131–140 of 373 posts
This website and article promote the destruction of property. If you disagree with something, you can engage civily, encourage people to vote with you, run for elections. Violence is not the answer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The irony is destruction of private property will only justify the very surveillance one is trying to avoid. Would you agree ring cameras should be destroyed too? The police can use their footage. In practice they are similar to flock.
Kinda like saying "Throwing the British's tea into Boston harbor will only make us subject to harsher terms." The reality is the vast majority of social progress in the last millenium was achieved with force and threat of force. I find this weird revisionist "violence is never the answer" trope recited as a fact that needs no justification to be incredibly weird and unreliable.
Eventually toll cameras and a consortium of private businesses will have this tech and then game over. Better to use this energy and legislate the behavior you want. Never let the enemy decide the terms.
Smashing cameras is enjoyable whereas building movement for legislation is laborious. It will be easier to negotiate for legislation as well if the economic risk of installation increases because of vandalism.
If someone represents me, then logically I should have the right to vote directly instead of him, or remove him at any point.
Counter point - I live in a major-ish city in which our police force isn't as strong as the surrounding suburbs so I don't mind a few extra eyes on the streets. My kids like to explore the neighborhood and I like a little extra peace of mind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Speed cameras or not, what you described will always happen. I would prefer no evil instead of a tiny evil however.
Likely yea, but with them at least some idiots too stupid to drive get some degree of punishment.
I need a lot bigger of a return if I am going to give up privacy.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could use this Boston Tea Party logic for virtually any violent action no matter how dumb or counterproductive.
To be fair to the loyalists, a lot of people were making this point at the time. Tally ho, gents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regardless, I do agree with the commentor. Effective or not, violence, to me, is always the wrong answer. Calling the "destruction of property" violence though—I might take issue with that.
Under what circumstances might "destruction of property" legitimately be classified as violence in your view?
But I see your point. Destroying a thing (even corporate) is a pretty extreme reaction that I can only see making sense after having exhausted all other "peaceable" avenues.
People that see these things as detrimental to society though are likely pretty motivated.
This website and article promote the destruction of property. If you disagree with something, you can engage civily, encourage people to vote with you, run for elections. Violence is not the answer.
Hi. The mayor of Denver pushed through flock cameras despite them being unpopular and not even getting enough votes to buy them. He got them to change the price enough that he didn't need the votes to get them installed. How do you have a civil society when the people in power cheat?
This kind of discretionary spending authority can used for things that are good, bad, or indifferent. When it gets used to cut through the red tape and buy a new swingset for a neighborhood park, then that's good; nobody complains about that. (Except someone would surely complain about that, but come on man.)
And when it gets used to install government tracking systems, that's bad.
> How do you have a civil society when the people in power cheat?
The problem isn't that the mayor can spend some money. Rather, the problem here is that government tracking systems are completely legal to buy.
The laws need adjusted so that government tracking systems are completely illegal, instead.
"Yeah, good luck getting the government to do that!"
The people of Colorado are free to initiate their own legislation and constitutional amendments and then vote them into force.
"But that will never work!"
It can work, and it has worked. As just one example, the people did this rather famously, and with good effect, back in 2012 when they legalized recreational weed: https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Amendment_64,_Regulation_of...
This website and article promote the destruction of property. If you disagree with something, you can engage civily, encourage people to vote with you, run for elections. Violence is not the answer.
Okay, but what about destruction of property?
On voting harder, see the lead incident mentioned: "This happened weeks after the city council voted to keep the cameras despite overwhelming public opposition." I also advocate patiently working through the process, but people are not blind to the trends: the democratic process is failing as government increasingly sidelines voters and the richest have the levers of power.