The Zimmerman Trial

[Felch]

Neighborhood watches don't govern, you ****ing ******.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

*sigh*

[PLATO]

It was hair-splitting. The wording you used was Constitutionality, not the principles embodied in the Constitution. I was saying that I've never argued the actual legality of neighborhood watches or that there's any implications for them in the Constitution (beyond the obvious), just that they are not accountable and transparent. The argument eventually loops around to calling neighborhood watches governmental organizations ("Where do we get government from? A bunch of people getting together and agreeing on the common good, which is what a neighborhood watch is") and then asking why they aren't accountable in the same way that most organs of government in the US are ("Even the school board gets elected for crying out loud, and that's further from the core function of government than providing for common safety.") At some point I might have compared Batman to the Supreme Court. I don't know. I hadn't gotten that far yet. (Well, ok, I obviously got that far, but hadn't made a decision yet.)

Okay, I see. I believe what you are saying is that a neighborhood watch should be set up using the basic premise of accountability and that the Constitution was set up using the basic premise of accountability. In the most simple form of that idea, I could agree. However, how the accountability is actually set up in the Constitution is far, far different from how accountability could or should be set up in a neighborhood watch group. I believe that using the Constitution as a basis for your argument is not a very good one.

Now, if you were to say that local or State government should and could set up formal accountability for neighborhood watch groups, then I would agree that that is within their realm. However, we are talking about groups of citizens getting together to just watch out for one another so I am not sure that there are many communities that would go along with regulating that. Maybe in Sava's 30 second police response neighborhood, but in general...no.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I believe that using the Constitution as a basis for your argument is not a very good one.

Yeah, it was a stretch, but worth playing out. Mostly I only did it because someone said that accountability was a weak Euro thing.

Now, if you were to say that local or State government should and could set up formal accountability for neighborhood watch groups, then I would agree that that is within their realm. However, we are talking about groups of citizens getting together to just watch out for one another so I am not sure that there are many communities that would go along with regulating that. Maybe in Sava's 30 second police response neighborhood, but in general...no.

Oh, no, certainly not.

[Sava]

These pretzels are making ME THIRSTY!

[Felch]

*sigh*

We get your retarded argument. You think that reporting crimes is somehow governing, because taking a stand is something only governments are allowed to do. You're wrong. Free citizens, in a free republic, have every right to act of their own accord. Only European pussies think that's a bad thing.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Drink urine. It will cure your thirst and you can go with unsalted pretzels as a result.

[regexcellent]

Drink hemlock. It will cure your thirst.

.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Got Hemlock

[Koyaanisqatsi]

We get your retarded argument.

Apparently not, but that's ok.

Free citizens, in a free republic, have every right to act of their own accord.

Yes, right up to the point where those actions impinge on someone else's freedom. At that point the arbitration and accountability of law become necessary. The difference here is that you don't see surveillance as impinging on someone else's freedom.

[Sava]

What about free citizens in a non-free republic. What can they do?

Or non-free citizens in a free republic?

[Felch]

Surveillance of public spaces isn't a violation of freedom. The reason I oppose government surveillance is because I oppose the government in general.

[Felch]

What about free citizens in a non-free republic. What can they do?

Or non-free citizens in a free republic?

They can eat **** and die.

[Sava]

They can eat **** and die.

Food is even better the second time around.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Surveillance of public spaces isn't a violation of freedom. The reason I oppose government surveillance is because I oppose the government in general.

What is the difference between surveillance your community appoints directly (or, closer to directly) in a neighborhood watch and surveillance you appoint indirectly by having your community's proxies in Washington draw up orders?