From: spike66 (spike66@attbi.com)
Date: Mon Sep 09 2002 - 21:33:26 MDT
CurtAdams@aol.com wrote:
>Universal surveillance *doesn't* help the innocent. It helps those
>who do things those with guns like.
>
OK, so make sure the innocent all have guns.
> It would be grossly detrimental to all who "commit"
>victimless crimes.
>
Not at all. If a crime is victimless, there would be no one
motivated to pursue the perp.
> As a gay man, I am *reaaally* glad they
>didn't have universal surveillance in the 60's...
>
60s? Curt I had you pictured as a 20 something.
> ...because I'm sure I'd
>still be illegal throughout the country.
>
Not at all. We would long since have dropped absurd
laws against homosexuality. I still cant figure that one
out, how it got to be illegal in the first place, and secondly
why it still is illegal in some places.
> Universal surveillance
>would probably put the kibosh on a lot of hopeful trends like
>drug legalization.
>
Contraire, it would drive those trends. A good part of
the reason we even have drug laws is that dopers tend
to commit a lot of property crimes. {Right?} If we had
another way to protect property, there is not much reason
to disallow drugs.
>...Don't be deluded by the fact that the
>government's power is often deployed for good ends, like catching
>burglars. It has other effects as well.
>
Of course it isnt the government catching the burglars,
it is the victims. The victims provide the evidence and
the location of the perp. All the government does in my
scenario is supply the cops, the court and the prison, which
would be needed less and less and the profitability of
property crime plumeted dramatically. spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:54 MST