The problem is that security starts to get very loosely defined. We ban certain unhealthy food products so that you can be secure in knowing that eating fast food won't give you a heart attack.
Some countries ban certain speech in order to mainatin security, because you know words are harmful. The reasoning given is that it may incite violence and threaten security.
Where do you set the line?
There's the rub. Curtailing freedom of speech is more of a morality/political thing. Which I disagree with. Laws on libel/slander provide an easy out for people to attack their opponents. Censorship has more to do with cultural bias (communist, religious, puritan, whatever) than anything else... food product banning is in line with the current religion of the month... which is... "health".
Banning speech that may lead to violence is a band-aid. You can still get into fisticuffs without actually saying any taboo words. In fact, you could die from a text message. Actually, I can't rightly recall any speech banned other than those against the politics, religion or morals of the country in question. Even words like the f* word are not violent in and of themselves, just in the lewdness of their usage. And they're banned not because they incite fighting, but because they're "vulgar". On forums I've been at without the restrictions, we've had less fights than other, more straight-laced places. Use it often enough, and it becomes more like a Canadian "Ey" than an actual word.
While a ban on smoking may have
a little merit (though total bans, considering we breathe automotive exhaust every day, are questionable), since close, non-voluntary exposure to carcinogens isn't very nice... a ban on
anything you
voluntarily put into your body, as a consenting adult (alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, LSD, whatever) doesn't have any basis... it's your body, mess it up any way you like. Proper labelling can be mandated... you have the right to know what goes into your body... but you can't completely ban any kind of food for possible, but marginal, health concerns (fats, sugar) or imaginary ones (non-organics... GMOs).
----
RE: Gun Laws. I'm not in favor of a complete gun ban, but it makes sense for a country to assure its security by making sure that weapons don't end up in the hands of elements that may cause harm to their citizens. Maybe you don't see it that way, but I live in a country with an active guerilla/rebel movement, and while there is no free license to own firearms, the laws are poorly enforced. I've met people who own stuff M16s, AK47s and grenades under their pillows. That's protection from... what? A grenade won't necessarily stop someone from making holes in you. All it does is make bigger holes in other people. Gun crime is rampant here because of poorly enforced gun laws. And private gun owners, despite their considerable number, have never, in recent memory, prevented a gun crime. Only one I can think of is a security guard who took out half-a-dozen bank robbers with a shotgun. On the contrary, a gun gives you the ability to shoot first, ask questions later, and stand trial if it turns out your assailant was actually unarmed (happened last month).
The argument is for more defensive weapons, really, rather than offensive weapons. Those you can use without compunction or fear of legal reprisal. And
if you're going to allow weapons, do it properly, with proper psych profiling.
Which strays from my point... my point was that the existence of a loonatic slashing/stabbing/ramming/shooting/bombing/whatever on the street has nothing to do with gun laws.
----
RE: government: the basic purpose of government is
security. We don't need a government to form communities. Communities are independent of goverment. We don't need a government to grow our own crops, or build our own homes, provide our water or electricity. You can till the soil, erect a hut, dig a well or an irrigation canal and either buy or build a generator or live with home-made candles.
Hell, without taxes, we could do these things even more easily.
But as a village or a community, your land, your produce and your properties need to be defended against those who would deprive you of them. To do the defense yourself would require an investment of time, money and manpower that could be better used to increase your wealth. That's where government comes in. By paying taxes, you assure yourself of security against being invaded by a community or group bigger than yours. It's mafia-style protection money, actually... but done legitimately.
In a utopian world, we wouldn't have big government. We would all exist co-dependently in our little towns, exchanging e-mails, information, new discoveries, etcetera, and living self-sufficiently without anyone poking their noses in our business. But this ain't no utopia. There are criminals, gangs, guerilla groups, militias, and entire countries devoted to taking what's yours and making it theirs. Even if you're armed to the teeth, if you're outnumbered, you're outnumbered.
Which means, unfortunately, that government is a necessary evil. Taxes go to your government's military and police, who are charged with protecting you, because you're paying their wages.
You're also paying for subsidized public utility (depending on the government... thank Dog we're privatized now) and social programs (whose purpose is to
try to turn useless members of society into productive members... though it doesn't quite always work that way) and for a bureaucratic hierarchy that reaches from the dirt to the high heavens (the curse of any growing organization...). Government sucks, but what's the alternative? I don't advocate an "every man for himself" attitude. It's just that if government fails, that's what society becomes... anarchy.
And I'd probably stand about as good a chance of holding off a foreign invasion as Urkle would of getting a spot on the Lakers.
But then, in such a police state, detainment of civilians is usually more for the protection of the state itself rather than the protection of the populace. In other words, such detentions are often more politically motivated than directly linked to direct threats to the citizenry.
