Sometimes I’m reminded how remarkable it is that people managed to set up a system of governance in which the rulers can’t do anything they want. An imperfect system, but still worth protecting as it improves.
> An imperfect system, but still worth protecting as it improves.
It's not improving though. Quite the opposite.
For the past two decades, individual rights in Western democracies have consistently been eroded, under both right- and left-wing governments. I cannot think of a single major change in any major Western country since the start of the century that I would call an improvement of individual rights.
> I cannot think of a single major change in any major Western country since the start of the century that I would call an improvement of individual rights.
Would gay marriage rights not fall under an improvement of individual rights here? If not, why?
I truly don't see the difference in this case. You - as an individual - now have the right to legally marry whomever you choose provided they have the legal right to consent (e.g., old enough, of sound mind, etc.). You may not have any desire or need to exercise that right, but it's still yours all the same.
Since the start of the century, many western democracies added freedom for marrying people of the same sex as you. Abortion laws also got more progressive in several countries in the last 20 years. There's been an erosion of privacy and other things but there's some areas with extra civil liberties.
Both of those are examples of group rights, not individual rights. That is, rights have been expanded for subsets of the population, not for everyone.
That's a very important distinction to make, though I grant you that pretending this distinction doesn't exist has been the MO of politics and media for a while now.
> ability to make diolague shrinks due to overconsumption of naratives full of fear
I think you might refer to how political discourse in western democracies increasingly seems not appeal to reason and common ground, but to "feelings" including fear, but also disgust, love of tribe and similar.
It seems to be that way but I'm not sure it wasn't always. Maybe people who want rational discourse about policy should seek forums that does just that, and not look to be informed by campaign slogans and the mudwrestling that goes on in social media. And maybe that's how it always was.
Rising tribalism is very interesting phenomena. I guess it's driven by media rethoric that dictate feelings and it's full of sensations, because apparently it makes more money.
What is difference than before is scale. So many people never consumed virtual information before. It makes perfect ground for one, centralised control over masses.
I'm not sure I follow - I didn't think you were making some deep point about civil liberties vs individual rights vs group rights.
My point is I can decide to marry a man or a woman now and before I could only decide to marry women. Currently I despise the idea of marriage so I'm not doing either, but there's many things I have the freedom to do that I choose not to. I still like to have that freedom. It seems you were making some deeper point than me or you have a different idea of what makes "a group" (since you called abortion a group right even though it applies to every woman).
You could make a similar argument that the Soviets supported the emancipation of women far more than the west in the mid 20th century, and that women in the USSR had more right to work.
That framing of course is absurd because women in the USSR also had more chance of their brothers being disappeared, etc.
To rephrase the comment above slightly, the gain of rights for a particular group isn’t a replacement for a loss of universal rights. The loss of universal rights is always more serious because it leads to the darkest paths that a society can take.
Many western countries have not experienced repression in two or more generations and cultural memory is starting to fade.
I see gay marriage as a gain of rights for all, not for a particular group. I'm not gay, but I now have the right to marry a man for tax purposes, employer-provided benefits, or citizenship/immigration.
> You could make a similar argument that the Soviets supported the emancipation of women far more than the west in the mid 20th century, and that women in the USSR had more right to work.
> That framing of course is absurd because women in the USSR also had more chance of their brothers being disappeared, etc.
I don't think that's absurd? Both can be true at the same time, a government can stop discriminating you for one thing, while starting to repress you for another. Whether that's a net negative for any individual depends on circumstance and detail.
It's obvious if you reduce it to the absurd: e.g. if a government decides the abolish slavery (terrible discrimination for a specific group) while also disallowing chewing gum for everyone. Similarly you can construct examples for the inverse (a minor reduction of discrimination vs a great loss of freedom for everyone).
History is pretty clear in its opinion on the (lack of) merits of Stalinism, but I don't think you can construct a general principle in the phrasing you chose.
Whilst I generally agree with you, it does feel like all new laws this last century have been eroding individual freedoms, here are some UK laws that have potentially made some things better for the individual (I can only confidently speak for law in England and Wales):
1. The Human Rights Act 1998: This Act incorporates into UK law the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. It effectively brings these rights closer to home, allowing individuals to seek redress for alleged breaches of these rights in the domestic courts rather than having to go to Strasbourg. This increases individual freedom by providing easier access to legal remedies.
2. The Freedom of Information Act 2000: This legislation enables the public to request information from public bodies. This contributes to the transparency of public bodies, supports the public's right to know, and increases democratic control.
3. The Equality Act 2010: This consolidates previous anti-discrimination laws into one Act, with the aim of ensuring equal treatment for all, regardless of characteristics such as race, sex, disability, etc. This enhances individual freedom by providing protection against discrimination and promoting equality.
4. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012: This law contains a variety of measures intended to protect civil liberties and roll back state intrusion. It restricts the retention of DNA and fingerprints by the police and regulates the use of surveillance powers, enhancing individual privacy.
5. The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013: This Act legalised same-sex marriage in England and Wales, thereby increasing the freedom of individuals to marry regardless of their sexual orientation. This represents a significant expansion of rights for the LGBTQ+ community.
6. The Children and Families Act 2014: This Act includes provisions that give parents and young people greater control over support for children with special educational needs. This enhances the rights and freedoms of children with special educational needs and their parents.
7. The Modern Slavery Act 2015: This Act aimed to increase the penalties and powers to prevent modern slavery. By consolidating slavery and trafficking offences, it gives more protection to individuals who might be victims of such practices.
8. The Mental Health (Discrimination) Act 2013: This law removes legislative barriers to people with mental health conditions serving in certain public roles (like MPs, jurors, or company directors). This increases individual freedom by reducing discrimination against people with mental health conditions.
9. Data Protection Act 2018: This legislation incorporated the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) into UK law, giving individuals greater control over their personal data. It increased individual freedom by giving people rights such as the right to access their personal data, the right to correct inaccurate data, and the right to have data deleted in certain circumstances.
However, I do agree that few changes have been made to protect the individual FROM the state itself.
I consider GDPR in the EU (and similar initiatives in other jurisdictions) to be an improvement of individuals' rights. I agree with the general sentiment though, very little else (if anything) has progressed.
The GDPR is merely a (weak) response to the overwhelming erosion of individual privacy that has been taking place during the past 20 years.
In practice, individual privacy has been diminished to a degree that calling the GDPR an improvement is almost cynical. The GDPR only exists because the right to privacy means almost nothing in today's world.
Not to mention that the GDPR is so routinely violated that most "rights" it appears to grant are worthless in reality.
Yes, I agree with you, at the same time it's something of an improvement against the status quo pre-GDPR.
Saying it's ineffective does not mean it didn't change the reality of individual rights being eroded on the data privacy sphere... I've worked in multiple projects to comply with GDPR, there is a much higher degree of care with PII after GDPR than before, so it is a step in the right direction.
I'm not the type to wait for a perfect solution to arrive, GDPR has made changes in real life, we need to keep pushing what it has brought forth instead of just complaining it's ineffective, it has value on its own and more can be done.
> The law prohibits or chills a substantial amount of First Amendment protected activity and is unnecessary to prevent interference with police officers given other Arizona laws in effect,” [Federal Judge] Tuchi ruled.
The original Republican sponsor of the measure has been unable to find someone to defend it, as the article notes.
> Republican state Sen. John Kavanagh, who sponsored the measure, has said he was unable to find an outside group to defend the legislation.
There's plenty of instances of this exact thing captured on YouTube. Police can be seen walking up to people filming and placing themselves in close proximity to block views.
Why's that? If the journalist is getting in the way, no doubt they can find a charge for interfering with the police's job. There's even built in evidence when they get the camera. If they're not interfering, what's the problem?
Whether you believe it reasonable or not, a federal judge has reasoned it is unconstitutional.
It could be appealed, but from the article it sounds like there isn't much popular support for the law, and the governor had a hard time finding someone to litigate in support
- most police have body cams now, so presumably, their voices and actions are already being recorded
- citizens interacting with police don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, so they cannot opt out of being recorded
So it seems fine that citizens can create their own copy of the incident that's already being recorded.
To flip it on it's head, I can't think of a reasonable, let alone constitutional, argument for "I can record you but you cannot record me"
Of course, this leaves out the case where they don't have body cams/aren't recording. In that instance, though, we already have a pretty strong precedent that people cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces. That's why we can take selfies, vlog, talk on the phone, etc regardless if people are in the background. Not to mention straight up record whatever is around - dashcams, security cameras, etc.
> And on private property, an officer who decides that someone is interfering or that the area is unsafe could have ordered the person to stop filming even if the recording was being made with the owner’s permission.
Which seems to imply that if a police officer breaks into your house, they can order you to stop filming them at their sole discretion.
They just don’t want to be in another rap video. I think you should be able to post a sign on the exterior of the house that says “Video recording in progress. By entering the premises, you grant the use of your likeness” just like when TV shows shoot in public places.
In the EU surveillance systems must be compliant with the GDPR. So there must be a way to notify people that they are being recorded and whom to contact to get their data removed.
GDPR generally applies to companies and organisations, or individuals processing data as part of their business or professional activities, not typically to individuals acting in a purely personal or household capacity.
This is outlined in Article 2, which defines the scope of the GDPR. Specifically, Article 2(2)(c) states:
"This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity"
I'd suggest that recording within my own home comes under the "household activity" clause.
Only in a world where an officer can’t get closer than 8 feet from you without a warrant. We don’t live in that world and while I’m not anti-police, American PDs have proven they are both willing and able to game little loopholes like this if they find it to be in their personal interest to do so.
It is extremely common to have, eg, a couple cops beating the shit out of someone, and a couple more instructing a crowd to stand back. You are within 8 feet of the latter, because they are approaching you.
You will also be within 8 feet of a cop as a passenger during any traffic stop.
A well known risk of democracy is populist nonsense laws that appeal to a vocal minority or entrenched voting block. The legislator who pushed this turd of a law knew what he was doing and the consequences were moot. Getting re elected was more important.
The modern Republican party of small government and low taxes is long gone. in its stead is basically a zombie that shambles from culture war to culture war in a desperate bid to remain relevant to anyone who still thinks cutting a billionaires taxes makes any sense in 2023. It advances dead cat legislation and reactionary edicts against the very first amendment it insists it champions.
The bulk of the Party doesn't even seem to actually care about the 2nd amendment - see the outpouring of support for the police summarily executing individuals exercising their right to bear arms. The topic has become something more like a performative security blanket of imagining some heroic last stand as a simulation of fighting tyranny.
And there's a second amendment contingent on the left now too. Organizations like the socialist rifle association (SRA), Pink Pistols, John Brown Gun Club (JBGC) and several others. It's far from the majority position left of center, but there's plenty of folks who recognize the disproportionate impact gun laws have on minorities, and the difference in arms between an increasingly violent right and the minority groups in America.
Where have you ever seen a mainstream republican candidate for small government? Reagan is the only one in my lifetime and even that is questionable. Both parties have always been about using the power of government for their own purposes. This is why the federal government never gets smaller. It's unfortunate because both parties are heavy handed in their pursuit of power. It's unavoidable because people always want action even to the determent of reason. This is not republican or democrat - this is human nature.
Most of them. Not that they actually implement small government when they get into office, but they'll scream it from the rooftops because to the "small town folks," small government equates to turning a blind eye to social justice issues. Cutting spending is never eliminating waste from government, because they'd never think of cutting the military budget. They always specifically target social services due to Reagan's welfare queen mythology that exists to this day.
Reagan wasn't "small government" either, by the way. He expanded the government faster than any other POTUS in history outside of world wars. His economic policies also gave both parties the green light to spend like it's going out of style, although Republicans are notably bad when it comes to actually making economic sense with their taxes versus their expenditures.
Reagan had gun control, the War on Drugs, 40% higher military spending, top down union busting via legislative technicalities. He’s wasn’t for small government at all, just lower taxes really.
I agree with you. I posted "Reagan is the only one in my lifetime and even that is questionable." He gave lip service to small government. In practice nothing really changed.
Funny you should say that but the former governor (Doug Ducey) who signed this law was actually a pretty old-school, conservative Republican. I was very disappointed he signed this bill considering the rest of his record. I get the feeling he knew it wouldn’t stand legal challenges (but it was still disappointing).
In a saner Republican Party he would have been a good Senator or even Presidential nominee. Unfortunately, that isn’t the age we live in.
A right of center stone dais. The majority in the Democrats don't actually want progress, they just want to maintain the previous "normal." That is despite their opposition pushing further and further right and making parts of the new "normal" facets of the old extreme. Most of this ceding of ground and drift further right has been to foster a large authoritarian surveillance system that they both benefit from. It's hard to tell if the cooperation with the Republicans towards that system is fully intentional or just a useful secondary effect of the Democrats' tactics of trying to appeal to the broadest voter base possible. Maybe a bit of both depending on the official (such as Joe Manchin).
Politics is fundamentally about control of resources. Any kind of ideology is in essence a side show while the real meat is where funding goes. Ideological culture war and identity-politics issues are fantastic for both parties because they motivate supporters without expending any resources. Ideologically motivated voters are sitting at the kids table eating scraps while the adults divvy up the good stuff.
Party ideology will shift and twist to follow the fashions and whims of these folks as well as put forward new more effective narratives when possible, while the real interest groups who are after resources are more stable in their needs.
Small government is code of sorts for "rich over poor".
The "size" of govt doesn't really matter. It's a money issue (isn't it always?) The phrase "small govt" is a proxy for a) lower taxes and b) the ability to exploit then environment, workers, immigrants, whatever without interference.
I should be allowed to sell snake oil (no FDA), plunder a forest (no National Park nonsense), polute air and water (no EPA), build substandard housing, unsafe mines, and so on.
Most of all taxes should be low, or preferably non-existent. And if they must be collected they must be used to help me, not just given to my neighbor, or worse, my employees. Small govt means taxes should help the rich not the poor.
This is a perfectly legitimate political position for a party to take. If a majority agrees, thats democracy in action. It has served the majority well for decades, as long as the majority saw themselves as rich, or pre-rich.
Unfortunately now though the majority does not see themselves as rich anymore. Gone are the factories, the solid middle-class jobs, the affordable housing. Now the majority are poor, or pre-poor.
Ironically (on paper) the budget solution is obvious. Gut the military budget. There's $500 billion easy right there. (That can't really be done because the military budget is a back-door welfare program. Lots, and I mean Lots, of people get their salary from that budget.)
I know, I know, the military fights for our freedoms. They keep us safe. But pretty much no US military interventions since 1945, even more since 1990, have actually "protected Americans". Protected Kuwait (1st gulf war) sure. But how did Korea, Vietnam , Loas, Cambodia, Iraq or Afghanistan "protect Americans"?
I'm NOT ragging on the troops here, they go where they're sent . They do their jobs. We rightly respect them for doing a dangerous job. But the military is, at best, bloated and a money pit. Functionally it is a way of funnelling money to the rich, not the troops in harms way.
Those would definitely help, but a USA with actual majority-rule and viable third-party voting would have at least some chance of improving over time - if nothing else, there could be a federal "ban lobbying and overturn citizens united" party that people could first-preference.
You ask if we lament the fact that Republicans don’t do all the small government low tax stuff, and to that I would say that I lament the fact that they do not have policy at all, so much so that they reused their platform from 2016 for 2020 [1].
That’s right, to prepare for a billion dollar national election campaign, they wrote a single page document telling you to refer to their previous platform.
> If you dont want the Republicans to advance an agenda of smaller government and lower taxes
There are aspects of this I would be fine with. Neither party right now seems particularly interested in leaner, more efficient government, that achieves approximately the same goals with less bureaucracy or money.
> a zombie that shambles from culture war to culture war
I’m just going to applaud your literary sense here for a sec. Beautifully written and explained thought about this completely new and troubling phenomenon.
Mostly troubling because it does seem to be working insofar as the zombie won’t goddamn die.
> ... It advances dead cat legislation and reactionary edicts...
The legislative circus is a sideshow to the main event, which is fundraising from a small core of donors (which is a perversion of 1A, but we digress...).
> The modern Republican party of small government and low taxes is long gone.
A better way to think of the Republican party platform is "anti-reactionary". This descriptor makes more sense for how they seemingly jump from topic to topic. Which, credit where it is do, is probably fine in the long run in a functional political system where they can act as ballast against excesses.
But as a weirdness of our time, foreign and economic policy between the two parties are pretty largely aligned so if you represent a fluid anti-reactionary platform, the only thing of value you can provide are culture war issues.
The culture war bullshit is how they convince people to vote for small government which is against almost everyone’s financial well-being except for a vanishingly small number of rich arseholes.
The core mission of the movement is still anarcho capitalism.
The problem is in the law of “how close you can film” that SCOTUS rules against is already a subset of a much better law such as “shall not obstruct police work” that is already on 34 states’ (and DC) law book.
Arizona already has such a broad law that SCOTUS have repeatedly ruled in favor:
AZ ST § 13-2402. Obstructing governmental operations
A. A person commits obstructing governmental operations if, by using or threatening to use violence or physical force, such person knowingly obstructs, impairs or hinders:
1. The performance of a governmental function by a public servant acting under color of his official authority; or
2. The enforcement of the penal law or the preservation of the peace by a peace officer acting under color of his official authority.
B. This section does not apply to the obstruction, impairment or hinderance of the making of an arrest.
C. Obstructing governmental operations is a class 1 misdemeanor.
Still odd to me that the party that supports "freedom" - specifically, 2A rights, which I also support - has this cop fetish. Law enforcement is a crucial regulator against anarchy and crime, so that society can function more smoothly. But it should never, ever be allowed to have its own agenda or lobby for restrictions on free citizens' rights. The fact that the pro-2A PARTY in this country doesn't see that, and instead prefers to drop to their knees for cops, is deeply disturbing and disappointing.
They just worship the uniform. That's kinda the difference between a conservative and a fascist (or a liberal and a communist).
Fuck authority that we appointed giving themselves extra self-appointed permissions.
I think I can say this, whether I'm right wing or left wing, and intelligent people will agree.
Cops in Chicago are currently investigating themselves for rape of immigrant minors housed in their facilities. Absolutely disgusting that people continue to cheer our broken police force, especially after Ulvalde.
I'm not sure what your point is. I consider them both anti-American. Although my level of disgust is inherently higher with anything resembling and corrupting the American flag.
I'm not a fan of flags anyway and I look down on people who care about them.
If you think they sum up a political viewpoint, you're wrong, and it's still a sad commentary on the superficial nature of the debate we've been reduced to.
[edit] it took me three reads of your comment to realize you were basically backing what I was saying. I'm an idiot, and I'm drunk at the moment. But yeah.
yeah. I'm in a weird spot in SE Portland where it's practically considered racist, fascist and pro-war to display an American flag... while 20 miles outside the City at my gfs house there's unlimited blue line flags, MAGA hats, etc
which I consider deeply unAmerican and fascist.
Literally can't fly an American flag anywhere in my state without triggering a bad reaction somehow.
My family are all immigrants and extremely proud of our country and thankful for what America provided for us. Also very liberal. It's difficult to explain this to anyone who loves or hates America who isn't from an immigrant background.
> Republican state Sen. John Kavanagh, who sponsored the measure, has said he was unable to find an outside group to defend the legislation.
> Prominent law enforcement officials refused to defend the law, including former Republican Attorney General Mark Brnovich and both the prosecutor and sheriff’s office in Maricopa County, home to Phoenix.
Credit where it's due, even the police themselves wanted nothing to do with this awful bill. And studies have shown that video evidence overwhelmingly exonerates police more often than it implicates them. Transparency is a win for everyone.
From an European perspective this looks like something happening in a third-world country. Anything can be bought and keeping your rights are based on luck.
This right is still one which exists on paper only. All a cop has to do is mistake your cell phone for a gun and murder you, which they have shown they have no hesitation to do. Phone optional.
110 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 177 ms ] threadIt's not improving though. Quite the opposite.
For the past two decades, individual rights in Western democracies have consistently been eroded, under both right- and left-wing governments. I cannot think of a single major change in any major Western country since the start of the century that I would call an improvement of individual rights.
Would gay marriage rights not fall under an improvement of individual rights here? If not, why?
That's a very important distinction to make, though I grant you that pretending this distinction doesn't exist has been the MO of politics and media for a while now.
At least we can discuss about it. But ability to make diolague shrinks due to overconsumption of naratives full of fear. That bothers me quite a bit.
We pretend to solving problems by creating ridiculous ammount of regulations and laws instead of removing those non functional.
I think you might refer to how political discourse in western democracies increasingly seems not appeal to reason and common ground, but to "feelings" including fear, but also disgust, love of tribe and similar.
It seems to be that way but I'm not sure it wasn't always. Maybe people who want rational discourse about policy should seek forums that does just that, and not look to be informed by campaign slogans and the mudwrestling that goes on in social media. And maybe that's how it always was.
I'm not sure.
What is difference than before is scale. So many people never consumed virtual information before. It makes perfect ground for one, centralised control over masses.
My point is I can decide to marry a man or a woman now and before I could only decide to marry women. Currently I despise the idea of marriage so I'm not doing either, but there's many things I have the freedom to do that I choose not to. I still like to have that freedom. It seems you were making some deeper point than me or you have a different idea of what makes "a group" (since you called abortion a group right even though it applies to every woman).
That framing of course is absurd because women in the USSR also had more chance of their brothers being disappeared, etc.
To rephrase the comment above slightly, the gain of rights for a particular group isn’t a replacement for a loss of universal rights. The loss of universal rights is always more serious because it leads to the darkest paths that a society can take.
Many western countries have not experienced repression in two or more generations and cultural memory is starting to fade.
I see gay marriage as a gain of rights for all, not for a particular group. I'm not gay, but I now have the right to marry a man for tax purposes, employer-provided benefits, or citizenship/immigration.
I don't think that's absurd? Both can be true at the same time, a government can stop discriminating you for one thing, while starting to repress you for another. Whether that's a net negative for any individual depends on circumstance and detail.
It's obvious if you reduce it to the absurd: e.g. if a government decides the abolish slavery (terrible discrimination for a specific group) while also disallowing chewing gum for everyone. Similarly you can construct examples for the inverse (a minor reduction of discrimination vs a great loss of freedom for everyone).
History is pretty clear in its opinion on the (lack of) merits of Stalinism, but I don't think you can construct a general principle in the phrasing you chose.
In practice, individual privacy has been diminished to a degree that calling the GDPR an improvement is almost cynical. The GDPR only exists because the right to privacy means almost nothing in today's world.
Not to mention that the GDPR is so routinely violated that most "rights" it appears to grant are worthless in reality.
Saying it's ineffective does not mean it didn't change the reality of individual rights being eroded on the data privacy sphere... I've worked in multiple projects to comply with GDPR, there is a much higher degree of care with PII after GDPR than before, so it is a step in the right direction.
I'm not the type to wait for a perfect solution to arrive, GDPR has made changes in real life, we need to keep pushing what it has brought forth instead of just complaining it's ineffective, it has value on its own and more can be done.
This seems entirely reasonable. I'm not sure what you'd capture closer than 8 feet that you would not from farther away.
These feel like excuses to prevent checks against legalized force.
https://www.techdirt.com/2021/07/06/law-enforcement-officer-...
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/04/18/cops-are-still-playing-c...
> The law prohibits or chills a substantial amount of First Amendment protected activity and is unnecessary to prevent interference with police officers given other Arizona laws in effect,” [Federal Judge] Tuchi ruled.
The original Republican sponsor of the measure has been unable to find someone to defend it, as the article notes.
> Republican state Sen. John Kavanagh, who sponsored the measure, has said he was unable to find an outside group to defend the legislation.
It could be appealed, but from the article it sounds like there isn't much popular support for the law, and the governor had a hard time finding someone to litigate in support
- most police have body cams now, so presumably, their voices and actions are already being recorded
- citizens interacting with police don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, so they cannot opt out of being recorded
So it seems fine that citizens can create their own copy of the incident that's already being recorded.
To flip it on it's head, I can't think of a reasonable, let alone constitutional, argument for "I can record you but you cannot record me"
Of course, this leaves out the case where they don't have body cams/aren't recording. In that instance, though, we already have a pretty strong precedent that people cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces. That's why we can take selfies, vlog, talk on the phone, etc regardless if people are in the background. Not to mention straight up record whatever is around - dashcams, security cameras, etc.
These notoriously malfunction during abuse.
> And on private property, an officer who decides that someone is interfering or that the area is unsafe could have ordered the person to stop filming even if the recording was being made with the owner’s permission.
Which seems to imply that if a police officer breaks into your house, they can order you to stop filming them at their sole discretion.
Regarding your 8ft comment: plenty of footage has popped up of cops getting caught red-handed planting drugs. Much of it was filmed within 8 feet.
This is outlined in Article 2, which defines the scope of the GDPR. Specifically, Article 2(2)(c) states:
I'd suggest that recording within my own home comes under the "household activity" clause.Are you under the impression that long shots show as much as close in shots?
You will also be within 8 feet of a cop as a passenger during any traffic stop.
IIRC, the law (bad as it was) did have an exception for people in the vehicle during traffic stops.
The modern Republican party of small government and low taxes is long gone. in its stead is basically a zombie that shambles from culture war to culture war in a desperate bid to remain relevant to anyone who still thinks cutting a billionaires taxes makes any sense in 2023. It advances dead cat legislation and reactionary edicts against the very first amendment it insists it champions.
Reagan wasn't "small government" either, by the way. He expanded the government faster than any other POTUS in history outside of world wars. His economic policies also gave both parties the green light to spend like it's going out of style, although Republicans are notably bad when it comes to actually making economic sense with their taxes versus their expenditures.
In a saner Republican Party he would have been a good Senator or even Presidential nominee. Unfortunately, that isn’t the age we live in.
I'm wondering if you've actually paid attention to his record. Most of it is expanding the role and power of government.
An amorphous blob. A winning strategy against an opponent who cedes the centre.
Very, very few even question capitalism, let alone call for its replacement.
Party ideology will shift and twist to follow the fashions and whims of these folks as well as put forward new more effective narratives when possible, while the real interest groups who are after resources are more stable in their needs.
The "size" of govt doesn't really matter. It's a money issue (isn't it always?) The phrase "small govt" is a proxy for a) lower taxes and b) the ability to exploit then environment, workers, immigrants, whatever without interference.
I should be allowed to sell snake oil (no FDA), plunder a forest (no National Park nonsense), polute air and water (no EPA), build substandard housing, unsafe mines, and so on.
Most of all taxes should be low, or preferably non-existent. And if they must be collected they must be used to help me, not just given to my neighbor, or worse, my employees. Small govt means taxes should help the rich not the poor.
This is a perfectly legitimate political position for a party to take. If a majority agrees, thats democracy in action. It has served the majority well for decades, as long as the majority saw themselves as rich, or pre-rich.
Unfortunately now though the majority does not see themselves as rich anymore. Gone are the factories, the solid middle-class jobs, the affordable housing. Now the majority are poor, or pre-poor.
Ironically (on paper) the budget solution is obvious. Gut the military budget. There's $500 billion easy right there. (That can't really be done because the military budget is a back-door welfare program. Lots, and I mean Lots, of people get their salary from that budget.)
I know, I know, the military fights for our freedoms. They keep us safe. But pretty much no US military interventions since 1945, even more since 1990, have actually "protected Americans". Protected Kuwait (1st gulf war) sure. But how did Korea, Vietnam , Loas, Cambodia, Iraq or Afghanistan "protect Americans"?
I'm NOT ragging on the troops here, they go where they're sent . They do their jobs. We rightly respect them for doing a dangerous job. But the military is, at best, bloated and a money pit. Functionally it is a way of funnelling money to the rich, not the troops in harms way.
- Getting rid of first past the post for anything else like RCV or STAR or approval
- The national popular vote interstate compact to rid the winner take all issues with the presidency.
Until both these things happen the political parties will both continue to degrade.
That’s right, to prepare for a billion dollar national election campaign, they wrote a single page document telling you to refer to their previous platform.
[1] https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/docs/Resolution_Platform_202...?
There are aspects of this I would be fine with. Neither party right now seems particularly interested in leaner, more efficient government, that achieves approximately the same goals with less bureaucracy or money.
I’m just going to applaud your literary sense here for a sec. Beautifully written and explained thought about this completely new and troubling phenomenon.
Mostly troubling because it does seem to be working insofar as the zombie won’t goddamn die.
> ... It advances dead cat legislation and reactionary edicts...
The legislative circus is a sideshow to the main event, which is fundraising from a small core of donors (which is a perversion of 1A, but we digress...).
A better way to think of the Republican party platform is "anti-reactionary". This descriptor makes more sense for how they seemingly jump from topic to topic. Which, credit where it is do, is probably fine in the long run in a functional political system where they can act as ballast against excesses.
But as a weirdness of our time, foreign and economic policy between the two parties are pretty largely aligned so if you represent a fluid anti-reactionary platform, the only thing of value you can provide are culture war issues.
The core mission of the movement is still anarcho capitalism.
Arizona already has such a broad law that SCOTUS have repeatedly ruled in favor:
A. A person commits obstructing governmental operations if, by using or threatening to use violence or physical force, such person knowingly obstructs, impairs or hinders:1. The performance of a governmental function by a public servant acting under color of his official authority; or
2. The enforcement of the penal law or the preservation of the peace by a peace officer acting under color of his official authority.
B. This section does not apply to the obstruction, impairment or hinderance of the making of an arrest.
C. Obstructing governmental operations is a class 1 misdemeanor.
They just worship the uniform. That's kinda the difference between a conservative and a fascist (or a liberal and a communist).
Fuck authority that we appointed giving themselves extra self-appointed permissions.
I think I can say this, whether I'm right wing or left wing, and intelligent people will agree.
Um, pick one, yeah?
Gadsden was a general in the Continental Army, so it's not like they were a complete anarchist.
Unless someone's a complete anarchist, they understand that you need the rule of law and order to protect the civil liberties they hold dear.
The type of person that has a thin blue line sticker probably does not view the police as the primary threat to their civil liberties
I'm not a fan of flags anyway and I look down on people who care about them.
If you think they sum up a political viewpoint, you're wrong, and it's still a sad commentary on the superficial nature of the debate we've been reduced to.
[edit] it took me three reads of your comment to realize you were basically backing what I was saying. I'm an idiot, and I'm drunk at the moment. But yeah.
And also very much agreed on how the “alt” flags just defile the one that we’re supposed to be united under.
Literally can't fly an American flag anywhere in my state without triggering a bad reaction somehow.
My family are all immigrants and extremely proud of our country and thankful for what America provided for us. Also very liberal. It's difficult to explain this to anyone who loves or hates America who isn't from an immigrant background.
I wouldn't end any opinions like this if you want to be taken seriously.
> Prominent law enforcement officials refused to defend the law, including former Republican Attorney General Mark Brnovich and both the prosecutor and sheriff’s office in Maricopa County, home to Phoenix.
Credit where it's due, even the police themselves wanted nothing to do with this awful bill. And studies have shown that video evidence overwhelmingly exonerates police more often than it implicates them. Transparency is a win for everyone.
Which studies?
In a world where police have the ability to disable their cameras is this surprising?
I wish I'd never visit US.