TheeVagabond
Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2010
- Messages
- 5
Hello, I'm new to the message boards.
I listened to a discussion from my friend the other day, he has a new Poli-Sci teacher that is from Israel. Apparently his teacher got really heated with a few younger students who just aimlessly stated they didn't want a police state and that cameras in the streets are a horrible idea. Que the usual arguments about a corrupt government one day using them, civil liberties infringements, etc. Que his and his teacher's argument that as long as "insert tragic event" happened, mass hysteria and surveillance is important. He's convinced terrorism will happened here again. He also went on a tangent of how we cannot be corrupt cause we have a democracy where we can elect the best and impeach the inept, if people would just turn out to vote.
I have a very limited government view, closest thing you can imagine from American inception, and that's probably it. I don't really look for a name in it. I'd made my best effort to bring in a different viewpoint like...
"We're not Israel!" and on his case of democracy, I made the point that there would be no need of security cameras if we had no issues with the second amendment and the type of volunteerism to protect our communities that would be required to have positive elections. I tried a little debating over it, but I felt like I ran every time into emotional sensationalism of "people died!"
I work at a military test center, I see with my own eyes, the dollar bills and expenditures, and the non-sense of our over militarized culture, I was a US Marine a time ago and I can just sense something wrong. I just wish I could aptly defend it more, any suggestions on that debate I ran into?
I listened to a discussion from my friend the other day, he has a new Poli-Sci teacher that is from Israel. Apparently his teacher got really heated with a few younger students who just aimlessly stated they didn't want a police state and that cameras in the streets are a horrible idea. Que the usual arguments about a corrupt government one day using them, civil liberties infringements, etc. Que his and his teacher's argument that as long as "insert tragic event" happened, mass hysteria and surveillance is important. He's convinced terrorism will happened here again. He also went on a tangent of how we cannot be corrupt cause we have a democracy where we can elect the best and impeach the inept, if people would just turn out to vote.
I have a very limited government view, closest thing you can imagine from American inception, and that's probably it. I don't really look for a name in it. I'd made my best effort to bring in a different viewpoint like...
"We're not Israel!" and on his case of democracy, I made the point that there would be no need of security cameras if we had no issues with the second amendment and the type of volunteerism to protect our communities that would be required to have positive elections. I tried a little debating over it, but I felt like I ran every time into emotional sensationalism of "people died!"
I work at a military test center, I see with my own eyes, the dollar bills and expenditures, and the non-sense of our over militarized culture, I was a US Marine a time ago and I can just sense something wrong. I just wish I could aptly defend it more, any suggestions on that debate I ran into?
