3 ms·
>Governments tend say they're doing the latter, while doing both. Which is exactly why their powers need to be severely limited. In a fantasy world of rainbow
by StanislavPetrov 9y ago
>Governments tend say they're doing the latter, while doing both.
Which is exactly why their powers need to be severely limited. In a fantasy world of rainbows and lollipops where the government are the "good guys" with only pure good in their hearts they could be trusted with limitless powers to pursue the "bad guys". In the actual world that exists, the government is made up of regular people - people who lie, cheat, steal, and do all sorts of things for their own purposes. If history has taught us anything, it should be that power corrupts. Far better that we live in a world where a small percentage of crimes go unsolved than a police state with ubiquitous tracking, surveillance and real-time monitoring where its an absolutely certainty that we all suffer the consequences.
- maltalex 9y agoI agree. It's a matter of balance between the two. Especially when you don't know which "end" of the judicial system you might face, if any. You might be accused of a crime and then you'll be rooting for the rights of the accused or individual rights in general, or you might be the victim of a crime, in which case you might feel like supporting broader police powers.