The issue (for me) is thresholds.

Post #2,696 by Another Scott 7/24/01 10:09:07 AM Reply	The issue (for me) is thresholds. Hi All, Addison wrote: And when you advocate/support things that break the rule of law, you create a situation where only Mob Rule exists. They're opposites. Either you have laws, or you have mob rule. I don't think Brandioch and Ashton are saying that. They're saying that in our society there comes a point where laws must be disregarded because they violate what's right. I think we agree that there were instances in the past when laws which were egregiously wrong were on the books and were enforced. It took people breaking the laws to have society change them. I think they're arguing that there are some instances when that's the correct course of action. Not that all laws they find inconvenient/annoying/etc. should be disregarded. They're not advocating mob rule. They feel, as I understand it, that there are thresholds which are being crossed that they feel violate their freedom/rights/etc. I think both sides are making good points. It's a shame that rather than the issues of public annonymity, privacy, the limits of what is acceptable datagathering of public places, etc., being clarified by this discussion it's instead being more muddled by extraneous issues. I'll give my take again - I don't believe I have privacy rights as such when I'm in public. Newspapers and TV cameras can take my image when I'm part of a crowd or attenting a public event. I have no problem with that if I remain anonymous. I believe I have rights to annonymity. I don't like the idea of my motions, personal data, etc., being tracked in public even if, say, 20,000 other people at the same public event are being tracked the same way. It still causes me to lose my right to remaining anonymous. That's why I oppose things like the FL camera system we discussed a few weeks ago. Cheers, Scott.
Post #2,702 by pwhysall 7/24/01 10:27:11 AM Reply	Are we civilised or are we not? That, to me, is the issue. One of the downsides in living in an organised and civilised society is that one cannot pick and choose the laws one wishes to obey today, because in order for laws to change, there IS a clear legislative and political process -- a process that is likely long, tedious and hard. If one wants to circumvent that process, then one is effectively cutting the democratic process out of the loop. That's not grown-up politics and lawmaking, that's spitting one's dummy out and throwing a tantrum because one can't have what one wants. We ignore two-year-olds who do that. Just because one can shout very loudly doesn't make one any more right than the person who chooses to whisper. -- Peter Shill For Hire
Post #2,737 by Simon_Jester 7/24/01 1:25:47 PM Reply	I think you're overstating the case... One of the downsides in living in an organised and civilised society is that one cannot pick and choose the laws one wishes to obey today, because in order for laws to change, there IS a clear legislative and political process -- a process that is likely long, tedious and hard. If one wants to circumvent that process, then one is effectively cutting the democratic process out of the loop. That's not grown-up politics and lawmaking, that's spitting one's dummy out and throwing a tantrum because one can't have what one wants. We ignore two-year-olds who do that. One the things about living in an organized and civilizied society is the one CAN pick and choose which laws one wishes to obey and disobey. However, one who decides to disobey the laws must realize the risks and possible penalities that they may face for breaking those laws. MLK and others broke numerous laws; they knew the risks they were taking and the possible punishments that they may have to face. However, they willingly took these risks and penalities for what they believed in. Furthermore, such actions can not be considered to be cutting out the democratic process. The entire nature of a democracy is that these are the rules everyone agrees to. By that very nature, disagreeing with the law is a factor in democracy. In fact, is a very humanizing part of the lawmaking process and may be the ultimate in checks_n_balances: lawmakers can make whatever laws they want - but does it mean anything unless everyone agrees to follow them? Example: if Congress were to pass a maximum 25 mph speed limit, it would be law. But if the police do not enforce the law, courts refuse to hear cases on the law and people ignore the law, what real effect does the law have? Stainless steel traps breed stainless steel rats.
Post #2,739 by wharris2 7/24/01 1:31:38 PM Reply	Minor correction I don't know anyone here who lives in a democracy. in the USA, we live in a democratic republic, which is quite different. Those British and Austrailian members here also do not live in a democracy. French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
Post #2,762 by imric 7/24/01 6:45:33 PM Reply	Fishing... It's all a question of whether the police should be 'anglers' (rod and reel, trolling for individual law-breakers) or whether they should longliners, raking in everybody, and accepting the collateral damages. Anonymity IS important, but police use of 'facial profiling' basically removes any anonymity you have AND introduces a real possibility of error. Unless, of course, you move to the next logical step, and tattoo (via UV sensitive ink, perhaps, for the 'beautiful people'?) SS numbers onto the foreheads of citizens and green-card holders? When DOES action essentially for the convenience of the police 'cross the line', anyway? Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...

Welcome to IWETHEY!