Home/personal security vs. national security/immigration - A philosophical discussion
About a year ago, I met a man who had just moved in with a female friend down the street. The man had served his jail time, but was on a sexual predator list. Some neighbors tried to fundraise throughout our neighborhood to build a community play set, with the explicit intent to force this man to move out (because he would have been in violation of sexual predator laws). Without my money, the play set was built, and the man moved out.
Since then, I have thought a lot about a) the presumption of innocence, b) whether that presumption should apply to people outside my country, especially when such people are from countries for which background checks are of questionable veracity, c) what the philosophical basis (or bases) is for the presumption of innocence are.
If someone moves to my neighborhood, does that constitute an actionable threat? I think not, but I am willing to listen to the counterarguments.
What if a stranger sits in his car in the street in front of my house? What if that stranger parks in my driveway or knocks on the front door? Think about how you react when you hear your doorbell when you are not expecting visitors.
What do you do for your personal and home security? Do you own a gun (or guns)? Do you have a dog that would be considered threatening to people who ring your doorbell? Do you have a home security system? Can you hit an alarm button manually? Is that alarm very loud or silent?
Now consider people coming to your country. How much does it matter whether or not the visitor's past is verifiable? Is it reasonable to let that person in without interviewing that person carefully?
Does a person's philosophy (or faith?) matter? Especially if a person's faith says that it is OK to lie to infidels in order to accomplish larger objectives? Can persons of faith be reasoned with?
On the other hand, is it worthwhile interacting with non-Objectivists with the hope that such people might eventually change? Should such situations be viewed as opportunities, threats, both, or neither?
Just checking my premises...
Since then, I have thought a lot about a) the presumption of innocence, b) whether that presumption should apply to people outside my country, especially when such people are from countries for which background checks are of questionable veracity, c) what the philosophical basis (or bases) is for the presumption of innocence are.
If someone moves to my neighborhood, does that constitute an actionable threat? I think not, but I am willing to listen to the counterarguments.
What if a stranger sits in his car in the street in front of my house? What if that stranger parks in my driveway or knocks on the front door? Think about how you react when you hear your doorbell when you are not expecting visitors.
What do you do for your personal and home security? Do you own a gun (or guns)? Do you have a dog that would be considered threatening to people who ring your doorbell? Do you have a home security system? Can you hit an alarm button manually? Is that alarm very loud or silent?
Now consider people coming to your country. How much does it matter whether or not the visitor's past is verifiable? Is it reasonable to let that person in without interviewing that person carefully?
Does a person's philosophy (or faith?) matter? Especially if a person's faith says that it is OK to lie to infidels in order to accomplish larger objectives? Can persons of faith be reasoned with?
On the other hand, is it worthwhile interacting with non-Objectivists with the hope that such people might eventually change? Should such situations be viewed as opportunities, threats, both, or neither?
Just checking my premises...
