Is the death penalty moral/ethical?

[Formless]

Irrelevant. I'm talking about the potential for abuse, not what we already do to enforce our laws.

They can already abuse power and get the same results- aren't you aware that the FBI infiltrated many "subversive" organizations? Not just the KKK, but antiwar movements and the like. All this will do is make their job easier- it doesn't give them the power to start arbitrarily arresting people.

Are you trying to prove my point for me? They already have the power to arrest people arbitrarily or wrongfully, just not the right. We trust that they won't overstep that boundary, but we cannot be sure. Hence, since your proposal makes that easier for little benefit to society, there is no point in enforcing such a solution.

Irrelevant. They are still held accountable when they misuse that power, which is the concern I was citing. History suggests that if you let a government have too much power over you, the government tends to misuse it. Does the phrase "secret police" ring any bells? Or the phrase "who guards the guards?"

What power? I haven't given the government any more power than they already have except with ID chips.

Secret Police are for political crimes which I haven't suggested.
Who guars the guards refers to the abuse of power. Great, what power?

Knowledge is power. You are giving them the ability to acquire arbitrarily detailed knowledge/information about their populace, thus giving them power over their populace that they cannot be trusted with.

Besides, as this thread has shown, the government only has the right to kill in limited circumstances.

No, the thread was about morality of the death penalty.

It is. What do you think I am talking about?

And why, exactly, does the government have that right?

Because that presumes that individuals have a right to privacy. They don't.

Why? The founders of America didn't think so. Are you going to ignore the point about government corruption and abuse of power? This is power, and it can be used to abuse the populace. Why should the populace not be guaranteed a right to privacy?

Being free from fear? You know who else used that rational for breaking privacy laws, right? (not to mention a whole slew of other offenses) I'm not like those people morons on "reality" tv. I'm much more paranoid.

FDR. Great- however, we don't base laws on your personal desires, but the groups. And as a group people get acclimated to being watched very easily, even when it is an actual human being. A camera is even easier. Or do you notice everytime you enter a 7/11?

Strawman. I never said that I disagree with your plan merely because of personal desires, but for the potential danger to society your plan presents. I said this to refute the notion that all people are like the morons in "reality" tv.

As for the 7/11 argument, that is a private property owned by a corporation. They have a pattern for being targeted by crime, so there is utility for them to keep a watch over their premises. You are arguing that the government should keep watch over a much larger area of land (100% of public property! Even people's lawns!) actively, even though the government actually has power (unlike the corporation that owns 7/11) and deny that this creates too much potential for abuse for it to be a good thing for society.

Say I am planning on doing something that breaks taboo, but otherwise is neither against the law nor unethical. Say for sake of argument that I am gay (though I am not) and am going to come home with my husband. Remembering that the concern is with the potential for abuse and government corruption, they now know that I am gay and can use that information to oppress me. They would not be able to do that without that information. This may not be a reality right now, but it is a possibility that you would introduce.

I wanted to put cameras in homes... where? Strawman. As it is, how do you think the government arrested people for sodomy back in the day?

No strawman, you said that the government has the right to watch my front lawn 24/7 arbitrarily. All our hypothetical gay couple has to do is come home and look intimate for the camera while walking to the door. And as for the point about how anti-sodomy laws were enforced back in the day, yes. That's my point entirely. If we cannot trust the government to not go through periods of oppression, we cannot trust them with the power to watch us at will. This is why the police must get warrants, after all.

That your plan would be ungodly expensive when the money could be far better spent. Priorities, in other words. Yours suck.

Which is why the English have managed to partially adopt it, right?

What is your point? I don't agree with the British government's decision for the reasons I have outlined. I'm still in America for a reason, you know. We may have lots of stupidity in our government, but hey, at least we haven't taken the first steps towards all out nanny state yet!

Your solution merely means more convictions.

So if a person knows they will be caught, they commit crimes anyway? Right... criminals are that stupid you know.

Uh... yes? Haven't there been threads about this recently pointing out how people don't respond to deterrents the way we expect them to? That they will still do illegal stuff because they think "maybe I will get away with it!" Therefor, there is more utility in reducing the usual sociological causes of crime than there is in making sure there are more convictions.

Concession accepted.

After all, even with universal surveillance of public places, crime will still happen too. We both know there are people stupid/desperate enough to try it.

Yeah it will happen- once for each case, not again and again.

Now I don't even know what you are talking about. Are you suggesting that for every crime on the books there will only be one case and that is it under your system? I'm thinking "bullshit".

Not only do you have to install and maintenance your cameras and other surveillance equipment, you also have to pay people to watch it for crimes.

Well, aside from making programs to search through the files, you could just look them up when crimes occur.

Then how are you going to use them to catch crimes in action? I thought that was the whole point of this proposal?

At the expense of the populations privacy and security from totalitarian movements in your government. Why must we assume that the government wants the best for all its citizens at all times?

Being a member of the Nazi party or communists isn't illegal in the US.

Your propensity for being completely irrelevant to the point is striking. I guess you must like the taste of Red Herring. That it isn't illegal to be a part of those parties has fuck-all to do with whether or not we should trust governments with the power to violate privacy, especially with those parties to set historical precedent.

As for assuming the best, I'm not. I just believe the police have a vested interest in reducing the crime rate.

They do. That is not in dispute. That the government cannot be trusted with this kind of power is.

Or, what if you are a protester against a corrupt, totalitarian government?

Than they get you with an informant and you get tortured.

Oh great. A torture debate. That is where i wanted to take this... NOT. *sigh* Again, why is this justified behavior? How is this supposed to make me trust the government any more than I already do? How does this make my position wrong?

I'm not talking about risks coming from competent governments here, because they should have little need for such stringent measures in the first place.

... the crime rate where I live is significantly greater than 0%. We had over 100 murders here last year.

Never said the current government and its policies were competent either. In fact, that only makes me think worse of this proposal from a practical standpoint. Other, less stringent solutions to this problem exist, starting with changing the sociological conditions where you live, something which should be done anyway.

I'm talking about the risks of abuse this plan introduces.

Show how this makes things possible that can't occur normally. It just makes survillence easier.

You said so yourself. It makes it easier for the government to get information they need to abuse their power. The example situation of a gay couple is illustrative of my point. The example of the political activist is another one. My logic holds. All you have done is show that there is a potential problem, and have admitted that this proposal would make it worse in case of a totalitarian situation or corrupt government.Why make that worse?

Frankly, this proposal reminds one of the "bear patrol" from the Simpsons. Stew on that for a second.

You watch that show too much?

Actually, no. I don't. The last few seasons made me lose my faith in it. You still have a wasteful system that achieves little while potentially being dangerous to society.

I see your point. But, in my opinion, if you live in a corrupt and totalitarian government, you're in for quite a nasty ride anyway, Orwellian surveillance or not. In the 1984 examples, the problem is that the government considers it a crime to even think against the official doctrine and the regime. You don't need a 24/7, 100% coverage of public areas for it to become a nightmare, as demonstrated by Cambodia's pretty low-tech Khmer Rouge regime, or Castro's Cuba, North Korea, the USSR... Meaning that the surveillance is not the problem, but how the regime will use it. I'm with Samuel on this one.

I'll concede that it is the way the government uses the information that is what I am worried about. However, what I am concerned about is that the government cannot be trusted to use it responsible in the first place, and that historical precedent suggests that it would be better to simply not give them this power at all. If a totalitarian government must put its totalitarian procedures in place whole cloth, they are more visible. But when they are simply using tactics that were established when the government was still legit, no one can call them on it. Besides, this is surveillance that the authorities don't need a warrant to use, which means that they don't need to go to the effort of justifying themselves first. That is a bad legal precedent to set, IMO.

[Samuel]

Er, mod? Thread split?

Are you trying to prove my point for me? They already have the power to arrest people arbitrarily or wrongfully, just not the right. We trust that they won't overstep that boundary, but we cannot be sure. Hence, since your proposal makes that easier for little benefit to society, there is no point in enforcing such a solution.

? My point is they can already do what you are afraid of. How would this lead to them doing it more often?

Knowledge is power. You are giving them the ability to acquire arbitrarily detailed knowledge/information about their populace, thus giving them power over their populace that they cannot be trusted with.

Always remember your Bacon. Francis Bacon
However, the quote doesn't apply. How does it government power over their populance?

It is. What do you think I am talking about?

You said right. Right is about legality.

Why? The founders of America didn't think so. Are you going to ignore the point about government corruption and abuse of power? This is power, and it can be used to abuse the populace.

Ah, an appeal to tradition. Yeah, the bill of rights mentioned privacy... never actually.

How does corruption and avuse of power apply to the government knowing where its citizens are? How is it anymore power?

Why should the populace not be guaranteed a right to privacy?

Because it infringes upon other people's rights.

I said this to refute the notion that all people are like the morons in "reality" tv.

Do you think that the people on reality shows are from abnormal segment of the population? The fact of the matter is that most people don't notice they are being watched and don't care once it has become familiar.

As for the 7/11 argument, that is a private property owned by a corporation. They have a pattern for being targeted by crime, so there is utility for them to keep a watch over their premises. You are arguing that the government should keep watch over a much larger area of land (100% of public property! Even people's lawns!) actively, even though the government actually has power (unlike the corporation that owns 7/11) and deny that this creates too much potential for abuse for it to be a good thing for society.

You do know the government owns public property? That is why it is public property.

No strawman, you said that the government has the right to watch my front lawn 24/7 arbitrarily. All our hypothetical gay couple has to do is come home and look intimate for the camera while walking to the door. And as for the point about how anti-sodomy laws were enforced back in the day, yes. That's my point entirely. If we cannot trust the government to not go through periods of oppression, we cannot trust them with the power to watch us at will. This is why the police must get warrants, after all.

...the US government will recriminalize homosexuality. You are kidding, right?

What is your point? I don't agree with the British government's decision for the reasons I have outlined. I'm still in America for a reason, you know. We may have lots of stupidity in our government, but hey, at least we haven't taken the first steps towards all out nanny state yet!

It was refuting the "obsenely expensive" argument of yours. Of course, the overall costs to society might drop when the demand for security systems, locks and private guards drops. What do you have against the nanny state?

Uh... yes? Haven't there been threads about this recently pointing out how people don't respond to deterrents the way we expect them to? That they will still do illegal stuff because they think "maybe I will get away with it!" Therefor, there is more utility in reducing the usual sociological causes of crime than there is in making sure there are more convictions.

Because they think they will get away with it. If you have a 100% conviction rate AND you tend to catch people extremely quickly, few are going to be delusional enough to think they can get away with it.

Now I don't even know what you are talking about. Are you suggesting that for every crime on the books there will only be one case and that is it under your system? I'm thinking "bullshit".

No, I was refering to people being caught the first time they commit a crime in public. So you don't get crime sprees, serial killers, etc.

Then how are you going to use them to catch crimes in action? I thought that was the whole point of this proposal?

When AI tech gets good enough, we can. Until then it isn't feasible to moniter the entire country similtaneously. For the US, cameras probably could only cover the cities.

Your propensity for being completely irrelevant to the point is striking. I guess you must like the taste of Red Herring. That it isn't illegal to be a part of those parties has fuck-all to do with whether or not we should trust governments with the power to violate privacy, especially with those parties to set historical precedent.

I was responding to the "secure from totalitarian goverments".

As for assuming the government works in our best interests, it doesn't always. So? Are you against police as well? Why- they have a MUCH larger potential for abuse.

That the government cannot be trusted with this kind of power is.

You still haven't said what the US government is suddenly going to do- you seem to think they will start ignoring the rule of law, search warrents, arrest warrents, probable cause, habeous corpous and the rest because... they are mustache twirling villians? They secretly desire to bring about la Terreur?

Oh great. A torture debate. That is where i wanted to take this... NOT. *sigh* Again, why is this justified behavior? How is this supposed to make me trust the government any more than I already do? How does this make my position wrong?

It is sarcasm buddy. If you are in a totalitarian police state they don't have to bother with cameras- they pick you up and torture you for the info. If you don't have it... well, look at Uzbeckistan. Because they have no check on their power, which you seem to be assuming for the US government for some reason.

Why make that worse?

North Korea obvious manages a police state without this technology. In fact, you don't need it to run a competant police state as Stalin and Hitler both showed. So this doesn't make a police state suddenly guarenteed to exist. It does however reduce the crime rate, make kidnapping almost pointless, make vandalism tougher, make police brutality harder to do, etc. Adding in ID tags would make getting lost rarer, make it easier to find people who have Alzhiemers, accident victims, etc. You know, basic improved quality of life.

You still have a wasteful system

The British government's buget reports were... surprisingly non-helpful. I'll find out soon enough how much their program cost.

[Formless]

? My point is they can already do what you are afraid of. How would this lead to them doing it more often?

Not more often, but it would be a tool in their arsenal that would make resisting them needlessly difficult. The government already can do a pretty good job of convicting people, and they can improve that ability quite easily without resorting to Orwellian surveillance of public spaces.

Always remember your Bacon. Francis Bacon
However, the quote doesn't apply. How does it government power over their populance?

Anything that allows them to identify enemies of the state (and yes, criminals count, broadly speaking) allows them to better use their power for good or ill. That is a form of power, Sam, one which we are better to not ignore. If it wasn't, how would it serve the purposes that you want it to serve?

You said right. Right is about legality.

No. Rights are about ethics. The law only grants that rights will not be impugned and/or protects them.

Ah, an appeal to tradition. Yeah, the bill of rights mentioned privacy... never actually.

How does corruption and avuse of power apply to the government knowing where its citizens are? How is it anymore power?

Sorry, I was thinking of the right to "no unwarranted search and seizure" which is conceptually based on the same concerns. This violates the spirit of "unwarranted". No one has to ask to use the information gained by your surveillance, nor provide justification for doing so. And what you proposed is not just knowing where everyone is, it is also knowing what they are doing, or it fails to obtain one of your key objectives for this proposal, I.E. evidence for any and all crimes committed in public.

Why should the populace not be guaranteed a right to privacy?

Because it infringes upon other people's rights.

Bull-fucking-shit. that is the lamest thing you have said yet, Samuel. I guess you would like it if people could see what you do behind closed doors with your Significant Other (if you have one). Privacy no more infringes other people's rights than the right to free speech. Because privacy is itself a right. I challenge you to show otherwise.

Do you think that the people on reality shows are from abnormal segment of the population? The fact of the matter is that most people don't notice they are being watched and don't care once it has become familiar.

And you think that they are normal for the population? Really, its the last part that is what is so dangerous about this, because if the time comes that this is up for abuse, the people who don't know are automatically fucked, and the people who are used to it won't resist. Again, this is the kind of tool that could make a totalitarian government nearly impossible to fight from the inside. Do you really want that?

You do know the government owns public property? That is why it is public property.

We all own it. That is why it is called Public property. The government merely manages it because in theory the government represents the people.

...the US government will recriminalize homosexuality. You are kidding, right?

It is a hypothetical argument. People are presumably familiar with thinking of gays as an oppressed minority, so that is the minority I used in the example. In reality, it could be non-genetically enhanced people people in a future society (to use a sci-fi trope) and the point would still stand.

It was refuting the "obsenely expensive" argument of yours. Of course, the overall costs to society might drop when the demand for security systems, locks and private guards drops. What do you have against the nanny state?

That a Nanny state should be into my business when they have no business being in my business. That is kinda what makes them a Nanny state. And BTW, the british government isn't covering 100% of public spaces like you would have us do, so the price they payed isn't necessarily reflective of what your plan would cost.

Because they think they will get away with it. If you have a 100% conviction rate AND you tend to catch people extremely quickly, few are going to be delusional enough to think they can get away with it.

In theory. But it won't be none. Why not simply make the kinds of social advancements that, for example, parts of Northern Europe took? (I mean Finland, Sweden and the like) Many of those countries have very low crime rates, and look! They didn't have to resort to Orwellian surveillance! Just good old socialism, low poverty rates, and less violent cultures.

No, I was refering to people being caught the first time they commit a crime in public. So you don't get crime sprees, serial killers, etc.

And without some kind of rehabilitation system, these people will still remain low social-economic status where they will be prone to resorting to crime again. The costs keep going up for you, Samuel. Hell, you might just succeed in convincing the masses of the advantages of white collar crime! Way to go!

When AI tech gets good enough, we can. Until then it isn't feasible to moniter the entire country similtaneously. For the US, cameras probably could only cover the cities.

In other words, you admit that this scheme isn't even feasible except in a distant future when you get your magic AI that may or may not be possible in reality. I think I will stick to good old fashioned anti-poverty schemes, thank-you-very-much.

I was responding to the "secure from totalitarian goverments".

And failed miserably. That it isn't illegal to be a part of parties that were central to a totalitarian government in the past has nothing to do with whether or not we are safe from totalitarian governments. Seriously, are you even trying?

As for assuming the government works in our best interests, it doesn't always. So? Are you against police as well? Why- they have a MUCH larger potential for abuse.

Police are a necessity. 24/7 surveillance is not. Furthermore, this is only an extension of the potential for abuse the police represent, but in the hands of a corrupt government, it is a nightmare tool. Police are only as dangerous as the tools you give them.

You still haven't said what the US government is suddenly going to do- you seem to think they will start ignoring the rule of law, search warrents, arrest warrents, probable cause, habeous corpous and the rest because... they are mustache twirling villians? They secretly desire to bring about la Terreur?

1) Thanks to Bush, we don't have habeous corpous (in cases of terrorism/national security, at least), and it is probably one of the great tragedies of his administration that people tend to forget.

2) I never said that the U.S. government will, only that any government where we pursue this surveillance project of yours cannot be trusted on principal. You would be suspicious of your neighbor if he started taking photos of your house, why not your government?

It is sarcasm buddy. If you are in a totalitarian police state they don't have to bother with cameras- they pick you up and torture you for the info. If you don't have it... well, look at Uzbeckistan. Because they have no check on their power, which you seem to be assuming for the US government for some reason.

And that there is no check on this power is an argument against it as well. Like I said in the first post, it wouldn't be so problematic if the information were open to the public eye in cases against the police etc. And again, in your original post you were apparently advocating this kind of behavior, yet you seem to not think it is justified. What point are you arguing now?

Why make that worse?

North Korea obvious manages a police state without this technology. In fact, you don't need it to run a competant police state as Stalin and Hitler both showed. So this doesn't make a police state suddenly guarenteed to exist. It does however reduce the crime rate, make kidnapping almost pointless, make vandalism tougher, make police brutality harder to do, etc. Adding in ID tags would make getting lost rarer, make it easier to find people who have Alzhiemers, accident victims, etc. You know, basic improved quality of life.

As I said before, this alone doesn't create a police state, but it sure as hell makes one worse. Everyone knows that NK is bad, but a state like this could more easily cover its tracks and eliminate dissidents. I.E. it doesn't create the problem so much as simply make it much worse.

You still have a wasteful system

The British government's buget reports were... surprisingly non-helpful. I'll find out soon enough how much their program cost.

I would like to see those figures. It would certainly help figure out just how feasible your idea is from an economic standpoint.

[Vultur]

The surveillance system, and a culture that allows it, means that I would never move to Britain. If the US started implementing it -- I'd probably move either somewhere incredibly rural, or to Australia or Belize, as soon as possible.

[Samuel]

Not more often, but it would be a tool in their arsenal that would make resisting them needlessly difficult. The government already can do a pretty good job of convicting people, and they can improve that ability quite easily without resorting to Orwellian surveillance of public spaces.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Got something that will drop 11 million like a stone?

Anything that allows them to identify enemies of the state (and yes, criminals count, broadly speaking) allows them to better use their power for good or ill. That is a form of power, Sam, one which we are better to not ignore. If it wasn't, how would it serve the purposes that you want it to serve?

Show that the government will do that more than they do now AND act upon it more than know. Last I checked, the US has 0 political prisoners. Why the sudden change?

The law only grants that rights will not be impugned and/or protects them.

No, the law creates rights.

Sorry, I was thinking of the right to "no unwarranted search and seizure" which is conceptually based on the same concerns. This violates the spirit of "unwarranted". No one has to ask to use the information gained by your surveillance, nor provide justification for doing so. And what you proposed is not just knowing where everyone is, it is also knowing what they are doing, or it fails to obtain one of your key objectives for this proposal, I.E. evidence for any and all crimes committed in public.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

And that has nothing to do with public places. In fact, the government is free to observe you in public. Or do you think the cops crusing around are just joyriding?

Bull-fucking-shit. that is the lamest thing you have said yet, Samuel. I guess you would like it if people could see what you do behind closed doors with your Significant Other (if you have one). Privacy no more infringes other people's rights than the right to free speech. Because privacy is itself a right. I challenge you to show otherwise.

It is true. I do in fact have superpowers, including the ability to show a negative for a non-logic or math based argument. I am just that good.

And you think that they are normal for the population? Really, its the last part that is what is so dangerous about this, because if the time comes that this is up for abuse, the people who don't know are automatically fucked, and the people who are used to it won't resist. Again, this is the kind of tool that could make a totalitarian government nearly impossible to fight from the inside. Do you really want that?

Well, I seem to be the only person who actively looks for cameras given the moniters. As for making a totalitarian government impossible to fight, I wasn't aware the US qualified.

We all own it. That is why it is called Public property. The government merely manages it because in theory the government represents the people.

That only applies to direct democracies.

It is a hypothetical argument. People are presumably familiar with thinking of gays as an oppressed minority, so that is the minority I used in the example. In reality, it could be non-genetically enhanced people people in a future society (to use a sci-fi trope) and the point would still stand.

Not really. We have legal safeguards to prevent that from happening. If they fail... well, then cameras will be implemented anyway.

That a Nanny state should be into my business when they have no business being in my business. That is kinda what makes them a Nanny state. And BTW, the british government isn't covering 100% of public spaces like you would have us do, so the price they payed isn't necessarily reflective of what your plan would cost.

Why not?
Of course they aren't covering everything- they just got it started it. But it covers a significant portion of their cities.

In theory. But it won't be none. Why not simply make the kinds of social advancements that, for example, parts of Northern Europe took? (I mean Finland, Sweden and the like) Many of those countries have very low crime rates, and look! They didn't have to resort to Orwellian surveillance! Just good old socialism, low poverty rates, and less violent cultures.

They also don't have a constant stream of immigrants or a large amount of guns... wait, you are against cameras everywhere, but you embrace social engineering? How do you think governments do that? Pamplets?

And without some kind of rehabilitation system, these people will still remain low social-economic status where they will be prone to resorting to crime again. The costs keep going up for you, Samuel. Hell, you might just succeed in convincing the masses of the advantages of white collar crime! Way to go!

But white collar crime does pay better.
Also, I thought my intentions looked obsenely evil- its a good thing no one caught on

Seriously, this is another either or fallacy.

In other words, you admit that this scheme isn't even feasible except in a distant future when you get your magic AI that may or may not be possible in reality. I think I will stick to good old fashioned anti-poverty schemes, thank-you-very-much.

Actually they have systems in the pipeline to do this- it doesn't need to be self-aware, just a very good pattern matcher. As it is we will "only" be able to have a record of crimes.

Seriously, are you even trying?

I'm sorry I misunderstood you- it seemed you were saying that the survillence system would protect us from totalitarian movements.

Police are a necessity.

Professional police forces date to the 19th century. They are not infact a necesity. They just are extremely useful.

2) I never said that the U.S. government will, only that any government where we pursue this surveillance project of yours cannot be trusted on principal. You would be suspicious of your neighbor if he started taking photos of your house, why not your government?

I'd ask him. Some of us aren't insanely paranoid. You know that some people are photographers and might like to practice. Or maybe he is selling his home and needs photos of the neighborhood. Or maybe he is an alien spy who is given coordinates for the invasion ships to land

And again, in your original post you were apparently advocating this kind of behavior, yet you seem to not think it is justified. What point are you arguing now?

The original position. We don't have sarcasm text.

The surveillance system, and a culture that allows it, means that I would never move to Britain. If the US started implementing it -- I'd probably move either somewhere incredibly rural, or to Australia or Belize, as soon as possible.

Why?

[K. A. Pital]

In the eyes of a utilitarian like me, the death penalty is morally validated through it's deterrence factors, not through the particular level of suffering administered to the person. In fact, the suffering is not the main function of the death penalty, and it is not a punishment but a deterrence factor in society.

The basic instinct of life-preservation and fear exibits a level of control for most people. Psychopatic murderers have a psychological disease basically, and thus are out of the scope of criminal justice and in the scope of medicine (incidentally, if the condition is considered by the doctors as uncurable, annihilating what is essentially a walking non-human subject would be perfectly validated in my view - it's better than wasting resources to support the psycho knowing he would never become normal).

If the person is not a psychopath but a criminal who is considered sane, capital punishment serves as a deterrent to all those in their own mind who might commit such crimes. The potential deterrence factor is higher than actual deterrence, and it's hard to estimate, but considering that really heinous crimes which lead to deaths of many people are fairly rare in industrialized societies, I am willing to forego with the lives of those who commited the crimes in their sane mind to produce a safer society with a higher level of potential deterrence.

Once again, psychs are not deterred but neither can they be convicted of the crime, they can and should be examined by the medics and if truly insane with no hope, disposed of.

[Broomstick]

Maybe we should just break windows so that the window manufactors have more employment

What a wonderful strawman you have constructed. Oh, and a red herring to!

Except it isn't. Broomstick was saying that putting people in prison is good because it leads to more jobs.

No, that's not what I said.

I would never advocate building more prisons or incarcertaing more people just to provide more jobs. The fact is, though, that because crime will never be eliminated we will continue to have facilities to hold criminals and, while that costs money, a portion of that money returns to the local economy via paychecks and money to suppliers of food and other materials to the prison system. So the cost of prisons is moderated to a degree by this "recycling" of the funds.

As pointed out, most crimes are not death-penalty or life-imprisonment level. Even if you executed all such people we would still have prisons. The criminal extreme represented by execution/life imprisonment is very minor.

Prison guards are a net loss to society- just like breaking windows to ensure people can have more jobs which benefits individuals but is also a net loss to society. This is basic economic theory.

Breaking windows JUST to create work is a net drain... but even in an ideal society windows will still occassionally break and you will need a certain number of people on hand to fix them.

[Broomstick]

I'm pretty sure privacy has no utility value while being free from fear does.

I disagree. I value my privacy very highly. I am willing to accept occassional fear and risk to continue to have it.

As it is, why should you be worried that the government can see you on dates, shopping or the like?

Because there are people in this world who may not approve of who I date, what I buy, what I worship (or don't, if I'm an atheist), what music I listen to, what games I play, and so on. I have worked for employers who felt free to dictate to others what they should do in their off hours - what if I enjoy playing gin rummy with my friends every Friday but suddenly a manager is promoted over me who believe cards are a tool of the devil? It's none of their damn business what I do on Fridays, yet in the society you propose there would be no privacy and I would be forced to choose between my friends and my job. What if we get some Christian asshat elected that believes it is OK to use social pressure to get people to convert to their paritcular sect? What if a corrupt government official starts selling pictures of toddlers in bathing suits on the beach to pedophiles?

If reality TV has shown us anything, it is that people are amazingly unconcerned sharing this with millions of strangers.

A SUBSET of people are comfortable with that - there are a LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE who are not comfortable with that, which is why you will never see us on "reality" TV.

Because being safe and secure has a high utility value and this goes a long way to achieving that.

Except your premise that people will pay any price to achieve "safe" and "secure" is inherently flawed. In fact, thrill seekers delibrately make their lives less safe and secure whether those thrills are from legal or illegal activities.

[Samuel]

I would never advocate building more prisons or incarcertaing more people just to provide more jobs. The fact is, though, that because crime will never be eliminated we will continue to have facilities to hold criminals and, while that costs money, a portion of that money returns to the local economy via paychecks and money to suppliers of food and other materials to the prison system. So the cost of prisons is moderated to a degree by this "recycling" of the funds.

Money that could be provided by any other job. Counting it as a benefit of life-time imprisonment is dishonest as it is a social cost, tying down resources and people and reducing your available options.

As pointed out, most crimes are not death-penalty or life-imprisonment level. Even if you executed all such people we would still have prisons. The criminal extreme represented by execution/life imprisonment is very minor.

True, however that is entirely irrelevant to the debate about the death penalty.

I disagree. I value my privacy very highly. I am willing to accept occassional fear and risk to continue to have it.

I'm not. Looks like we have a value disagreement.

Because there are people in this world who may not approve of who I date, what I buy, what I worship (or don't, if I'm an atheist), what music I listen to, what games I play, and so on. I have worked for employers who felt free to dictate to others what they should do in their off hours - what if I enjoy playing gin rummy with my friends every Friday but suddenly a manager is promoted over me who believe cards are a tool of the devil? It's none of their damn business what I do on Fridays, yet in the society you propose there would be no privacy and I would be forced to choose between my friends and my job. What if we get some Christian asshat elected that believes it is OK to use social pressure to get people to convert to their paritcular sect?

As it is, those actions are currently illegal and could only change if the US law was drastically changed. In which case objecting to the camera system would be pointless.

Governments can and have banned those things without pervasive surveilance. What makes you think that if we become a police state we will suddenly be different? Albania managed to completely eradicate all religion in its borders using nothing more impressive than secret police.

What if a corrupt government official starts selling pictures of toddlers in bathing suits on the beach to pedophiles?

As opposed to pedophiles simply buying childrens swimsuit magazines?

A SUBSET of people are comfortable with that - there are a LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE who are not comfortable with that, which is why you will never see us on "reality" TV.

You do realize that whenever you are in a bank or many other stores, you are on camera, right? Nobody seems to notice or care about that.

Except your premise that people will pay any price to achieve "safe" and "secure" is inherently flawed.

You mean like the experience of the 2004 elections where the Republicans peddled fear and people bought it and voted them for safety? Most people WANT safety and security. How do you think the Nazis rose to power? Part of what they offered was stability.

In fact, thrill seekers delibrately make their lives less safe and secure whether those thrills are from legal or illegal activities.

But almost always in ways they can control it. They wear safety gear- those who do it more than once anyways. Not to mention thrill seekers are a much smaller percentage of the population. Of course, I'm pretty sure thrill seekers do not consider the potential to be gunned down in the street "exciting".

[Kanastrous]

It's not a matter of being 'excited' at the prospect of being gunned down; it's an expression of a an elevated tolerance for risk in general.

[M]

If the person is not a psychopath but a criminal who is considered sane, capital punishment serves as a deterrent to all those in their own mind who might commit such crimes. The potential deterrence factor is higher than actual deterrence, and it's hard to estimate, but considering that really heinous crimes which lead to deaths of many people are fairly rare in industrialized societies, I am willing to forego with the lives of those who commited the crimes in their sane mind to produce a safer society with a higher level of potential deterrence.

Are you saying these so-called heinous crimes are rare in industrialised countries because of the deterrence of capital punishment? For that to be true, you'd have to demonstrate that the heinous crime rate would be significantly higher without capital punishment. Canada and almost all of Europe have abolished the death penalty, Russia has a moratorium if wikipedia is to be believed. In the Western world the only major industrialised society that actually executes people I can think of is the US. I don't think the US has significantly lower "heinous crime" rates than Canada and Europe. So... are you saying without the death penalty the US would be worse? On what basis?

While we're on the topic of difficult-to-prove claims, I'd like to propose another hypothesis: if you believe that killing another human being outside of self-defence is always wrong, murder requires an active violation of a fairly fundamental belief. On the other hand, if you believe that you -- in the form of society -- are perfectly justified in killing people who commit deeds heinous enough, committing murder only requires a minor modification of your belief. First you need to convince yourself that whatever slight your victim has perpetrated against you is grevious enough to deserve death, but human beings have always been good at blowing their slights out of proportion. The phrase "a fate worse than death" come to mind. And of course, even in the legal application of capital punishment what constitutes a crime heinous enough has fluctuated: only a few decades ago the US used to execute rapists; now it doesn't. If you re-introduce the inevitable bias of a real life justice system, it gets even murkier. For anyone so inclined, there's ample evidence that even in the most proper circumstance the definition of "heinous crime" is flexible. Second, you need to believe that you are justified in performing the execution yourself. But since you are already principally justified in killing that person, this can be framed as an act of vigilante justice: you're not breaking society's rules, society is failing you by not adequately punishing your victim.

Obviously, the effect of this, if it exists, would be minor compared to economic and other factors, just like the supposed deterring effect of the death penalty. And I have to admit I don't see how you'd go to falsify this claim with current methods: temporary suspension of the death penalty as in some states of the USA isn't sufficient because you need at least a generation that grows up believing the death penalty is wrong, and by that time so many other circumstances, economical and otherwise, have changed, that you can't really generate comparable data. The only way to gather hard "evidence" that I can think of off-hand would be a computer simulation of society that is simply unfeasible with current methods. That said, maybe there are more fundamental objections to this hypothesis that I'm missing.

Thoughts?

[K. A. Pital]

Are you saying these so-called heinous crimes are rare in industrialised countries because of the deterrence of capital punishment?

No, other factors (high welfare) are more important in that case. In low-welfare nations, the death penalty and overall severity of retribution in the criminal system can have significant impact on crime rates. There is the issue that estimating the impact of severity of punishment is not easy, especially in low-welfare societies, but such's the game.

And I'm not saying I have personally reliably sized that effect; I have some thoughts as to how pervasive and influential the deterrence might be. Neither am I going to say that with the rather low crime rates present in First World nations the impact of death penalty is anything but a very marginal influence on crime, because that is true - the overall better economic position has reduced crime rates to sizes where the impact would not be severe at all.

First you need to convince yourself that whatever slight your victim has perpetrated against you is grevious enough to deserve death, but human beings have always been good at blowing their slights out of proportion.

I should not convince myself: such things should be established by a professional legal commitee, set forth in laws so that the penalty is applied according to rules, not arbitrarily.

[M]

Neither am I going to say that with the rather low crime rates present in First World nations the impact of death penalty is anything but a very marginal influence on crime, because that is true - the overall better economic position has reduced crime rates to sizes where the impact would not be severe at all.

You're still assuming the death penalty has any measurable effect in First World nations at all. Please provide evidence to that effect.

First you need to convince yourself that whatever slight your victim has perpetrated against you is grevious enough to deserve death, but human beings have always been good at blowing their slights out of proportion.

I should not convince myself:[...]

Yes, and you should not commit murder either; good that we've established that.

[K. A. Pital]

You're still assuming the death penalty has any measurable effect in First World nations at all.

I'm not. The effect is and should be in my view neglible in the First World, for other factors have already decreased the crime rate to a great extent; measuring this effect due to this is hard on it's own, so I don't say it's "measurable". But we're talking about an overall effect, so other nations should be taken into consideration and investigated, or?

[Broomstick]

Obviously, the effect of this, if it exists, would be minor compared to economic and other factors, just like the supposed deterring effect of the death penalty. And I have to admit I don't see how you'd go to falsify this claim with current methods: temporary suspension of the death penalty as in some states of the USA isn't sufficient because you need at least a generation that grows up believing the death penalty is wrong, and by that time so many other circumstances, economical and otherwise, have changed, that you can't really generate comparable data. The only way to gather hard "evidence" that I can think of off-hand would be a computer simulation of society that is simply unfeasible with current methods. That said, maybe there are more fundamental objections to this hypothesis that I'm missing.

Thoughts?

Yes - not every state in the US has the death penalty. Some, such as Michigan and Wisconsin, either never had it, or haven't had it for several generations. So a comparison between US states is possible and may well be enlightening.

The only instance I have ever heard of where the possibility of capital punishment ever made a difference was the case of Jeffrey Dahmer who specifically stated that he lured his victims from Illinois to Wisconsin specifically since Wisconsin did not have the death penalty (considerable time and expense went into trying to prove he had committed captial crimes in either Illinois or Ohio - which, apparently he did not). Dahmer was also an unusual criminal in many ways and probably not typical of usual guy winding up either on death row or imprisoned for life.

In case you're wondering, among the US states with no death penalty are Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, West Virginia, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maine. That's a nice mix of conservative and liberal states to choose from.

[M]

You're still assuming the death penalty has any measurable effect in First World nations at all.

I'm not. The effect is and should be in my view neglible in the First World, for other factors have already decreased the crime rate to a great extent; measuring this effect due to this is hard on it's own, so I don't say it's "measurable". But we're talking about an overall effect, so other nations should be taken into consideration and investigated, or?

I'm not sure I understand you completely. Let me recap what I think is your argument:

+ In low-welfare societies capital punishment serves as a significant deterrent.
+ In high-welfare societies the detterent effect is negligble.
+ Capital punishment deserving crimes are rare in First World societies
- Therefore, you value the deterrent factor of capital punishment in First World societies higher than the loss of lives.

I don't see how you can argue this unless you also argue that capital punishment in First World societies deters people in low-welfare societies, which seems... unlikely. It seems to me that by your argument the application of capital punishment should be differentiated by a given societies welfare.

Yes - not every state in the US has the death penalty. Some, such as Michigan and Wisconsin, either never had it, or haven't had it for several generations. So a comparison between US states is possible and may well be enlightening.

That's a good point. I guess as a foreigner I've viewed the US too much like a single entity. I'll have to look into that.

[Ender]

In case you're wondering, among the US states with no death penalty are Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, West Virginia, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maine. That's a nice mix of conservative and liberal states to choose from.

Additionally, Illinois has it on the books but enacting it was put on moratorium by order of ex-Governor George Ryan.

[K. A. Pital]

Therefore, you value the deterrent factor of capital punishment in First World societies higher than the loss of lives

No, I don't. I never said I support the death penalty in First World nations. Moreover, most of the threads implicitly center the debate about First World nations, but forget about all the other places in the world. I'm not a First World citizen, and my views on the death penalty mostly apply to Second and Third World nations.

[Formless]

Okay, I've given some time to think about this, and I know where we (Samuel and I) are fundamentally in disagreement. It is this part of our exchange that is telling:

And that isn't taking into account privacy laws. Yes, you did say public spaces, but at what point do you cross the line? Should my front porch be considered a public space, so the government can watch me water my garden?

Correct.

And why, exactly, does the government have that right?

Because that presumes that individuals have a right to privacy. They don't.

Why should the populace not be guaranteed a right to privacy?

Because it infringes upon other people's rights.

Bull-fucking-shit. that is the lamest thing you have said yet, Samuel. I guess you would like it if people could see what you do behind closed doors with your Significant Other (if you have one). Privacy no more infringes other people's rights than the right to free speech. Because privacy is itself a right. I challenge you to show otherwise.

It is true. I do in fact have superpowers, including the ability to show a negative for a non-logic or math based argument. I am just that good.

In summary, as you can see Samuel made the claim that somehow people do not have a right to privacy because for some unexplained reason it violates other people's rights (as if everyone has the right to know everything, even if it is who you are sleeping with! ). At no point did he explain why or provide evidence for either claim, he merely tried to use the second claim (that privacy rights violate peoples rights) to support the first (that privacy isn't a right). I called bullshit, and when asked to back up his claims he tried to shrug off the need to do so with the inane idea that negatives cannot be proven. We went over this ages ago, Sammy, negatives can and are proven all the time. Now, as I said, privacy is a right (at least, the law currently says so), and he has yet to show otherwise. His proposal would violate that right (albeit, in an obtuse, yet Orwellian, manner). All I ask is that you show how privacy violates other peoples rights, and why it should not be considered a right of the people. Regardless of our respective values, the law for whatever reason currently considers privacy a right of the people. If you wish to challenge that rights validity, you are going to have to do better to back up your shit. The rest of your proposal can't be reviewed until we establish where we stand here.

Might I point out now before you make any arguments about sacrificing freedoms to be free of fear and to have security * that some people would actually feel more secure with privacy right protection laws in place (gays, minorities, anyone who has an interest generally harmless but not universally agreed upon as socially acceptable, etc) as has been pointed out by both Broomstick and I. Merely nitpicking that the U.S. isn't likely to go back into paranoid persecution of gays mode won't rebut this, especially considering the possibility of future social changes we can't predict yet.

* Ironic way to put it, really, to give up freedom to gain another form of freedom...

[M]

No, I don't. I never said I support the death penalty in First World nations. Moreover, most of the threads implicitly center the debate about First World nations, but forget about all the other places in the world. I'm not a First World citizen, and my views on the death penalty mostly apply to Second and Third World nations.

Ah. I see where my confusion stemmed from. When you talked exclusively about industrialised societies in your first post in this thread, I assumed you were talking about the death penalty in, you know, industrialised nations. Clearly I should have intuited you actually meant Second and Third World nations. (or is it industrialised Second and Third World nations?).

How silly of me.

[Broomstick]

In case you're wondering, among the US states with no death penalty are Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, West Virginia, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maine. That's a nice mix of conservative and liberal states to choose from.

Additionally, Illinois has it on the books but enacting it was put on moratorium by order of ex-Governor George Ryan.

That is indeed correct. It was one of the last things he did while in office.

I believe Nebraska is in the position that the state surpreme court has ruled electrocution as state-unconstitutional. The state constitution only allows for execution by electrocution. Therefore, although Nebraska has the death penalty on the books it can't use it due to that ruling.

There may be one or two other states with similar situations.

There are also a few states that permit execution but have not used the option since 1976, which is getting to be quite a long span of time.

That's a good point. I guess as a foreigner I've viewed the US too much like a single entity. I'll have to look into that.

That happens - our multiple layers of laws probably is confusing to those not familar with it, and I think that having most capital offenses at the state rather than the Federal level takes people by surprise. When it comes to crime and law, US states in many ways function as separate nations. If a criminal flees to another state it requires extradition proceedings to bring him back to the state in which the crime occurred.

There are a few Federal offenses that carry the death penalty, and if you commit one in a state such as Michigan you still be executed, but it would be by the Feds and not by Michigan. In any case, Federal executions are quite rare and would involve something like treason, killing the President (and that only since the 1960's - at the time of JFK's assassination killing the PotUS would have you tried in the state in which the killing occurred, not Federal court), spying for an enemy in wartime, and so on. None of those are common crimes. Murder is a state-level crime, as is rape and most other felonies, but a crime crossing state lines can become Federal level. It's a bit confusing even to us natives at times.

It is also confusing because many entities do treat the US as a monolithic entity when it comes to the death penalty due to the existance of Federal capital crimes. This ignores the fact that the vast majority of executions are by the states, not by the Feds, and that changing death penalty laws in the US really needs to be done at the state level because for most of the crimes concerned the Federal government does not have jurisdiction. It also ignores a state like Michigan where anti-death penalty sentiment runs quite strong (being raised in Michigan likely influenced my views on the the death penalty, which I am opposed to).

[Vultur]

There ARE industrialized countries which the average US citizen wouldn't think of as "First World" - Brazil and Mexico are examples.

Why would I move out of a country with Britain's level of surveillance to one with a lower standard of living? Because I don't find that level of governmental power acceptable. Britain is a democratic country and if its people want that, I have no problem with it -- but leave my home the way it is! I refuse to live under that kind of system; not because I do anything illegal but because that sort of power is WAY too easy to abuse. (Also, I think the fact that citizens accept it at all means that the society is going in a way I wouldn't like. 'He who gives up liberty for a little temporary security deserves neither liberty nor security.' -- Benjamin Franklin.)

[Samuel]

In summary, as you can see Samuel made the claim that somehow people do not have a right to privacy because for some unexplained reason it violates other people's rights

If your in public and you are insisting that your actions not be monitered, odds are good you are up to something. Due to the fact that being in public is... public.

(as if everyone has the right to know everything, even if it is who you are sleeping with! ).

Yeah, I proposed putting cameras in homes... when? Or, I didn't. Besides, you'd need one for every room, making it more expensive

At no point did he explain why or provide evidence for either claim, he merely tried to use the second claim (that privacy rights violate peoples rights) to support the first (that privacy isn't a right).

Privacy violates people's right because people can use the cover of privacy to do so and get away with criminal activity. This isn't hard.

I called bullshit, and when asked to back up his claims he tried to shrug off the need to do so with the inane idea that negatives cannot be proven. We went over this ages ago, Sammy, negatives can and are proven all the time.

Please tell me how you can disprove fiat statements. Cause that is what declaring something a "right" is.

Now, as I said, privacy is a right (at least, the law currently says so), and he has yet to show otherwise.

Legal/=moral.

His proposal would violate that right (albeit, in an obtuse, yet Orwellian, manner). All I ask is that you show how privacy violates other peoples rights, and why it should not be considered a right of the people. Regardless of our respective values, the law for whatever reason currently considers privacy a right of the people. If you wish to challenge that rights validity, you are going to have to do better to back up your shit. The rest of your proposal can't be reviewed until we establish where we stand here.

Privacy violates the right to life, personal security, safety, etc. Any measure that increases the crime rate does so- most extreme measures aren't used because they violate rights.

Might I point out now before you make any arguments about sacrificing freedoms to be free of fear and to have security * that some people would actually feel more secure with privacy right protection laws in place (gays, minorities, anyone who has an interest generally harmless but not universally agreed upon as socially acceptable, etc) as has been pointed out by both Broomstick and I. Merely nitpicking that the U.S. isn't likely to go back into paranoid persecution of gays mode won't rebut this, especially considering the possibility of future social changes we can't predict yet.

Please show how having surviellence of public places will do this compared to what is possible now.

* Ironic way to put it, really, to give up freedom to gain another form of freedom

See Somalia.

not because I do anything illegal but because that sort of power is WAY too easy to abuse.

Unlike government power to tax you? Draft you? Seize your property?

[Formless]

In summary, as you can see Samuel made the claim that somehow people do not have a right to privacy because for some unexplained reason it violates other people's rights

If your in public and you are insisting that your actions not be monitered, odds are good you are up to something. Due to the fact that being in public is... public./

Nice Black/White fallacy you have there. Nice way to ignore the obvious possibility of people who are just doing something that isn't socially accepted, but otherwise requires moving through public spaces. (just to name something off the top of my head, people going to adult entertainment like strip clubs) Remember, anyone who seeks privacy is conspiring to commit crime!

Public spaces may be public, but people generally don't poke their noses into other peoples business just because they are in public. Yet you think the government should do just that.

(as if everyone has the right to know everything, even if it is who you are sleeping with! ).

Yeah, I proposed putting cameras in homes... when? Or, I didn't. Besides, you'd need one for every room, making it more expensive

Oh for the love of-- stop posting this strawman and actually address my points. You said that privacy violates peoples rights. Which rights? The only "right" it violates that I can think of is the right to poke your nose where it doesn't belong. While your proposal wouldn't put camera's into peoples homes, and I never said it did, the principal behind it (that people do NOT have a right to privacy) is exactly the same. You said that you don't think people have a right to privacy, yet you nevertheless contradict yourself by allowing for it in peoples own homes. Why? Why contradict yourself, Samuel? I am attacking the blanket statement, not your stupid proposal.

At no point did he explain why or provide evidence for either claim, he merely tried to use the second claim (that privacy rights violate peoples rights) to support the first (that privacy isn't a right).

Privacy violates people's right because people can use the cover of privacy to do so and get away with criminal activity. This isn't hard.

And everyone who wants privacy is a de facto criminal now, huh Samuel? Never mind gays and minorities. Never mind people doing stigmatized activities that aren't against the law. Never mind that people don't have a right or need to stick their nose into other people's business, not even the government unless they have shown probably cause.

I called bullshit, and when asked to back up his claims he tried to shrug off the need to do so with the inane idea that negatives cannot be proven. We went over this ages ago, Sammy, negatives can and are proven all the time.

Please tell me how you can disprove fiat statements. Cause that is what declaring something a "right" is.

I don't follow. Its in the books, Samuel, we have a right to privacy. On what grounds, legal, ethical, or logical do you think we should revoke that law?

Now, as I said, privacy is a right (at least, the law currently says so), and he has yet to show otherwise.

Legal/=moral.

Good grief. How is it immoral, you donky-cock?

His proposal would violate that right (albeit, in an obtuse, yet Orwellian, manner). All I ask is that you show how privacy violates other peoples rights, and why it should not be considered a right of the people. Regardless of our respective values, the law for whatever reason currently considers privacy a right of the people. If you wish to challenge that rights validity, you are going to have to do better to back up your shit. The rest of your proposal can't be reviewed until we establish where we stand here.

Privacy violates the right to life, personal security, safety, etc. Any measure that increases the crime rate does so- most extreme measures aren't used because they violate rights.

By your say-so.

Furthermore, prove that privacy increases the crime rate. Merely saying that it does won't cut it.

Might I point out now before you make any arguments about sacrificing freedoms to be free of fear and to have security * that some people would actually feel more secure with privacy right protection laws in place (gays, minorities, anyone who has an interest generally harmless but not universally agreed upon as socially acceptable, etc) as has been pointed out by both Broomstick and I. Merely nitpicking that the U.S. isn't likely to go back into paranoid persecution of gays mode won't rebut this, especially considering the possibility of future social changes we can't predict yet.

Please show how having surviellence of public places will do this compared to what is possible now.

I never said that it would, you strawmanning piece of shit. Stop trying to put words into my mouth, and start coming up with coherent arguments that don't rely on your own say-so.

[Samuel]

Nice Black/White fallacy you have there. Nice way to ignore the obvious possibility of people who are just doing something that isn't socially accepted, but otherwise requires moving through public spaces. (just to name something off the top of my head, people going to adult entertainment like strip clubs) Remember, anyone who seeks privacy is conspiring to commit crime!

Or the evil totalitarian government can just refuse zoning. There are much easier methods for cracking down.

Oh for the love of-- stop posting this strawman and actually address my points. You said that privacy violates peoples rights. Which rights? The only "right" it violates that I can think of is the right to poke your nose where it doesn't belong. While your proposal wouldn't put camera's into peoples homes, and I never said it did, the principal behind it (that people do NOT have a right to privacy) is exactly the same. You said that you don't think people have a right to privacy, yet you nevertheless contradict yourself by allowing for it in peoples own homes. Why? Why contradict yourself, Samuel? I am attacking the blanket statement, not your stupid proposal.

The right to live is the highest right. Anything that cuts down on crime helps that. Or do victims of crime not take precidence over your paranoia?

And everyone who wants privacy is a de facto criminal now, huh Samuel? Never mind gays and minorities. Never mind people doing stigmatized activities that aren't against the law. Never mind that people don't have a right or need to stick their nose into other people's business, not even the government unless they have shown probably cause.

Yeah, obviously the fact you can help said minorities by catching people commiting crimes against them, but no- we have an evil government that will only use this to oppress people, even if you make it so that things can't be hidden! Right...

And the government doesn't need probable cause in public. A police officer doesn't nee a warrent to look through your car window.

I don't follow. Its in the books, Samuel, we have a right to privacy. On what grounds, legal, ethical, or logical do you think we should revoke that law?

Tradition is not an argument.

Good grief. How is it immoral, you donky-cock?

It is amoral. It is a desire that does not physical affect others. This is pretty simple.

Furthermore, prove that privacy increases the crime rate. Merely saying that it does won't cut it.

You don't believe that increasing the rate of convictions and successful arrests will reduce crime. I honestly don't know how to respond to that.

I never said that it would, you strawmanning piece of shit. Stop trying to put words into my mouth, and start coming up with coherent arguments that don't rely on your own say-so.

Yeah, a complete strawman to point out your arguments are BS because the "government can use it to opress us" doesn't apply because the government can already do that, but cheaper. They don't need a widespread camera system to crack down on unwanted people- just cameras in strategic places.