Of course forcing a camera into one's home is - well, "force".
But cameras on the street do not violate any libertarian
principles that I know. This is where Orwell was a little off, as
are the ACLU and lots of libertarians. It's where "privacy
rights" meet property rights. I'm afraid the constitution gives
dominion to property rights. I think the whole camera fear by the
people is a little unwarranted. You know, the gov fears cameras
too; but their fear is warranted. Police hate them, obviously.
Improving video recording technologies and the number of little
cameras in the hands of people will be (is) hell for the gov. Be
careful asking to limit the number of surveillance video cameras
in society - you may get what you ask for. The way to fight this
kind of Big Brother is to become one your self in reverse. Get a
small camcorder and carry it everywhere you go. If you want proof
of effectiveness, just turn it on the officer that pulls you over
the next time.
************
{American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
"not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions.
There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a
unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill
its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
unjust lawsuits.
See www.fija.org
[Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
_____
Lets start with his. And with any idiots who would
support the idea.
For life and liberty,
David Macko
_____
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
