Post

New old new new york wrote:

Schiratian C., is there an upper limit, then, on how much government should order our lives? In order to protect us from terrorism, for instance, is the government justified in monitoring every move I make (and that of every other citizen and inhabitant of the country)? If yes, what if I break a smallish crime like jaywalking? or (in most of the US) a less smallish crime like buying and smoking a joint? Is the government justified in using the monitoring information it has on me to prosecute small crimes or even crimes that could land me in jail? If you say no, then where do you draw the line? And if you do say no, what about murder, armed robbery, and the rest? Wouldn't we want the government to protect us from hardened criminals as well as terrorists? It seems very mushy to me.

i guess i don't have a realistic answer to this. or maybe any kind of answer.

i personally do not believe that government should 'order our lives'. i expect the government to take the role as a teacher. if people wants safety from crimes such as terrorism, spying us and monitoring every inch of our movements, ie using surveillance, is not justifiable. the government can prevent the idea of terrorism to develop in its people's mind in the first place, through education. the government should teach its people how to foster a healthy kind of freedom, the one that liberates their mind and at the same time doesn't harm others.

what makes it unrealistic is that not everyone will respond the same way to education. people have their own minds. if they depend too much on education to ensure safety, it could lead to indoctrination, which i don't think is good. and i did not consider the possibility (or fact) that there are individuals who are not capable of conscience and remorse, and who gains pleasure from killing people and blowing up buildings.

and, can i know your answer to your own question?