@Chaeris If a terrorist kills you, you have no free will. All of America/Australia/Europe/etc. would have thousands of deaths, and any of us could be next.
WE might have no free will then, but the terrorist could have some, and they are humans too, they just have different point of views.. It's bad they spread their point of view this way, but if that were their will, and if their will would be free, then, as humans that are profiting to the free will, they could do, and it would be libery for them... Wich is good for them, not for us, right...
Why don't they just blow up someone in their own country then? The aim of Airport Security is to ensure that as many people as possible retain their free will. Letting a terrorist through removes a large number of people's free will, including his own (because he dies after that)
Ok, we haven't the same definition of FREE will.... First of all: We can't GIVE you a liberty, because to GIVE you something, you musn't have it already, and basically, a monkey in the forest have all rights, if he kills someone, he does! So we are in a "blacklist" system about laws (wich is better, it means more liberty), so we tell you what NOT to do, and we don't tell you what you can do, you can basically do everything that laws didn't refuse! If you start with that, when I mean terrorists having free will, I mean the terrorists to have no blacklist system nor whitelist one, you get me here ? Then the can do everything, including killing people, and it is their free will, so if we remove the free will of people, and we tell to people: "Hey you can still do that", then you have removed a liberty, and it begin weirdly to look a bad governement right ? But someone has proved that, no matter how many people there would be, if we give to everyone the permission to do everything, then at the end of the story, there would only stay ONE person... So, we must limitate free will, to limitate the deaths, here you are right... Does it worth it ? I mean, the only human left, does his free will worth to kill everyone ? Even when you're not good in math, you can count how it's BAD! So, to explain the clearest possible: Free will is every liberties, but there can't be more than one person having free will, then we limitate it to have more than one people having some of the liberties. Are TSA scanners truly worthless ? The less liberties we have, the more humans there are, if you count how many life it can "save" (even if those life aren't gone, so it is abstract, but you can still represent it to you I hope), then you will approve TSA scanners, unless you want to participate somehow to have more death, wich is possible.
I had a bit of trouble understanding that because I'm a semi-idiot, but imo, we don't want maximum free will. We want as much as possible, but not the full deal, to prevent anything going wrong.
I think that you are both in agreement about complete freedom (anarchy) and its obvious flaws. The real question here is not whether or not we have free will but whether those limitations on our natural freedoms are in our best interests, whether they are effective in the first place and whether the sacrifice of freedom for security is worth it. As to the first, whether the TSA, the PATRIOT ACT and other similar 'protections' are in our best interests, I would say that they are. We were scared after 911, our politicians were scared, and everyone wanted protections against future such attacks. The PATRIOT ACT went through Congress faster than almost any legislation before it. That some loopholes and opportunities for corruption exist is more due to speed than conspiracy. As to whether they are effective or not, the answer is a resounding no. The TSA is great at catching people taking nail clippers and hairspray onto airplanes, but if a terrorist wanted to hijack a plane all they would have to do is throw on a blue uniform and a cap and walk around the fence. People have gotten lost and found themselves on runways of major airports. The PATRIOT ACT has succeeded in evicting homeless people from subway benches and stopping minor, poorly planned terrorist operations conducted via domestic chat rooms, but trained soldiers don't communicate on online chat rooms. Almost all terrorist attacks are perpetrated by insane disgruntled American citizens anyway, and they often use almost untraceable measures. Most terrorists caught since 911 on American soil have could have been caught without the PATRIOT ACT. If a measure sacrifices our freedom but does not produce effective results, then that measure is not worthwhile. (yeah I know I should cite sources for all of that, but oh well)
