And this is scary

**Lord Winter** · 04-07-2007, 07:58

*thanks the founders for having the wisdom of including the fourth addmendment.*

what do they have to hide?

If they're not doing anything wrong of course they should be okay with it. I mean who wouldn't want a camera watching ever single waking hour of your life, from the harmless to the most embaracing. For that matter these cameras are great idea for national security too. Just think of how many "terrorist" we could catch. While were at it why don't we also to use it to help find those giving comfort to the terrorist by spewing these lies that disgrace our troops on the ground. Any sense of disagreement with the government should be considered an crime. Great now we can fainilly stop this spread of lies about the possiable failings of our perfect government.
[/sarcasm]

On a more serious note, let us consult the words of Benjamen Franklin:
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

**rory_20_uk** · 04-07-2007, 21:42

So, Franklin was agianst all laws then? Every law cedes some liberty.

Cameras pointing at public areas isn not intruding into every area of people's life. People can choose not to go into the areas, and therefore not get recorded. Of course, you might prefer the added safety of no cameras on buses as this is of course such a personal and embarassing activity to be undertaking.

In fact, thinking about it, Air traffic Control records the position and height of every plane! What an intrusion! Best scrap it - after all we all now know Franklin's quote.

**Alexander the Pretty Good** · 04-07-2007, 21:55

It's an overused quote, but I'm happy you're happy with your police state.

These kind of actions strike me as the natural outcome of a growing central government, the kind that is naturally socialist. If you are busy looking over your citizen's shoulders to make sure they are doing financially OK, it isn't too much to keep looking over their shoulders for other things.

I'd point and laugh more at you UKers, but this is probably ten to twenty years down the line for us.

And welcome back, JAG.

**rory_20_uk** · 04-08-2007, 01:28

Yeah, you're right. How's the Patriot act, by the way? Oh, and I hope that they're not "accidentally" doing any more illegal wire tapping...

Personally I prefer the cameras. At lease we can generally see them as opposed to the police bugging whoever they choose and only apologising if they're caught.

**Mooks** · 04-08-2007, 05:23

I dont see how they would keep the cameras up and running. I dont know about england, but here in america kids destroy public property for fun, those cameras wouldnt last a day here.

**naut** · 04-08-2007, 12:29

Viva le Police State!

**Lord Winter** · 04-09-2007, 02:05

So, Franklin was agianst all laws then? Every law cedes some liberty.

Yes, but is a fine ballance. We cede very minor freedoms for the greater and more important ones. Freedom dose not mean you can do anything. It means you have the right to express your views and live without infringing on others natural rights.

Cameras pointing at public areas isn not intruding into every area of people's life. People can choose not to go into the areas, and therefore not get recorded. Of course, you might prefer the added safety of no cameras on buses as this is of course such a personal and embarassing activity to be undertaking.

My post was hyberbole. I have no problems with cameras in public places with past recoreds of (fairly major) crime. But blanketing downtown with them is a little to much. Are you telling me their isn't a better less intrusive way, not to mention cost effective, the government could do this?

In fact, thinking about it, Air traffic Control records the position and height of every plane! What an intrusion! Best scrap it - after all we all now know Franklin's quote.

Their are safty benfits to this. It also dosn't infrinage any major personal freedoms.

**JAG** · 04-10-2007, 16:27

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

It's an overused quote, but I'm happy you're happy with your police state.

These kind of actions strike me as the natural outcome of a growing central government, the kind that is naturally socialist. If you are busy looking over your citizen's shoulders to make sure they are doing financially OK, it isn't too much to keep looking over their shoulders for other things.

I'd point and laugh more at you UKers, but this is probably ten to twenty years down the line for us.

And welcome back, JAG.

Actually I think it is quite the opposite, rather than coming about because of a socialist state this has come about because of a free market state and an extreme free market state, at that.

Socialism is anything but a police state.

**Mooks** · 04-11-2007, 03:53

How come noone even remotely responded to my previous post? It raises the question on how could the goverment keep the cameras up in the first place?

**Crazed Rabbit** · 04-11-2007, 04:10

Originally Posted by JAG

Actually I think it is quite the opposite, rather than coming about because of a socialist state this has come about because of a free market state and an extreme free market state, at that.

Socialism is anything but a police state.

How is this a free market cause? Free markets are based on economic freedom, which usually goes in hand with more, not less freedoms.

And perhaps Utopian socialism is not a police state, but it seems that that's not the case in practice.

Glad to have ya back, JAG.

CR

**Ice** · 04-11-2007, 04:22

Originally Posted by JAG

Socialism is anything but a police state.

Pure gold.

In theory, you would be correct. In reality, I'd have to disagree.

**rory_20_uk** · 04-11-2007, 04:54

So... Free Market is ovbiously a police state; socialism is of course not. NO argument given as usual.

In the UK there are already loads of cameras, and generally they're not destroyed. Dunno why.