what are the  trading limits on rights and freedom for increased security?
79570
There should be a good balance between freedom and security and most times in america's history we have tried to do that. Now there seems to be more security and less freedom.  We have to have a balnce and i don't know what it is going to be but i hope there is one soon, for all our sakes.
532552
I agree that we should not be afraid to buy products from other countries.  If all the countries of the world participated in free markets and allowed their citizens basic freedoms, poverty would be greatly reduced.
111405
Let's not be naive, what is right or legal will not stop those with power from learning what they want to know. Our technological advances in the field of communications have presented an irresistible opportunity for those with power to abuse our rights. Our only hope for the future is that these powers are somewhat benevolent torward us. The only place you can know,... really know, that you have privacy, is the thoughts in your head.
485935
I'm not aware of any limits.  You can buy or sell as many as you want.  In some developed markets if you buy more than approx 30% of the stock you can be forced to make an offer for the remaining 70%.
23409
Very doubtful today, what with the Patriot act, Homeland Security, Governments fear of new and alternative life styles, things, and people striving for need or greed in general everyday life. If we tried to be Utopian, Washington would shut us down. I know, I know I am a paranoid, but look around your world.
154424
I think there is a balance but Bush has overstepped that in favior of taking away our right to privacy in the name of the war on terror. Terrorism does exist however I think that if we give up rights then the terroist have won. We need to stick to the things in our constitution that made our country free and great.
930618
ROBBED.\n\nYou can no longer go anywhere on public transportation without the government knowing where you went. That is just one more way of tracking our movements. \nIF a government was intending to crack down on its citizens the first thing it must do is know who is communicating with whom. They can do that now with the travel information and they have finally admitted there were wire taps and email monitoring WITHOUT court permission. This is how it starts and once a government gets a taste of the power of controlling its people it will never go back to total freedom.\nSoon they will try to convince us not to use cash, but to do everything with electronic cards.  WHY? Because that way they can know where your money is. You can't mount a rebellion against a corrupt and oppressive government without money. AND you can be locked up and never see a judge or lawyer if the the government declares you are an enemy of the country.....
829991
Thanks for bringing up this important issue.\nMost of the things you mentioned have beneficial uses.  The danger if they are misused.  I think the Bush administration has demonstrated how our rights can be undermined.  They are talking of retaining the prisoners in Cuba for the rest of their lives, without charges or benefit of legal defense.\nThe only way to protect our rights is to participate in the process of government.  I hope anyone who reads this is ready to defend liberty with their vote on the 7th.
708503
Well, our "freedoms" in this country are diminishing quickly.   I think the right to vote, the right to bear arms (I am a liberal but I think bearing arms is important), protection from false arrest, and the right to freedom of speech are the most important.
56502
It's not the values you choose..  IT's the priority of the values you have.  \n\nThe current hot button item in the news is freedom vs. security.  Which do you value more?  Patrick Henry said, "Give me freedom or give me death"  George Bush says, "Give me your freedom so that I can protect you."
631754
If we allow the government to alter the constitution to protect us from the terrorist then the terrorist have one, they have accomplished what they have set out to do and that is to alter our live to live in terror that it might happen again. So I do not think the government has a right to take away my right to privacy in the name of fighting terror.
839907
Relax pal. I come from the X-Soviet Union. You are not loosing any liberties. When it does become too "secure" people usually vote it out in this country. And that is why I prefer to live here, and not there.
1102225
Anyone can trade on financial markets (unless there are sanctions on a country that disallow the right).
742951
None.  I don't want BIG government controlling my life - or my kid's lives - laying claim on them for any period of time.  "Mandatory" and "Freedom" do not generally mesh well together.
901498
The banning of anything is tyranny. When governments have the say about what their people can and cannot do , think or not think,or limits their choices and options   it violates basic human rights.\n\nPeople should never be afraid of their governments, Governments should always be afraid of the people....Voltaire
1054908
How sad when people use terms they have absolutely no idea about.\n\nAirport security is not 'ludicrous', hell, it is barely even adequate.\n\nOnly phone calls with foreign numbers identified or suspected of being terrorist are listened to. Others get warrants for wiretapping. \n\nThe 1st amendment does not include publishing national security secrets.\n\nBut let me tell you about statism.\nThe government has been savaging the Constitution and Bill of Rights for the past century. And I'm talking real abuses, not these imaginary ones you listed.
1041317
Foreign equity ownership restrictions are restrictions on the amount of ownership, which is called equity in companies, which non-citizens of a country are allowed to own or control.\n\nThese restrictions are put into place in order to both encourage local ownership and control of certain businesses and industries and at the same time to prevent that control slipping into the hands of foreigners.\n\nSometimes the reasons are entirely political.  For example recently a Dubai company wanted to buy the major company that operates shipping ports.  And, while there is no restriction on that in the United States.  The politicians got very fearful that control of the ports by a foreign firm would make it easier for terrorists to get in.  So they made a big uproar and the Dubai company backed out of the deal.\n\nIn Brazil for example the powerful families that control the country's sugar supply may put pressure on the government to prevent foreign ownership of more than 40% of the equity in sugar companies.  This allows them to sell 40% at a high price to foreign investors, and at the same time keep local control.   So this would be considered protectionist.\n\nIn the United States media that is regulated by the government, radio and television licenses are covered by such restrictions.  The theory being that America values freedom of speech and only Americans can protect that freedom.  But Rupert Murdoch wanted to buy many radio and television stations and neither he nor his company could do it because he was not a US citizen.  He became a US citizen and was able to buy those properties.