> putting a lock on the door only implies that some people out there are
> burglars.
Are you saying that
the lock implies that "only some" are burglars?
Yes.
Because what it implies to me
is that they think *I'm* a burglar -- otherwise why impose it on me?
Well, isn't that obvious? They don't know you (and they have to have a
general policy).
Likewise airport security: I'm not a terrorist, so why search me?
Let's be clear: I'm not arguing *for* either copy-protection or the
non-profiled searching they do at airports (which is absurd). I'm just
saying that when Joe is searched, it isn't because they, in some insulting
way, think Joe is a terrorist (I wish they did go by some kind of profiling
evidence).
All
of this is accusation and coercion, often backed by the robotic stupidity of
police power, without even remotely probable cause. Hey, freedom has risks!
I agree with you.
I
subscribe to Ben Franklin's view: "They that can give up essential liberty to
obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
(Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759)
Hear, hear.
Harry Binswanger
hb@xxxxxxxx