Political Compass #39: Our civil liberties are being curbed excessively.

Great Debates
1

Many political debates here have included references to The Political Compass, which uses a set of 61 questions to assess one’s political orientation in terms of economic left/right and social libertarianism/authoritarianism (rather like the “Libertarian diamond” popular in the US).

And so, every so often I will begin a thread in which the premise for debate is one of the 61 questions. I will give which answer I chose and provide my justification and reasoning. Others are, of course, invited to do the same including those who wish to “question the question”, as it were.

It would also be useful when posting in these threads to give your own “compass reading” in your first post, by convention giving the Economic value first. My own is
SentientMeat: Economic: -5.12, Social: -7.28, and so by the above convention my co-ordinates are (-5.12, -7.28). Please also indicate which option you ticked. I might suggest what I think is the “weighting” given to the various answers in terms of calculating the final orientation, but seeing for yourself what kind of answers are given by those with a certain score might be more useful than second-guessing the test’s scoring system.

Now, I appreciate that there is often dissent regarding whether the assessment the test provides is valid, notably by US conservative posters, either because it is “left-biased” (??) or because some propositions are clearly slanted, ambiguous or self-contradictory. The site itself provides answers to these and other Frequently Asked Questions, and there is also a separate thread: Does The Political Compass give an accurate reading? [size=2]Read these first and then, if you have an objection to the test in general, please post it there. If your objection is solely to the proposition in hand, post here. If your objection is to other propositions, please wait until I open a thread on them. (And for heaven’s sake, please don’t quote this entire Opening Post when replying like this sufferer of bandwidth diarrhea.)

The above will be pasted in every new thread in order to introduce it properly, and I’ll try to let each one exhaust itself of useful input before starting the next. Without wanting to “hog the idea”, I would be grateful if others could refrain from starting similar threads.

Finally, I advise you to read the full proposition below rather than just the thread title (which is necessarily abbreviated) and request that you debate my entire OP rather than simply respond, “IMHO”-like, to the proposition itself. To date, the threads are:

Does The Political Compass give an accurate reading?
Political Compass #1: Globalisation, Humanity and OmniCorp.
#2: My country, right or wrong
#3: Pride in one’s country is foolish.
#4: Superior racial qualities.
#5: My enemy’s enemy is my friend.
#6: Justifying illegal military action.
#7: “Info-tainment” is a worrying trend.
#8: Class division vs. international division. (+ SentientMeat’s economic worldview)
#9: Inflation vs. unemployment.
#10: Corporate respect of the environment.
#11: From each according to his ability, to each according to need.
#12: Sad reflections in branded drinking water.
#13: Land should not be bought and sold.
#14: Many personal fortunes contribute nothing to society.
#15: Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade.
#16: Shareholder profit is a company’s only responsibility.
#17: The rich are too highly taxed.
#18: Better healthcare for those who can pay for it.
#19: Penalising businesses which mislead the public.
#20: The freer the market, the freer the people.
#21: Abortion should be illegal.
#22: All authority must be questioned.
#23: An eye for an eye.
#24: Taxpayers should not prop up theatres or museums.
#25: Schools shouldn’t make attendance compulsory.
#26: Different kinds of people should keep to their own.
#27: Good parents sometimes have to spank their children.
#28: It’s natural for children to keep secrets.
#29: Marijuana should be legalised.
#30: School’s prime function is equipping kids to find jobs.
#31: Seriously disabled people should not reproduce.
#32: Learning discipline is the most important thing.
#33: ‘Savage peoples’ vs. ‘different culture’
#34: Society should not support those who refuse to work.
#35: Keep cheerfully busy when troubled.
#36: First generation immigrants can never be fully integrated.
#37: What’s good for corporations is always good for everyone.
#38: No broadcasting institution should receive public funding.
[/size]
**Proposition #39: Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism.

SentientMeat** (-5.12, -7.28) ticks Agree.
In 1971, the UK suffered something called “terrorism”: the deliberate promotion of terror in a civilian population for political purposes. These were serious and horrific crimes, necessitating rigorous investigation to find and punish the perpetrators in order to deter and prevent similar atrocities in future.

But the UK went further than this. It began to consider “terrorist” crimes as being so bad, so horrific compared to other crimes, that it changed the rules regarding what happened to those who were even suspected of them, but not yet convicted. If you were arrested in connection with other criminal activity, you would be released after a given period (say, 48 hours) if there was not considered to be enough evidence to justify a trial. However, if you were arrested in connection with this new category called “terrorist” activity, you could be imprisoned indefinitely with no recourse to due legal process. This policy was called internment.

The history of internment is not a successful one. Habeas corpus is a fundamental protector of liberty, a guarantee against torture and arbitrary confinement. (Indeed, if we are to be against terror, we must not enact terror’s very own laws.)

The entire basis of law in our respective democracies is dependent upon innocence until proven guilt and yet we are now punishing suspects, by imprisoning them (for months and even years), interrogating them via illegal methods, invasively surveilling them or denying them freedom of movement, who turn out to be completely innocent (and heaven help you if you are not in our country but merely in our power).

Let us not be drawn into the fallacies of “no smoke without fire” or “but my skin is pink!” - it would be child’s play for a genuine criminal to deflect suspicion onto you when you have done nothing. Anyone can be suspected of a crime. Be it by unwarranted imprisonment, house search, denial of ingress/egress from our own country or dubious interrogation practices, let us not allow our governments to punish us before being tried by our peers.

2

What’s the proposition SM?
“Proposition #39: Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism.”
or merely
“Political Compass #39: Our civil liberties are being curbed excessively.”

…there’s also something wrong with your numbering – where’s the broadcasting proposition?
7.15, -1.15. Disagree.
There’re numerous ways in which I think my civil liberties are being curbed excessively – just not on account of counter-terrorism. But we also don’t have any terror legislation like that in the OP.

3

Rune, I advise you to read the small print again.

The thread title window is only a certain number of characters long: I must simply do my best to capture the essence of the proposition therein.

#38, the one we’ve just done (??). If you mean that the numbers are one out now, it is because the writers have added another proposition (at around #29) since the start of this series. I was going to address it as #62 but I can do it next if you preferred.

4

Ok, I guess I just haven’t gotten my coffee yet or something. Though I find it somewhat striking this focus on precisely counter-terrorism – like there’s something inherently worse in civil liberties being curbed in that instead of the myriad of other names civil liberties are daily being curbed in. Actually I think it goes to show the propositions are left-biased.

5

I think it helps to have so specific a context: I feel it allows greater scope for disagreement between reasonable, non-extreme people (such as you and I): Indeed, if the actual proposition was as broad as the title here we would effectivelly be being asked where we would like to be placed on the vertical axis, which is rather less useful a test IMO. As for this:

…John showed convincingly that there wasn’t a vertical bias to the way in which the propositions were slanted, and a very slight (0.3 or so) bias to the left economically. If you mean the test is biased because it concentrates on issues important to “the left”, then those on the right simply tick Disagree, as you have done. I fail to see the problem, since other propositions do the same in the opposite directions.

6

A bit left on social; a tiny bit left on economic

Disagree. "Civil Rights’ has never been the watchword by which I live my life, save it is combined with civil responsibilities and obligations. Call me a dreamer, but I don’t believe the “state” is really equipped to delve into my personal life, even if it were interested. Keep checks and balances on our institutions is the key (as SM being another Popper fan will know), never relax our vigilance, and then there is room for laws/societal bodies that intrude a bit into the individual’s life for the good of the common wealth.

7

I almost never agree with SentientMeat when it comes to politics, but for this question I think he’s right on.

Agree.

8

The key work here is ‘excessively’. I’d have to disagree that our civil liberties are being curbed ‘excessively’…well, more ‘excessively’ than normal of course. I think that the US has been curbing our civil liberties excessively for years now, but thats another story.

So, XT checks ‘disagree’.

-XT

9

+7/-3 Agree.

The idea that a US citizen can be held as an “enemy combatant” without being formally charged with a crime is “excessive”. Granted, it has only happened 2 or 3 times, but that number should be 0.

10

To those who disagree, might I ask to what extent habeas corpus and freedom of movement would have to be eroded for you to change your mind? It is true that only a few hundred UUS/UK citizens have yet fallen foul of the first, but thousands of people have been vastly inconvenienced at airports, in some cases losing their jobs because they “just didn’t look right” and were not allowed ingress or egress for months. Crucially, this is without any justification or apology: they can do this arbitrarily.

11

Economic Left/Right: -4.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.92

Strongly agree. Even causing undue inconvenience to a single person is not acceptable in my book.

12

Strongly agree. Big Brother can find out what books you check out of the library and what internet sites you visit. Little old ladies are getting padded down before boarding airplanes. Last I heard, al Qaeda was not using 80 year old American women for suicide bombing missions. In the name of security, people have been arrested at presidential campaign rallies merely for expressing support for the opposing candidate. The Patriot Act goes way too far and must be corrected.

13

Much as I agree with your sentiments, Bob, it is entirely reasonable to perform these particular checks on anybody. Indeed, it is the deliberate targetting of people with olive skin or non-European surnames for far more intrusive, inconvenient and essentially punitive measures that make the Patriot Act so unconstitutional.

14

In theory, yes it is democratic to pad down anybody. But I’ve seen old folks who could barely walk get the treatment. Sure, pass them through a metal detector. Sniff for explosives in their wheelchairs. I’m just looking for some common sense here- does anybody really think that the elderly are likely terrorists? If not, then either pad down everybody or use some more discretion and common sense before doing so.

15

Unwittingly, yes, especially if their mental faculties were not what they once were - it wouldn’t be too hard for a terrorist to surreptitiously shove something into grandma’s pocket.

16

Disagree.

The first thing that comes to mind reading the statement is the Patriot Act. I’ve read the act and read many threads discussing it on the SDMB and elsewhere. Most of the fears people have of it are simply not based in reality. There is a lot of exageration and unjustified fear of the act that is not deserved.

17

Cite?

What thousands of people have been vastly inconvenienced? Are you talking about simple security screening that passengers go through? Who is not being allowed ingress or egress for months? Finally, how can you possibly say that new security measures are without any justification?

18

The film Unconstitutional presented several cases of arbitrary denial of movement and incarceration without any justification provided, and noted that several thousand people had already at least missed flights at the whim of the authorities. This was not due to simple search procedures - they are perfectly justified. What we have here is legislation justifying arbitrary confinement or denial of movement.

19

That may be so, indeed it is to some extent what we are debating here (ie. whether the PA is “excessive” or not). I would merely point out that there are even groups of Republicans who disagree. Journalists, artists,
students, all kinds of people have been vastly inconvenienced, to the extent that free movement is becoming a privilege rather than a right. You might consider that the consequences of the Border Act and other parts of the Patriot Act are justified. I am first establishing precisely what those consequences are.

20

I just don’t see the huge threat to our civil liberties if a small percentage of people are missing flights because of security concerns.

I disagree that “denial of movement” is taking place on any meaningful scale. If you aren’t allowed to fly, then take a bus or a later flight. There is no denial of movement that I am concerned about.

I read your cites. They seem to be meaningless whining IMO. The reporter who was denied entry was without a press visa. Her story admits that only a dozen reporters have been denied entry due to this.

The artist link complains about artists being denied entry because of problems with thier visas. This is unavoidable. If the feds want to tighten up the visa requirements for entry, then all kinds of people will be affected including terrorists and artists.

The student link is the same. It complains that the Patriot Act is a “hassle”. Yep, it sure is. And rightly so. There’s simply no way to tighten up border security without inconveniencing a few artists and college students.

Any reasonable person would agree that in a post 9/11 world it just makes sense to tighten up border security and start enforcing our visa laws more strictly. This has the unavoidable result of inconveniencing some people. It’s a price that we’re willing to pay.