Tuesday, October 03, 2006
More Evidence Against Crime Cameras
Not working so well in DC. But it does mention that it helped with one investigation. And if it helps put one murderer or kidnapper or child molester every now and then behind bars - isnt that worth it? I think it still might be. I am still not fully against them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Im sure banning guns will cut down death by firearm. BAN GUNS.
Im also positive that if we ban the bad cholesterol that will bring down death by heart disease. BAN CHOLESTEROL
No doubt that if we kept all citizens in cells to protect them form potential harm you could really bring down deaths. BAN BEING FREE.
How do cameras take away choices? I am not sure if that is the angle you were taking this or not.
What they definitely do is give the government more power (ie information). The reason I don't want the government listening to my phonecalls is not because some CIA agent may hear me talking to my mom about our new dog. Who gives a shit. The reason I don't want the government listening to my phonecalls is because someone is going to attend a protest against somehting the government does, and then embarrassing details about their personal lives are going to be mysteriously leaked to the press, and then no one is going to take them or their cause seriously any more.
These cameras pose the same danger, in my mind- giving the government any power (or information) leaves open the possibility of corruption.
As for it heping in one crime, keep in mind how much the system costs, and how many detectives or how much forensic lab equipment the department could buy for that much. I don't know which actually solves more crimes, especially if we give the new stystem 10 years to get established, but I'm skeptical.
I am skeptical as well. And it is super ironic that you would say
"giving the government any power (or information) leaves open the possibility of corruption"
You realize that can be used against you in about 100 or so arguments that we have had.
I mean it damn near sounds libertarian.
I totally agree, and tha's why I'm not as far from you in terms of the role of the government as yo like to try and make me sound. But what I also believe, which I think you don't, is that nature abhors a vacuum, and many many types of power, if not put into the hands of the government, will end up in the hands of corporations or individuals, which are equally prone to corruptionm but whom I don't get to vote out of office.
You dont get to vote them out of office - but you can put them out of business by not purchasing thier product.
So if you are saying that everyone is corrupt - wouldnt it be better to have a corrupt person who is in charge of something smaller and more tangible than the goverment. Hence smaller more local control over things - so you know who the corrupt person is and have more influence on making that change.
I can't put anyone out of business by not buying their product. I can put them out of business by making sure NO ONE buys their product, but I personally don't have that type of power. And most products/services don't need a very big customer base to stay in business.
And no, I don't thikn it's better to have corrupt people be small and local, because I feel like oyu have much less control over them for a few reasons. First of all, many many fewer people will know abuot the corrupt things they're doing- for instance, their could be children handcuffed to benches in he basements of the houses I walk past every day, making teh clothes and products I buy at the local market, and I would never know that wihtout government inspectors and regulations. Furthermore, a small, local business only needs a couple of people willing to but from them, whereas the US government needs a majority of all voting citizens agreeing wiht them to abuse it's power.
Which do think is more likely, that a small brothel pimping out enslaved children could in the basement of a downtown tenement could make enough money to stay in business, or that the US government could convince a majority of voters to approve a law making forced child prostitution legal?
If memory serves me correctly federal laws were passed in the 19th century protecting the right of slave owners to own slaves.
Did this mean that individuals had to have slaves?
Additionaly, could enslaved children turn enough of a profit to be self sustaining? Absolutely. Thus you seem to be suggesting that we have less control over local business as compared to the federal goverment. Im not sure this even makes sense. We were talkig about legal business and im not sure how illegal business factor into the discsusion.
If you want to talk about illlegal business the question seems to be: is the local or federal government likely to be able to detect an illegal business that is self-sustaining? The answer is so obvious that it makes what you are saying seem even more absurd.
Frankly, I cant believe what you are saying because its borderline nonsensical. Please clarify.
Products/services do need a prety big base to stay in business.
Currently 1 in 3 small bussiness fail. And if a business in the community was known as being corrupt then the community would take action. Boycotting of the product or service - or opening of another place that sold similiar things. Hell just recently 7/11 just announced they were not going to carry Citgo gas anymore.
Also with your children sweat shop thing - you can still have people who regulate that stuff at the local level. As opposed to the federal govenment. Hell it would be better if citizens of the community were in charge of checking that out.
By the way there are undergound sex clubs and gambling places going on and we have a big goverment in charge of that and they are hard to find and stop. Not sure if smaller goverment would be the answer to finding it but why spend lots of money on a big goverment angency tring to prevent those type of places when they cant
In reference to Diatribes inquiry
How do cameras take away choices? I am not sure if that is the angle you were taking this or not.
They take away my choice to decide where i wish to assemble to discuss my greivance with others about a particular politican who is using the camera illegaly to gather damaging information about his political opponents.
You think there are people looking at these cameras trying to listen in on coversations about politcal matters. With all the cameras that would requried hundreds of people watching the feeds. But that is not how it works. Instead if something bad happens in that area they go to the tape to see if it caught it. Also these cameras probably dont have audio.
Are you saying that cameras will have no impact on where people choose to do things.
I was under the impression one of the reasons for cameras was to reduce camera in the location the camera is focused on.
Correction:
I was under the impression one of the reasons for cameras was to reduce crime in the location the camera is focused on.
I am saying talking is not going to be something reported to cops as susupicous.
My example was not a cop but a corrupt politican trying to squelch those that would speak poorly of him.
Yeah, the government can also just search the tapes to find the guy they want to discredit, the 1984 'equal numbers of observers to citizens' objection doesn't apply.
As to my previous points, the reason that illegal businesses are relevant to this discussion is that those businesses are only illegal due to interference in the free market by the government. Making a type of commerce completely illegal is by definition interfering with the free market.
As for whether having a government outlawing these things actually reduces thier frequency, of course it does. Makign something illegal doesn't prevent local people from acting to stop it; in fact it makes it much much easier, since instead of trying to organize a large and long-standing boycott, they can simply report these illegal businesses to the authoirities as soon as they find them.
Are you honestly saying you think there would be FEWER forced sweatshops in America if they were made legal?
My response is much to long to be posted in the comments section so I posted it on enableate.
Post a Comment