Forums

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Yes, I do disagree. Your argument is an odd form of utiliatarianism. You believe that government surveillance of people is good, because it can thwart terrorist activity. The value of detecting or deterring such activity is greater than the harm to the privacy* of those being surveilled, as well as the perceived threat to privacy suffered by all others.

Yet, for some reason the same argument does not apply within the United States. Here, the value of detecting terrorism is outweighed by the privacy interests of the citizens.

Let me sharpen the point: If torture is a legitimate means to obtain information from people, why is it legitimate against foreigners, but not U.S. citizens?

Or, in a different way, if markets are the best way to protect democracy in the U.S., should we not be able to assume the same in foreign countries?




*I'm using the term "privacy" here in the narrow sense, and shorthand for, protection from search, seizure, and other government surveillance without some articulable suspicion.

The most simple answer to all this is the government of the United States is there to serve US citizens, not to serve foreign nationals or other nations. The US government exists to what is best for us.