Timmy ElsewhereJuly 1, 2008 Tim WorstallTimmy Elsewhere4 CommentsSpeccie Trading liberty for security and what councils want to do. previousAny Farsi Speakers Out There?nextWhaaaaaat? 4 thoughts on “Timmy Elsewhere” Vindico July 1, 2008 at 4:24 pm Good article on liberty/security trade off. I would say that Vindico July 1, 2008 at 4:26 pm Good article on liberty/security trade off. I would say that less than 10yrs would constitute a ‘temporary’ trade off to deal with a specific and immediate terrorist threat. Anything beyond 10 years really represents a permanent shift in the liberty/security balance, and any threat lasting for so long is not really temporary. So we then have a choice to either keep the new balance indefinitely or keep our liberties and live with the increased threat, taking our chances. I would, of course, choose the latter option. Mr Potarto July 1, 2008 at 5:39 pm Surely all laws that restrict liberty to help reduce terrorism should come with a sunset clause. That would force parliament to revisit them every few years. The Great Simpleton July 1, 2008 at 10:13 pm All my life the doom mongers have used 30 years as their time horizon: in the late 60’s and 70’s oil and food would run out in “30 years”, global warming will strike in “30 years”. The problem is this is far enough away for politicians to justify whatever measures they deem necessary to to tackle the problem without worrying about being around to account for the unintended consequences. So, to this idea I say no. There should be no loss of liberty that doesn’t have a sunset clause that expires at the end of each parliament. Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.