Interesting point. The question that pops into my mind therefore is, with all those farmers running around shooting ultralight aircraft, why are cities still the place to be if you want to get shot?
The Palestinians can have a homeland right the hell now. For the asking. They cant have their 1967 borders because they made a bad choice to goad the arab nations into going to war with Israel, but they can have a large chunk of what they lost then anyway. They don't want it.
The Arabs could just as easily have not picked a fight with Israel in 1967 or, failing that, they could have won, in which case there would be no Israel today. But when you pick a fight and lose, sometimes instead of looting the other guys wealth and living in the other guys home, the other guy loots your wealth and lives in your home. That's what happened. I'm so worked up over their disappointed expectations that I'm practically crying [sob]
Good idea. In fact, that's the point of the posts you object to. The examination of racist tweets "called out" one specific kind of racism without any attempt to "call out" any other kind. Why would you defend that sort of conduct? And why would you defend it by accusing it's detractors of exactly the sort of shortsightedness that the examination of racist tweets suffers from?
Governments posses the authority to use force to compel people to do their bidding while corporations mostly don't try to force you to do anything. When corporations _do_ try to force you to do something, they employ government to do it for them. When one person has a gun and has demonstrated a willingness to use that gun to compel people to do their bidding while another has a whole bunch of money, I fear the guy with the gun more than the guy with the money.
Even simpler answer: during the 20th century governments slaughtered more people than any corrupt corporate evildoer could ever possibly hope to kill. The worst a corrupt corporate evildoer wants to do is enslave you or seize your posessions. They honestly don't care if people live or die, unlike government.
Governments are responsible for in excess of 100 million deaths, exclusive of casualties of war. Corporations haven't got nearly so bad a record as government.
Elected leaders share the blame for their misdeeds with the people who voted for them. Elected leaders are therefore less culpable than unelected ones who share the blame for their misdeeds only with the people who follow their orders.
There's nothing particularly extraordinary about the notion that arming people and authorizing them to initiate the use of force in order to investigate crime is fraught with risk and the fourth amendment is not new law. The kind of surveillance state you are proposing is something recent technological developments make possible, not some long established fact of life that civil libertarians would like to undo.
Failing to put limits on the use of force by government agents does not make your family more safe. Quite the contrary. Government agents have the authority to use violence to accomplish their lawful tasks; This fact requires that they be bound by narrow limits on that authority and strict accountability for their use of that authority.
When you say that civil libertarians don't hold the safety of the community first and foremost, you are getting it exactly backwards because you fail to recognize the more serious threat to the safety of the community.
Since I don't do illegal recreational drugs, I don't need to justify it and I don't care if the idiots who do justify it or not. Whether or not cops get to stomp around my home tearing the place apart because fido scratched its ear (or officer plod says fido scratched its ear) is a whole 'nother question.
The dogs are entirely capable of alerting based not on the presence of anything illegal but based on it's handlers desire that it do so. One of the issues under consideration is exactly how accurate does a dog need to be to generate probable cause: police don't often record false positives, so there is no way of knowing if the dogs alert is evidence of anything other than the handlers state of mind.
That's cool, and I have no issue with you and your children wearing helmets. So long as you don't have any issue with me not wearing one, everyone is happy.
Governments spend trillions of dollars on guns to control you. Between clever advertising and armed thugs empowered to dictate my choices to me, guess which one I'm choosing
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
- C.S. Lewis
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone who sues might not win, but everyone who gets sued loses. Good luck getting the cost of your defense back from a copper thief.
Interesting point. The question that pops into my mind therefore is, with all those farmers running around shooting ultralight aircraft, why are cities still the place to be if you want to get shot?
The only people who have guns in Australia are the cops, what with guns being illegal. Better go sue the police.
You might want to examine article 28 of the fourth Geneva Convention.
"Art. 28. The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations."
The Palestinians can have a homeland right the hell now. For the asking. They cant have their 1967 borders because they made a bad choice to goad the arab nations into going to war with Israel, but they can have a large chunk of what they lost then anyway. They don't want it.
The Arabs could just as easily have not picked a fight with Israel in 1967 or, failing that, they could have won, in which case there would be no Israel today. But when you pick a fight and lose, sometimes instead of looting the other guys wealth and living in the other guys home, the other guy loots your wealth and lives in your home. That's what happened. I'm so worked up over their disappointed expectations that I'm practically crying [sob]
If true, imagine how much nicer it would be then if they didn't periodically and deliberately goad Israel into pounding them flat.
"How about we call them both out..."
Good idea. In fact, that's the point of the posts you object to. The examination of racist tweets "called out" one specific kind of racism without any attempt to "call out" any other kind. Why would you defend that sort of conduct? And why would you defend it by accusing it's detractors of exactly the sort of shortsightedness that the examination of racist tweets suffers from?
White flight! RAAAAACIST!
Governments posses the authority to use force to compel people to do their bidding while corporations mostly don't try to force you to do anything. When corporations _do_ try to force you to do something, they employ government to do it for them. When one person has a gun and has demonstrated a willingness to use that gun to compel people to do their bidding while another has a whole bunch of money, I fear the guy with the gun more than the guy with the money.
Even simpler answer: during the 20th century governments slaughtered more people than any corrupt corporate evildoer could ever possibly hope to kill. The worst a corrupt corporate evildoer wants to do is enslave you or seize your posessions. They honestly don't care if people live or die, unlike government.
Governments are responsible for in excess of 100 million deaths, exclusive of casualties of war. Corporations haven't got nearly so bad a record as government.
Elected leaders share the blame for their misdeeds with the people who voted for them. Elected leaders are therefore less culpable than unelected ones who share the blame for their misdeeds only with the people who follow their orders.
You're absolutely right. That evil evil internet that came out of the US is REAL bad for everyone not in the US.
There's nothing particularly extraordinary about the notion that arming people and authorizing them to initiate the use of force in order to investigate crime is fraught with risk and the fourth amendment is not new law. The kind of surveillance state you are proposing is something recent technological developments make possible, not some long established fact of life that civil libertarians would like to undo.
Failing to put limits on the use of force by government agents does not make your family more safe. Quite the contrary. Government agents have the authority to use violence to accomplish their lawful tasks; This fact requires that they be bound by narrow limits on that authority and strict accountability for their use of that authority.
When you say that civil libertarians don't hold the safety of the community first and foremost, you are getting it exactly backwards because you fail to recognize the more serious threat to the safety of the community.
How do you propose the community protect themselves from those who (claim to) protect them?
Why would anyone have confidence in that assertion?
If that's the way you feel, you don't need drug dogs to justify a search, you can simply consent to a search whenever a cop wants to conduct one.
Since I don't do illegal recreational drugs, I don't need to justify it and I don't care if the idiots who do justify it or not. Whether or not cops get to stomp around my home tearing the place apart because fido scratched its ear (or officer plod says fido scratched its ear) is a whole 'nother question.
The dogs are entirely capable of alerting based not on the presence of anything illegal but based on it's handlers desire that it do so. One of the issues under consideration is exactly how accurate does a dog need to be to generate probable cause: police don't often record false positives, so there is no way of knowing if the dogs alert is evidence of anything other than the handlers state of mind.
Are you assuming the handler wants to avoid it?
I'm pretty sure that when they say they can't stand stupid people, what they actually mean is that they can't stand people who disagree with them.
That's cool, and I have no issue with you and your children wearing helmets. So long as you don't have any issue with me not wearing one, everyone is happy.
If someone were to invent the first car, and it was a Volkswagen, pretty soon there are going to be other kinds of cars.
Governments spend trillions of dollars on guns to control you. Between clever advertising and armed thugs empowered to dictate my choices to me, guess which one I'm choosing
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis