4 ms·

Agreed. There is no other context where this type of argument works. If I have a right to privacy, that's obviously dangerous because it means I can privately d

Agreed. There is no other context where this type of argument works. If I have a right to privacy, that's obviously dangerous because it means I can privately do bad things without easily being seen or caught. That was always the trade off with giving citizens rights and liberty. You can't simply eliminate our rights just because they are a barrier between law enforcement and public welfare. That decision was already made long ago and the choice was to take the risk because the alternative, where those in power can violate the privacy of anyone they choose, turned out to be a pretty terrible thing. Those barriers are a feature, not a bug.

empath75 7y ago
This is not something that is often said out loud, but most people would not want to live in a society where it was impossible to commit a crime and get away with it. Lawbreaking is one of the means that people have to fight against an unjust system.
- soulofmischief 7y ago
  Think of all the people who support the Drug War and its effects on certain demographics, while simultaneously going above the speed limit and drinking and driving every chance they get. I don't think most people have the innate sense of wanting it to be possible for everyone to commit crimes; I think it's much more selfish in that they just want themselves and their associates to get away with committing crimes.
  - LyndsySimon 7y ago
    > Think of all the people who support the Drug War and its effects on certain demographics Who are those people, exactly? I run in mostly right-wing circles (online especially), and the vast majority of people on the right seem to be opposed to the "War on Drugs" on the grounds of individual liberty. I can't imagine many on the left are in support of it - am I wrong? I don't think it's nearly as popular as it might seem.
    - jddj 7y ago
      This is an instance of where our single axis falls down. You might run in right-wing libertarian circles, but I'd speculate that if your experience was based on the religious right you may perceive higher levels of support. I do agree with you though, it's lost a lot of momentum over the years and now opinion seems to be that it's clung onto by law enforcement and the lobbyists of the companies who supply them because it allows for their continued militarisation and supports a significant portion of their budgets.
    - joeax 7y ago
      While the war on drugs is in its waning days, there is a (aging) segment on the right that worships law enforcement and is generally in support of more laws and heavy-handed police tactics. I think the OP is calling some these people out as hypocrites who demand "touch on crime" policies that disproportionally affect poorer communities, while they themselves break laws. That aside, I find the hypocrisy elsewhere, namely the people who want small government but who want everyone to pay billions for mass incarceration (and raise taxes for more police) as a result of these policies.
    - trophycase 7y ago
      Talk to any middle age surbanite who is scared of their own shadow. They'll give up anything to stop the boogeymen of drugs, terrorists, pedophiles, etc
    - root_axis 7y ago
      It is less popular than it used to be (especially among young Trump supporters), but support for harsh incarceration policies based on drugs is pretty much exclusively a right-wing thing. If it didn't have substantial support from the right it really wouldn't be a thing any longer. I will say, to Trump's credit, he has been pretty decent on this issue compared to his conservative predecessors.
- typeformer 7y ago
  I ask people that same question all of the time and then I think about China and how someday if we don't start pushing back harder against this insanity we may not have a choice about what we want.
  - soulofmischief 7y ago
    Julian Assange is being prosecuted for allegedly aiding in hacking a foreign adversary he believed to committing war crimes—and lo, they were indeed. What am I supposed to do if I ever come across a cache of information revealing the literal Holocaust 2.0 happening in China? If the Holocaust had been discovered by a US citizen who broke intercepted German communication, would we have allowed Germany to persecute the civilian for hacking their infrastructure?
- saagarjha 7y ago
  I doubt that. I am pretty sure that most people commit crimes every day and that they’d be annoyed if they were enforced consistently (traffic laws like jaywalking and speeding come to mind).
  - ndiscussion 7y ago
    I think you may have misread the parent, they're saying that people LIKE the fact they're not enforced.
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      Oops, I missed the “not”. Thanks!
  - codedokode 7y ago
    Then maybe it is better to change the rules, e.g. limit speed and make roads curved and narrow so that you cannot drive fast?
    - rhinoceraptor 7y ago
      We're living in a world where practically everyone is a criminal under some interpretation of the law. So law enforcement is arbitrary and only done discriminately. The ability to break the law, and get away with it is not just vital for the functioning of society, but for social progress to keep advancing. Gay rights would never have been won if it were possible for law enforcement to jail all gay people for existing (sodomy laws, etc.), for example.
      - soulofmischief 7y ago
        Selective enforcement isn't a good thing... It's a symptom of a bad thing. "Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime" - Lavrentiy Beria
        rhinoceraptor 7y ago
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  >This is not something that is often said out loud, but most people would not want to live in a society where it was impossible to commit a crime and get away with it. It's said out loud all the time (or maybe my filter bubble is less authoritarian). The problem is that politicians seem to be using the cesspools of Twitter, Reddit, etc. as their primary data feed.
- cortesoft 7y ago
  Not only that, but the possibility of committing a crime and getting away with it is the only way we could ever change the laws. Sometimes things are illegal, and society changes and decides they shouldn't be illegal (interracial marriage, homosexuality, alcohol, marijuana, etc)... if people couldn't 'dabble' in the illegal thing at all, there would be no way for people to learn enough to decide that the laws are wrong and need to be changed.

empath75 7y ago

This is not something that is often said out loud, but most people would not want to live in a society where it was impossible to commit a crime and get away with it. Lawbreaking is one of the means that people have to fight against an unjust system.

soulofmischief 7y ago
Think of all the people who support the Drug War and its effects on certain demographics, while simultaneously going above the speed limit and drinking and driving every chance they get. I don't think most people have the innate sense of wanting it to be possible for everyone to commit crimes; I think it's much more selfish in that they just want themselves and their associates to get away with committing crimes.
- LyndsySimon 7y ago
  > Think of all the people who support the Drug War and its effects on certain demographics Who are those people, exactly? I run in mostly right-wing circles (online especially), and the vast majority of people on the right seem to be opposed to the "War on Drugs" on the grounds of individual liberty. I can't imagine many on the left are in support of it - am I wrong? I don't think it's nearly as popular as it might seem.
  - jddj 7y ago
    This is an instance of where our single axis falls down. You might run in right-wing libertarian circles, but I'd speculate that if your experience was based on the religious right you may perceive higher levels of support. I do agree with you though, it's lost a lot of momentum over the years and now opinion seems to be that it's clung onto by law enforcement and the lobbyists of the companies who supply them because it allows for their continued militarisation and supports a significant portion of their budgets.
  - joeax 7y ago
    While the war on drugs is in its waning days, there is a (aging) segment on the right that worships law enforcement and is generally in support of more laws and heavy-handed police tactics. I think the OP is calling some these people out as hypocrites who demand "touch on crime" policies that disproportionally affect poorer communities, while they themselves break laws. That aside, I find the hypocrisy elsewhere, namely the people who want small government but who want everyone to pay billions for mass incarceration (and raise taxes for more police) as a result of these policies.
  - trophycase 7y ago
    Talk to any middle age surbanite who is scared of their own shadow. They'll give up anything to stop the boogeymen of drugs, terrorists, pedophiles, etc
  - root_axis 7y ago
    It is less popular than it used to be (especially among young Trump supporters), but support for harsh incarceration policies based on drugs is pretty much exclusively a right-wing thing. If it didn't have substantial support from the right it really wouldn't be a thing any longer. I will say, to Trump's credit, he has been pretty decent on this issue compared to his conservative predecessors.
typeformer 7y ago
I ask people that same question all of the time and then I think about China and how someday if we don't start pushing back harder against this insanity we may not have a choice about what we want.
- soulofmischief 7y ago
  Julian Assange is being prosecuted for allegedly aiding in hacking a foreign adversary he believed to committing war crimes—and lo, they were indeed. What am I supposed to do if I ever come across a cache of information revealing the literal Holocaust 2.0 happening in China? If the Holocaust had been discovered by a US citizen who broke intercepted German communication, would we have allowed Germany to persecute the civilian for hacking their infrastructure?
saagarjha 7y ago
I doubt that. I am pretty sure that most people commit crimes every day and that they’d be annoyed if they were enforced consistently (traffic laws like jaywalking and speeding come to mind).
- ndiscussion 7y ago
  I think you may have misread the parent, they're saying that people LIKE the fact they're not enforced.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    Oops, I missed the “not”. Thanks!
- codedokode 7y ago
  Then maybe it is better to change the rules, e.g. limit speed and make roads curved and narrow so that you cannot drive fast?
  - rhinoceraptor 7y ago
    We're living in a world where practically everyone is a criminal under some interpretation of the law. So law enforcement is arbitrary and only done discriminately. The ability to break the law, and get away with it is not just vital for the functioning of society, but for social progress to keep advancing. Gay rights would never have been won if it were possible for law enforcement to jail all gay people for existing (sodomy laws, etc.), for example.
    - soulofmischief 7y ago
      Selective enforcement isn't a good thing... It's a symptom of a bad thing. "Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime" - Lavrentiy Beria
      - rhinoceraptor 7y ago
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>This is not something that is often said out loud, but most people would not want to live in a society where it was impossible to commit a crime and get away with it. It's said out loud all the time (or maybe my filter bubble is less authoritarian). The problem is that politicians seem to be using the cesspools of Twitter, Reddit, etc. as their primary data feed.
cortesoft 7y ago
Not only that, but the possibility of committing a crime and getting away with it is the only way we could ever change the laws. Sometimes things are illegal, and society changes and decides they shouldn't be illegal (interracial marriage, homosexuality, alcohol, marijuana, etc)... if people couldn't 'dabble' in the illegal thing at all, there would be no way for people to learn enough to decide that the laws are wrong and need to be changed.