19
   

Red light camera’s

 
 
trying2learn
 
  0  
Reply Sat 26 Oct, 2013 09:55 pm
@Brandon9000,
Can you repeat that in American English? Confused
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Oct, 2013 10:13 pm
@trying2learn,
Sure. Which part didn't you understand? References to privacy, to the Constitution? Words too big?
trying2learn
 
  0  
Reply Sat 26 Oct, 2013 10:18 pm
@Brandon9000,
All of it? What happened to taking responsibility for your actions?
0 Replies
 
trying2learn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Oct, 2013 10:25 pm
This is what happens when someone breaks the law not on purpose. It was an accident. 2 people were killed and many more lives were affected.


0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Oct, 2013 10:40 pm
People should take responsibility for their actions. The government should refrain from spying on citizens, except when there is probable cause to believe that they have committed a crime. It isn't desirable to have government eyes on street corners. Aside from practical and technical considerations, why not put government cameras on every street corner and in every park and shopping center? Why not in peoples' homes? If you aren't guilty of anything, why object? Only the guilty would be prosecuted. When mind reading machines are invented, why not put them on every street corner and have computers pore through our thoughts, looking for indications of criminality? If you're not guilty, you have nothing to worry about.

The philosophy expressed in America's founding documents and by the Founding Fathers is that the government may not dominate citizens, that it may not act against, nor examine citizens without probable cause to believe that they are already engaged in criminal activities, that the people are in charge of the government and not vice versa. Were you sick that day in school?

I don't want to be under constant government surveillance, waiting for me to make a mistake. I don't want to be under the thumb of an oppressive government that seizes my money if I make the tiniest technical infraction of any regulation, disinterested in whether I had any criminal intent or was actually guilty of carelessness. I don't want to be under the thumb of an oppressive government that tells me that I'm guilty and then puts the burden on me to prove that I'm not, nor judged by people who profit from fining me. In America, the people are supposed to be in charge, and not bullied by officials who use them as a source of revenue.

The government should stop spying on us. We don't need their eyes all over our streets.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Oct, 2013 12:05 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

What business does the government have watching citizens on the streets who are not suspected of having already violated a law? How about mind reading machines, with computers poring through the thoughts looking for the intention to commit a crime? Hey, if you're not planning to commit a crime, you have nothing to worry about. How about cameras saturating every street, public building and park looking for law breakers?

How can people have grown up in a country with the greatest constitution and Bill of Rights in the world and reached adulthood with no freaking conception of the ideas contained therein? The government was supposed to be this small entity which protects the nation and stops crime, not Big Brother studying you at every moment to make sure you're pure. As Thomas Jefferson said, "That government governs best which governs least."
Yes. 1984
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Oct, 2013 12:10 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

People should take responsibility for their actions. The government should refrain from spying on citizens, except when there is probable cause to believe that they have committed a crime. It isn't desirable to have government eyes on street corners. Aside from practical and technical considerations, why not put government cameras on every street corner and in every park and shopping center? Why not in peoples' homes? If you aren't guilty of anything, why object? Only the guilty would be prosecuted. When mind reading machines are invented, why not put them on every street corner and have computers pore through our thoughts, looking for indications of criminality? If you're not guilty, you have nothing to worry about.

The philosophy expressed in America's founding documents and by the Founding Fathers is that the government may not dominate citizens, that it may not act against, nor examine citizens without probable cause to believe that they are already engaged in criminal activities, that the people are in charge of the government and not vice versa. Were you sick that day in school?

I don't want to be under constant government surveillance, waiting for me to make a mistake. I don't want to be under the thumb of an oppressive government that seizes my money if I make the tiniest technical infraction of any regulation, disinterested in whether I had any criminal intent or was actually guilty of carelessness. I don't want to be under the thumb of an oppressive government that tells me that I'm guilty and then puts the burden on me to prove that I'm not, nor judged by people who profit from fining me. In America, the people are supposed to be in charge, and not bullied by officials who use them as a source of revenue.

The government should stop spying on us. We don't need their eyes all over our streets.
SO STIPULATED !





David
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Oct, 2013 11:18 am
If we give them traffic cameras, next they'll want more cameras for some non-traffic purpose. In asking for it, they'll have a convincing argument that it will help to fight crime. The government must never be given the tools to be so much more powerful than the people that a rebellion is impossible, or even that they can push us around like sheep. There is probably very little crime in a competent police state, because of all of the tools that the government has, e.g. no habeas corpus requirement, or the ability to make arbitrary punishments in closed hearings. Does that mean that a police state is desirable, because it's effective in stopping crime? No, it's not desirable. In short, there are many things that would help the government fight crime, that it ultimately should not be allowed to have, since it would elevate it too far above the people. That which can be used to stop criminals can also be used for oppression. It is in the nature of governments to try to get more and more power. Isn't this America 101?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/30/2021 at 10:37:10