If one life is saved it's worth it...

@Taskr36 (13874)
United States
April 2, 2012 9:53am CST
What do you think of this statement? I hear it a lot when it comes to big government, and infringing on our constitutional rights. People say it's ok for police to set up DUI checkpoints where they stop and detain drivers, without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, and force them to submit to breathalizers and other tests to prove they aren't drunk. The fact that less than 1% of the people harassed by police in this way have alcohol in their blood is irrelevant to supporters. They believe that the idea that it might save a single life is worth it. People also say it's ok for TSA officers to molest innocent people, including children, the elderly, the disabled, and everyone in between. The fact that TSA hasn't caught a single terrorist is irrelevant. They believe that the hope that it might save a life is worth it. There are many other examples, like Obamacare, where people have been willing to give up their rights in the hopes that a life can be saved, but I don't want this thread to be too long. So at what point do we stop using this excuse? At what point do we say that all the lives sacrificed to give us these rights trump the HOPE that such constitutional violations will somehow make us safer?
2 people like this
5 responses
@Rollo1 (16753)
• Boston, Massachusetts
3 Apr 12
When the government wants to expands its powers beyond Constitutional limits, it is always sold as for our own security and safety. And it always begins with something that most people will be in favor of - like stopping drunk drivers. So it seems innocuous enough, just a checkpoint where they randomly stop people to prevent drunks from driving and killing people. But this is never where it stops. Once you have established the right of the police to stop anyone without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, there will be no limit to the number of things the police might decide they are looking for. One day we will all be stopped to check our "papers". I think that this is a direct violation of the fourth amendment. It is time people stop worrying about being "safe" today and look towards securing basic liberty for themselves and future generations. The very fabric of our nation's freedom is being shredded and torn - only at the edges for now but what will be left of it if we allow this to continue.
@debrakcarey (19925)
• United States
6 Apr 12
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
@mensab (4208)
• Philippines
2 Apr 12
well, we have already surrendered our privacy when we board airplanes and provide governments with personal data. but the issue on the road is quite unique. it is a public space where everyone has free access to and use. police interference without due cause to this access and use of the public roads seem to be an infringement of rights to these public spaces. if it is for the security of the people using the public spaces, then it is understandable.
@Taskr36 (13874)
• United States
2 Apr 12
Giving the airlines private information isn't the same as sacrificing your 4th amendment rights. My credit card number is private, but I gladly give that private information to any number of businesses that I purchase goods from. I'm referring to the molestation that the TSA is responsible for where the agents touch and grope people's genitalia with absolutely no reasonable suspicion whatsoever that anyone they are groping has or will commit a crime. You may think it's understandable to violate the 4th amendment to keep people safe on the road, but think about this. In the entire state of New Jersey last year there were 149 deaths in drunk driving accidents. In the city of Camden, NJ alone there were 49 murders. There are about 9 million people in the state of New Jersey yet only 80,000 in Camden. If 149 deaths out of 9 million people is enough to violate the 4th amendment rights on people just driving their cars, does 49 murders out of 80,000 people give police the right to just start detaining and searching everyone they see just walking down the street in Camden, NJ?
@dragon54u (28376)
• United States
2 Apr 12
Saving one life isn't worth giving up the civil liberties of an entire nation. Even if it was my own child that might have his life taken I would not agree with the "one life" rationale because his life would not be lived freely. We are condemning our children to a life of negative liberties and in years to come some of them will ask us why we let it happen. Rather than letting the government take charge, we should take charge of our own lives. If we would call when we see a drunk driver, and everyone would do it every time, many drunks might stay off the road and drink at home. Or we can just choose to stay home during times that high numbers of drunks are on the road--that's what I do. That takes it out of gov't hands. We can choose to be observant and toss out the PC restraints and act on anything that looks suspicious. Apologies are always better than being blown up and the TSA has let hundreds of weapons make it to the passenger cabins of aircraft. Sacrifice our liberties for one life? Not worth it, sorry, even if it was my own or someone I love. I'd rather live with dignity and freedom than kowtow to a government that oppresses us in the name of safety.
@debrakcarey (19925)
• United States
5 Apr 12
Not only has the TSA not caught one terrorist, they've missed a few because of the 'profiling' issue, like the 'underware bomber'?
@Runite (307)
• United States
6 Apr 12
More people die of lighting strikes than terrorism, why are they using 9/11 as a tool to infringe our rights?
@dazzledlady (1627)
• Philippines
3 Apr 12
One life saved is worth it. Well , ideally it is better than not saving anyone. The motto shows how dedicated our public servants are. But yes wIth such power given to them sometimes they abuse it and become the bad guy instead of being the good one.