 1790s. The book itself gives us a slightly exaggerated sample in its telescreens and thought police. As panic grew due to wars, tighter measures were taken in Oceania to control big brother's subjects, leading to a society where nobody would really last their entire life without vanishing, as seen in the example of Parsons.
So I believe it is logical to assume that if you give freedom for security you will get neither, but not correct to say that you SHOULD NOT get either. Simply because you have made a foolish act does not mean that you should pay for it; and this is all that giving freedom for security really is: a misguided and probably misinformed or ignorant decision made by a panicking population.
Eric Lombardo
I would argue against this. It is certainly true that if you give freedom for security, those to whom you gave your rights will most probably use their own new abilities not to make your life safer, but in fact the opposite. As you give rights, the amount of laws and therefore the ability to break them becomes larger. Rendering you possibly safer from your fellow citizens, but not from your own government. Examples of this in real life exist in dictatorships such as Hitler's Germany, or even more so France during the 1790s. The book itself gives us a slightly exaggerated sample in its telescreens and thought police. As panic grew due to wars, tighter measures were taken in Oceania to control big brother's subjects, leading to a society where nobody would really last their entire life without vanishing, as seen in the example of Parsons.
So I believe it is logical to assume that if you give freedom for security you will get neither, but not correct to say that you SHOULD NOT get either. Simply because you have made a foolish act does not mean that you should pay for it; and this is all that giving freedom for security really is: a misguided and probably misinformed or ignorant decision made by a panicking population.
Eric Lombardo
Annika part III - to assure our country's freedom, the government should be able to spy on its citizens.
I disagree with this statement after reading the book. In Orwell's 1984, the inner party spies on members of the outer party via devices called telescreens. The purpose of these screens is opposite of 'assuring freedom' as the statement suggests. Instead, the party uses the telescreens to weed out those who oppose them, and therefore denying freedom of expression to all outer party members. Winston's character provides us with a good example of this. In the beginning of the story, Winston lived in constant fear of the monitors of his telescreen, and he could not speak or even move freely in his own home. "Winston kept his back turned to the telescreen. It was safer; though, as he well knew, even a back can be revealing." (3). Nearing the end of Book Two, as Winston is captured, it becomes even more apparent that the surveillance was not designed to promote his freedom. For expressing freedom of choice (by choosing to be with Julia) and freedom of speech (by discussing with her the contents of Goldstein's Book), he and Julia are captured and punished. Surveillance by telescreens was not designed to protect the freedom of those it surveyed.
Any government's goal, as was the goal of the Party, is to increase and maintain its power. So, the government should not be allowed to spy on its citizens as the Party did with the telescreens under the guise of protecting freedom. After a time, it is inevitable that the spying government would cease to uphold the humanitarian purpose it began with, and instead revert to its nature and use its ability to spy to consolidate and increase its power. Inevitably, no matter how noble the original cause, the government's surveillance of the people would gravitate toward the extremem illustrated by the telescreens in 1984.
If the government cannot possibly maintain its claim of 'spying to protect the people's freedoms' it should not be able to claim that it will do so in the first place.
Any government's goal, as was the goal of the Party, is to increase and maintain its power. So, the government should not be allowed to spy on its citizens as the Party did with the telescreens under the guise of protecting freedom. After a time, it is inevitable that the spying government would cease to uphold the humanitarian purpose it began with, and instead revert to its nature and use its ability to spy to consolidate and increase its power. Inevitably, no matter how noble the original cause, the government's surveillance of the people would gravitate toward the extremem illustrated by the telescreens in 1984.
If the government cannot possibly maintain its claim of 'spying to protect the people's freedoms' it should not be able to claim that it will do so in the first place.
Janice Vong
Part III: [My thoughts on my first post didn't change after reading 1984]
"Torture of a person who is a threat to our country's freedom is acceptable as long as the person does not die."
The right to torture a person, whether they are a threat or not, shouldn’t be allowed in any case or within any society. Torture is a string of consistent pain that could result in one’s death. Torture is equal, if not worse, than death.
In 1984, Winston had his fair share of torture when O’Brien interrogated him and “turned up the dial” to increase the amount of pain he received. After many questions and answers, O’Brien suppresses Winston’s contradicting thoughts of the Party so that he would become another one of those brainwashed, Big Brother supporters. By the end of the book, we discover the newly transformed Winston who now, faithfully loves Big Brother. But, he still hopes for the impending bullet to his head because DEEP down, he remains defiant, although free from any form of expression. So, if this was what torture caused him to become, death would have been a better path to take.
Winston was considered a threat to Oceania’s freedom and for that, he had to suffer. Although there was a small possibility for Winston to succeed and overthrow the Party, it would have been more acceptable to see Winston die for his thoughts than to have to witness the horrendous phase of torture that Winston goes through to become someone he never wanted to be.
"Torture of a person who is a threat to our country's freedom is acceptable as long as the person does not die."
The right to torture a person, whether they are a threat or not, shouldn’t be allowed in any case or within any society. Torture is a string of consistent pain that could result in one’s death. Torture is equal, if not worse, than death.
In 1984, Winston had his fair share of torture when O’Brien interrogated him and “turned up the dial” to increase the amount of pain he received. After many questions and answers, O’Brien suppresses Winston’s contradicting thoughts of the Party so that he would become another one of those brainwashed, Big Brother supporters. By the end of the book, we discover the newly transformed Winston who now, faithfully loves Big Brother. But, he still hopes for the impending bullet to his head because DEEP down, he remains defiant, although free from any form of expression. So, if this was what torture caused him to become, death would have been a better path to take.
Winston was considered a threat to Oceania’s freedom and for that, he had to suffer. Although there was a small possibility for Winston to succeed and overthrow the Party, it would have been more acceptable to see Winston die for his thoughts than to have to witness the horrendous phase of torture that Winston goes through to become someone he never wanted to be.
Rachel Lee-- pt. 3
"For an idea to exist, we must have words to express it."
I believe this to be false. Many times people have come up with brilliant ideas but cannot express it in words. Perhaps later on when the idea is "processed" more then the creator can express his or her idea into words. In 1984 many of the ideas that Winston was not expressed until he understood what the party was and what they were doing. Later on during the book Winston finds the words to express his ideas. Because an individual cannot express an idea through words does not mean the idea does not exist.
I believe this to be false. Many times people have come up with brilliant ideas but cannot express it in words. Perhaps later on when the idea is "processed" more then the creator can express his or her idea into words. In 1984 many of the ideas that Winston was not expressed until he understood what the party was and what they were doing. Later on during the book Winston finds the words to express his ideas. Because an individual cannot express an idea through words does not mean the idea does not exist.
Megan Flood- part 3
"For an idea to exist, we must have words to express it."
In my previous responce I said that an idea must be expressed in order for it to exist. My opinion on this subject has changed slightly. Now I think that an idea can exist without being expressed, however in order to express an idea you need words or some form of words. An idea cannot be spread to other people except through words. A picture, or any type of art, has words attached to it, so it can convey ideas. In the book "1984", Winston discusses the idea of "goodthinkful" to Julia. She doesn't understand the meaning of the idea until he explains it with words. The idea of being "goothinkful" existed before the word did however it could not be expressed until the words, or words like it, came into existance. Therefore ideas can exist without being expressed, however words are needed to express them.
In my previous responce I said that an idea must be expressed in order for it to exist. My opinion on this subject has changed slightly. Now I think that an idea can exist without being expressed, however in order to express an idea you need words or some form of words. An idea cannot be spread to other people except through words. A picture, or any type of art, has words attached to it, so it can convey ideas. In the book "1984", Winston discusses the idea of "goodthinkful" to Julia. She doesn't understand the meaning of the idea until he explains it with words. The idea of being "goothinkful" existed before the word did however it could not be expressed until the words, or words like it, came into existance. Therefore ideas can exist without being expressed, however words are needed to express them.
Audrey Musselman-Brown (Part III)
"For an idea to exist, we must have words to express it."
I disagree with this statement. I believe that you can have an idea without words to express it, but it makes it much harder to communicate to others without words. It is possible however. A person can convey emotions or ideas through art, music or dance. A glance or a touch can convey love or hate. It's certainly not as simple as telling someone, but it's not impossible.
The Party in 1984 believes that by eliminating all words that would correspond to revolutionary ideas in Newspeak it can create a society that is one hundred percent obedient. However, in 1984 the Party is constantly arresting and vaporizing people that it feels are possibly dangerous. Dangerous people are described as ones that might have ideas that could ruin the Party. These ideas never occur to the "good" Party members because they are shallow and never have an original idea. The more intelligent Party members think for themselves and come up with ideas that the party does not support or tell them. This proves that the Party's elimination of "bad" words will be unsuccessful. Freedom is a concept that will always exist despite the attempts to quash it.
I disagree with this statement. I believe that you can have an idea without words to express it, but it makes it much harder to communicate to others without words. It is possible however. A person can convey emotions or ideas through art, music or dance. A glance or a touch can convey love or hate. It's certainly not as simple as telling someone, but it's not impossible.
The Party in 1984 believes that by eliminating all words that would correspond to revolutionary ideas in Newspeak it can create a society that is one hundred percent obedient. However, in 1984 the Party is constantly arresting and vaporizing people that it feels are possibly dangerous. Dangerous people are described as ones that might have ideas that could ruin the Party. These ideas never occur to the "good" Party members because they are shallow and never have an original idea. The more intelligent Party members think for themselves and come up with ideas that the party does not support or tell them. This proves that the Party's elimination of "bad" words will be unsuccessful. Freedom is a concept that will always exist despite the attempts to quash it.
Hannah Walhout
"Those who would exchange freedom for security deserve neither."
I disagreed with this statement before reading 1984, and my opinion has not changed about this or any of the others. The society in 1984 is full of people who were willing to exchange their freedom (or illusion of freedom) for the "security" of party life, but we must realize that the situations in Oceania and modern America are not really comparable. In order for 1984 to have swayed my ideas about this statement, the society in the book would have had to be more similar to the society I live in. Since the power structure, class system, and general way of life in the two countries are so dramatically different, the meaning of this statement in the book has no effect on the statement when pertaining to our culture. I believe that, though giving up freedom voluntarily for security may show a lack of priorities, there is no excuse for persecuting someone for this; if they don't have the freedom to give up their freedom, they were never really free in the first place anyway. Everyone has a slightly different belief of what freedom and security include, so a statement like this holds no weight; some people believe that one can't be present without the other, and that would make the statement void.
I disagreed with this statement before reading 1984, and my opinion has not changed about this or any of the others. The society in 1984 is full of people who were willing to exchange their freedom (or illusion of freedom) for the "security" of party life, but we must realize that the situations in Oceania and modern America are not really comparable. In order for 1984 to have swayed my ideas about this statement, the society in the book would have had to be more similar to the society I live in. Since the power structure, class system, and general way of life in the two countries are so dramatically different, the meaning of this statement in the book has no effect on the statement when pertaining to our culture. I believe that, though giving up freedom voluntarily for security may show a lack of priorities, there is no excuse for persecuting someone for this; if they don't have the freedom to give up their freedom, they were never really free in the first place anyway. Everyone has a slightly different belief of what freedom and security include, so a statement like this holds no weight; some people believe that one can't be present without the other, and that would make the statement void.
Alyson Mar - Part 3
"Society would be safer if we had security cameras in public places to catch potential criminals."
In very public places like the streets or malls, it'd be okay to put security cameras. People in public should be aware where they are and shouldn't be doing things they wouldn't do without knowing that. After reading the book, my opinion hasn't changed. But in public places, cameras would work because people like Winston were caught doing things against the government using spies and cameras.
In very public places like the streets or malls, it'd be okay to put security cameras. People in public should be aware where they are and shouldn't be doing things they wouldn't do without knowing that. After reading the book, my opinion hasn't changed. But in public places, cameras would work because people like Winston were caught doing things against the government using spies and cameras.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Keira W. Part 3, Prompt 8 "For an idea to exist, we must have words to express it."
In the book 1984, they had examples how some people would post signs like "DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER" , and show what they expressed about "BIG BROTHER". But in their society anyone caught bashing "Big Brother" was to be put to punishment. In reality, wouldn't you think words speak louder than actions sometimes, and in this situation words mean a big thing to these people in the book. Just the whole concept of not being able to express your personal thoughts, really gets to me, because I couldn't imagine living in a society not being able to say how you feel, without getting punished. The fact of the matter is that everyone's voice should always be heard.
N-Dogg T.
"People who are a serious threat to the government should be able to be held in prison without being charged."
Before reading 1984, I disagreed with this statement. And after reading, my opinion hasn't changed one bit. I feel that people who are a serious threat to the government-in their actual actions, not just in opinion and though-should be imprisoned or controlled in some fashion. But what point is there in holding them without charging them? If they are actually a real threat, then there is something they could be charged with, so we should do so, and if they are not actually a threat, then they won't be able to be charged based on any concrete evidence and should therefore be released. In the world of 1984, Oceania, and The Party, the Party holds people in prison without actually charging them because they have committed thoughtcrime. The Party does this so they can eliminate and change people who are a threat to them merely based on opinion without actually committing a crime they could be charged for, and they also do this to demonstrate their absolute power so people will be frightened by them and submissive to them. It is against the freedom of speech and a citizen's civil rights to prosecute someone just for having bad feelings toward the government, and to hold people in prison without charging them allows the government to do precisely that. To let the government have that kind of power, where what they say goes without any evidence or a fair trial, turns the government into an absolutist and fascist regime, if I am using the AP Euro terms we were "taught" by Mr. Docter correctly. This should not be allowed because it eliminates democracy and a citizen's individual rights.
Johannes Harkins - Part 3 - Prompt 2
"To assure our country's freedom, the government should be able to spy on its citizens."
The right to privacy is a right granted by the United States constitution. The fact that this law was clearly violated and approved by our current president makes me incredulous, given the fact that he came under almost no punishment. However a recently passed act called the "Patriot Act" allows the President to declare anyone an "enemy combatant" meaning that essentially no laws protect them. I think this is ridiculously unconstitutional and should be disregarded when speaking in terms of the prompt. I think that without a warrant, no government official should be able in intrude on the privacy of any citizen protected by the U.D. constitution.
The right to privacy is a right granted by the United States constitution. The fact that this law was clearly violated and approved by our current president makes me incredulous, given the fact that he came under almost no punishment. However a recently passed act called the "Patriot Act" allows the President to declare anyone an "enemy combatant" meaning that essentially no laws protect them. I think this is ridiculously unconstitutional and should be disregarded when speaking in terms of the prompt. I think that without a warrant, no government official should be able in intrude on the privacy of any citizen protected by the U.D. constitution.
Johannes Harkins - Part 3, Prompt 10
"The only way to prepare for peace is to prepare for war"
I am responding to this prompt because the book did not change my views.
I would like to approach this prompt in two different ways: taken out of context and placed in context with our modern world. This statement in and of itself is one that is contradictory. One cannot be peaceful by being prepared for war. It is a conflict of meaning. With the literal idea of peace in mind this prompt is entirely false. However, when taking into account the world we live today, a world of constant conflict, a country that achieved complete peace would not last long. The whole world would have to agree to peace and eliminate all violence, hate and war in all of its forms. This task is impossible. The only way a country or political body could be in a semi-permanent peaceful state would be to prepare for war by having proper defenses and an inactive army.
I am responding to this prompt because the book did not change my views.
I would like to approach this prompt in two different ways: taken out of context and placed in context with our modern world. This statement in and of itself is one that is contradictory. One cannot be peaceful by being prepared for war. It is a conflict of meaning. With the literal idea of peace in mind this prompt is entirely false. However, when taking into account the world we live today, a world of constant conflict, a country that achieved complete peace would not last long. The whole world would have to agree to peace and eliminate all violence, hate and war in all of its forms. This task is impossible. The only way a country or political body could be in a semi-permanent peaceful state would be to prepare for war by having proper defenses and an inactive army.
Jonathon Hirschi: "people who would exchange freedom for security deserve neither"
After reading 1984 and reading this questions, we all get images of Big Brother controlling our lives and the Thought Police eliminating any ideas contradicting the totalitarian rule. However, exchanging our freedoms doesn't need to be this radical and limiting. I think it is first necessary to distinguish natural rights from legal rights. Every day we give up freedoms to be a functioning member of society. By living as a part of American society, we all give up our rights to run around naked and kill people. The freedom to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose. A person's freedoms cannot impede on others'. On the other hand, our legal rights are the rights given to us within society. Some people are willing to give up their right to free speech, or a right to a fair trial so they will feel safer without being exposed to disorderly people. The question is do these people deserve security and liberty. These people disregard the rights that were fought for by people in the past should be ashamed, but it is very harsh to say that they deserve neither. People like this deserve their sense of security and maybe once they get past their paranoia they can learn to appreciate that many freedoms we all live with.
Carly Haeck: "To assure our county's freedom, the government should be able to spy on its citizens."
Yes, spying on citizens would certainly weed out criminals and threats to the government, as we saw in 1984. But the act of spying takes away our country's freedom in itself. Installing telescreens in public places would be acceptable, because people surrender their privacy when going out in public. But to spy on people in their own homes is violating their rights. What constitutes as behavior worth spying on? We read how people living in Oceania were often imprisoned for talking in their sleep about rebelling against the government. Can the government really argue that unconscious babble is grounds for arrest?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)