Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-30-2007, 10:08 AM
 
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AksarbeN View Post
I’d have to agree with you about Americans feeling the need for national security/crime as a top issue for 2008. However I need to add that the news media and this administration has continued to introduce the “fear” concept to the masses. Somehow people feel comfortable with cameras focused on them. Little do they know that it isn’t protecting them from much of anything but monitoring more for the after the crime thought of who do we look for.
I agree, I don't see cameras being much of a deterrent to terrorists who are willing to die in the commission of their atrocities, I don't think they'd be too concerned about being IDed after the fact.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-30-2007, 10:49 AM
PPG
 
509 posts, read 1,423,506 times
Reputation: 182
Yes, and also, criminals are not dettered. Watch the news everynite. Yes it helps catch them but it just means less police work. I am for this if you can prove that less police work means more time for terrorism and not just this phony war on drugs and non-violent crimes.

I myself think America's version of surveilance is for the imprisonment of a large part of our population for the prison industrial complex.

I don't mind cameras in general public areas but,........everywhere you go? That's BIG BROTHER.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2007, 11:09 AM
PPG
 
509 posts, read 1,423,506 times
Reputation: 182
It may also have something to do with this -

North American Union to Replace the USA? - HUMAN EVENTS
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2007, 11:23 AM
 
Location: Ohio, but moving to El Paso, TX August/September
434 posts, read 1,653,391 times
Reputation: 310
I do not mind security cameras if owned by individuals to protect themselves and/or their property, but I have a huge issue with government control of cameras.

As a law abiding citizen, the government has no right to know where I am going, when I scratch my tush, or where I buy my newspaper. What if an even more intrusive government gets elected and they decide they want to track people suspected of being supporters of other political organizations? There is no upside that I can see to government controlled access, only the downside of the loss of civil liberties and one step closer to the government trying to control people's lives.

In the case of a real crime, all they need to do is ask the camera owner for help, and in most cases, people are willing to help, especially when a crime is known about (eg there's a story in a police blotter about a suspected mugging, child snatching, etc.).

But when the government takes over, you lose any sense of what the surveillance is being done for. Look at countries with regimes afraid of losing power and they look to keep their enemies in their place. I wouldn't want to live in a state like that, and this technology makes it more possible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2007, 11:33 AM
 
Location: Kentucky Bluegrass
28,892 posts, read 30,269,602 times
Reputation: 19097
CAMERAS are a good idea...but do you really think it's going to stop crime?

Put em all away....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2007, 10:05 PM
 
Location: Spots Wyoming
18,700 posts, read 42,061,367 times
Reputation: 2147483647
Quote:
Originally Posted by cremebrulee View Post
CAMERAS are a good idea...but do you really think it's going to stop crime?

Put em all away....
No, it won't stop it. But it could possibly give us tips on how to prevent what happened. Once we can establish a trend or even see little mistakes that we make that could have went better if we had done something else.

As far as government run? Yes it should be. That way the data can be collected and screened collectively. If it's not gov run, then this store doesn't talk about xyz man that has robbed them 6 times. Individually, you can not collect overall data. Plus the gov would fund it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2007, 10:32 PM
 
4,410 posts, read 6,138,513 times
Reputation: 2908
More crime, more surveillance.
More crime, more surveillance.
More crime, more surveillance.

Feel the noose yet?

Really, is everybody that afraid of everything? Do we need cameras to "protect us" because we are so self-involved we barely pay attention to the world around us? Anybody remember how things used to be before we glorified blood and guts on TV? We used to live in communities with homes that had front porches and people paid attention to their neighbors. Now, are we going to replace those watchful eyes with the eyes of the state and of the police?

If you were going to devise a way to control the masses, you could use this method: overstate the dangerous crimes, foment economic disparity and hopelessness, subject suggestible minds (especially children's) to thousands of murders and crimes through entertainment and media, and voila! a society that happily shuts itself into its own prison. Who needs "divide and conquer" when they all walk willingly into the jail? Look at how easily they give up their freedoms just so Big Brother can provide them security!

You create with your mind. If your mind is full of fear, that's the world you will manifest. Until you realize you are the source of the world around you, you will allow others to create an undesirable one (for you anyway) around you. With an infinite universe around you, why create this sorry scenario? There are far better options.

By the way, the average citizen in the UK is filmed 500 times a day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2007, 11:02 AM
PPG
 
509 posts, read 1,423,506 times
Reputation: 182
Default Only little sisters need a big brother.

Authoritarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Authoritarianism describes a form of social control characterized by strict obedience to the authority of a state or organization, often maintaining and enforcing control through the use of oppressive measures. Authoritarian regimes are strongly hierarchical.

In an authoritarian form of government, citizens are subject to state authority in many aspects of their lives, including many matters that other political philosophies would see as erosion of civil liberties and freedom. There are various degrees of authoritarianism; even very democratic and liberal states will show authoritarianism to some extent, for example in areas of national security. Usually, an authoritarian government is undemocratic and has the power to govern without consent of those being governed.

John Duckitt suggests a specific link exists between authoritarianism and collectivism.[1] In both cases individual rights and goals are subjugated to group goals, expectations and conformities.[2]

Contents [hide]
1 Definition
2 Forms of authoritarian government
3 Authoritarianism and the Economy
3.1 Introduction
3.2 The Middle East
3.2.1 A Political Economy Approach
3.2.1.1 Colonialism
3.2.1.2 The Global World Economy
3.2.1.3 Indigenous Social Structures and Modes of Production
4 See also
5 References
6 External links



[edit] Definition
Authoritarianism means a form of social control characterized by strict obedience to the authority of a state. Hence, the term has similar meaning with totalitarianism, with the latter being an extreme case of the former.

Various differences can reflect the difference between authoritarianism and totalitarianism. First, authoritarian leaders, although often repress their political opponents, they left a larger sphere for private life than a totalitarian government. Moreover, unlike totalitarian governments, authoritarian governments usually lack a guiding ideology, tolerate some pluralism in social organization, lack the power to mobilize the whole population in pursuit of national goals, and exercise their power within relatively predictable limits.

For example, the Spanish government under Francisco Franco, while there was still some personal freedom, would be considered as authoritarian. On the other hand, USSR under Stalin would be regarded as totalitarian as it governed all sorts of things of the people.

Under this definition, some scholars think that even a representative democracy may also be authoritarian over periods of years, because the public only has the authority to vote the representatives out at election time. Any individual policy and legislation thus does not have the consent from those being governed but requires strict obedience.


[edit] Forms of authoritarian government
This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims.

Please help Wikipedia by adding references. See the talk page for details.

There exists a gradation in authoritarianism, as well as a variety of possible authoritarian behaviors. Authoritarianism may exist under different regimes:

Absolute monarchies are almost always authoritarian. For instance, criticizing the royal government of France under the ancien régime could get writers etc. imprisoned by executive order (known as a lettre de cachet).
Communist states are often authoritarian.
Dictatorships are always authoritarian.
Democracies rarely exhibit much authoritarian behavior, except in transition to/from authoritarian states or when martial law is imposed (during war, for example). Many (if not most) citizens of authoritarian states do not perceive their state as authoritarian until late in its development. This makes it difficult to label modern states as 'democratic' or 'authoritarian'. People make this difficulty worse when they use these terms without clear definitions. Who accually spends time writing stuff into wiki? i mean seriously!
Fascist nations are often authoritarian
Despotisms are always authoritarian.
Militarchies,(Military Autocracies) countries run by high-ranking military officers, are almost always authoritarian. Note that militarchy does not necessarily mean a dictatorship or a junta, but a generally thoroughly militarized state. A classical example of militarchy would be Ancient Sparta or the Mamluk Egypt.
Theocracies are almost always authoritarian. An exception is the Quaker Consensus in Consensus decision-making: 'Decision-making arrived at by finding a "spiritual consensus," rather than voting, was developed by the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) early in the 17th century and is in use to the present day.'
Authoritarian Democracy is a combination of elements of both styles of government. This is different from the above democracy in the fact that it always combines both elements, not just during times of martial law.
Authoritarian regimes grant wide powers to law enforcement agencies; in the extreme this leads to a police state. Authoritarian regimes may or may not have a rule of law. In the former case laws are enacted and though they may seem intrusive, unjust or excessive, they are applied to common people. In the latter case laws do not exist or are routinely ignored — government actions follow the judgments or whims of officials.


[edit] Authoritarianism and the Economy

[edit] Introduction
In the late 20th Century political elites in East and Southeast Asia argued that countries with authoritarian regimes were more likely to be economically successful than democratic countries. Examples given to support this argument were South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, and Taiwan all of which were authoritarian and experiencing a period of rapid growth.

The belief that authoritarian governments were likely to economically out-perform democracies was reconsidered in 1997 during the Asian financial crisis.

There are of course many instances of authoritarian nations that have not encountered rapid economic growth. A good historical example is Spain in post-war Europe. Under Francisco Franco’s authoritarian regime Spain was considerably less economically developed than neighbouring countries such as France, despite the fact that Spain’s infrastructure had not been devastated by the war. It was not until democracy was restored following Franco’s death in 1975 that Spain experienced an economic boom. More recent examples of poor economic performance in nations with authoritarian regimes are Myanmar, Libya and North Korea.

Despite the Asian financial crisis the idea of developmental authoritarianism remains an attractive route to economic expansion in many developing nations. The Communist Party of China which presides over the world’s fastest growing economy uses this concept today as justification for its authoritarian rule.

While the link between political authoritarianism and economic growth may not be precisely understood, thinkers in anarchist and anti-authoritarian traditions have examined the "economy" itself as a realm of authoritarianism. In particular, similarities between business corporations and the state have often been highlighted. Both institutions are hierarchical, collective entities with clearly delineated chains of authority and command.


[edit] The Middle East
In the 21st century the Middle East region has the highest concentration of authoritarian nations in the world. This is usually explained by reference to the region's cultural specificity (for example Bernard Lewis - Islam and the West) or its political economy.

While it is true that historically the region has experienced an authoritarian tradition as exemplified by the Ottoman (13th Century to early 20th Century) and Mamluk (13th Century to late 19th Century) Empires using culture to explain the region’s current political situations is rather a blunt tool. Cultural explanations fail to allow for regional diversity, are unable to account, or indeed allow, for progression and via their narrow focus fail to see the correlates between this region and other developing nations such as the People's Republic of China which have only relatively recently become members of the global political economy.


[edit] A Political Economy Approach
Political economists argue that the predominance of authoritarian regimes in the Middle East can be explained by reference to the regions economic development. Internal and external factors need to be considered and the interaction between them if a coherent argument is to be made.

External factors include a consideration of the regional and national impact of colonialism and the point at which each of these nations joined the global economy. Internal factors such as, indigenous social structures and pre-existing modes of production also need to be explored.


[edit] Colonialism
The territorial boundaries of most Middle East nations were determined by Colonial powers in the inter-war period following the break-up of the Ottoman Empire. Roger Owen argues that this is an important factor when considering the relationship between the state and its citizens. Clearly an imposed nationhood does not carry with it a presupposition of unity. Colonised nations were required to contribute to the economy of their governors. Stability and therefore control of the populace was an important feature of the state infrastructure. In the Colonial period, ‘typically, some two thirds of public expenditure was security related.’ (Owen. 1993. p10). The historical legacy of colonialism for the citizens of Middle Eastern states was therefore one of imposed unity, economic exploitation and a state intent on controlling rather than consulting its populace.


[edit] The Global World Economy
Colonial states were turned into the globe's producers of raw materials. They serviced and supported the capitalist economies of their colonizing country. Dependency Theory adherents therefore suggest that economic under-development in the Middle East is a result of entering the global economy in a subordinate position. In other words exploitation rather than cultural specivity.


[edit] Indigenous Social Structures and Modes of Production
The authoritarian traditions of the Middle East have changed and evolved over time as the social, political and economic situation has changed. Political economists such as Nazih Ayubi argue that systems of patronage and clientelism are not the result of essential cultural traits but rather an outcome of articulated modes of production. The co-existing and articulated modes of production Ayubi refers to are those of capitalist waged labour and those indigenous to the Middle East for example artisans, merchants, crop-sharing.

Clientelism, which Ayubi describes as, ‘informal ties in which services (and some goods) are exchanged between people of unequal status’ (Ayubi. 2001. p169), as a concept has developed to accommodate these articulated modes of production in a macro-political setting. The resulting political structure is authoritarian corporatism. Political and economic power resides with the state which adopts the role of arbiter and mediates between a variety of social groups. With no class hegemony civil society becomes subordinate to the state.


[edit] See also
This entry is related to, but not included in the Political ideologies series or one of its sub-series. Other related articles can be found at the Politics Portal.
Military dictatorship
Elective dictatorship
Benevolent dictatorship
Police state
Single-party state
Statism
Totalitarianism
Fascism
Command economy
Anti-authoritarianism
Authoritarian personality
Right Wing Authoritarianism
Theocracy
Nationalism

[edit] References
^ John Duckitt (1989). "Authoritarianism and group identification: A new view of an old construct". Political Psychology 10 (9): 63-84.
^ Markus Kemmelmeier et al. (2003). "Individualism, Collectivism, and Authoritarianism in Seven Societies". Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 34 (3): 304-322. DOI:10.1177/0022022103034003005.

[edit] External links
- UN University Annual "State of the Future" Report: including discussion on genuine democracy can emerge from former states of authoritarian regimes
When the State is Ultimate
Totalitarian Daydreams and Christian Humanism


I think the average citizen could be talked into putting hancuffs on and jumping off a bridge. All out of fear.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2007, 12:27 PM
 
Location: Occupied Territory
354 posts, read 325,001 times
Reputation: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
I do not mind the presence of security cameras nearly everywhere. This is kind of strange because I am a strong believer in individual freedom. I think have a camera recording just what happened would be quite handy if I ever encountered a thief or mugger and had to defend myself.

What I do object to is the “red light” cameras under the control of a private company that receives revenue based on the number of tickets processed. These cameras should at least be owned and operated by the local police. The concept of privately or corporately owned law enforcement is completely unacceptable.
They are both wrong as far as I am concerned. But, this country is working as hard and fast as they can to catch up to Great Britian to take any freedom away from us they can. We are already at the point where people are not allowed to talk normally and must be careful about certain words because of the supposed thought police we have out there all over. This country has long ago lost what it used to be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2007, 12:49 PM
 
Location: South East UK
659 posts, read 1,374,205 times
Reputation: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhouse2001 View Post

By the way, the average citizen in the UK is filmed 500 times a day.
This sadly is perfectly true in London but still true to a lesser extent in small towns District councils have gone overboard spending ratepayers money on cameras, strangely the first cameras were poor quality things that soon needed replacing (jobs for the boys).

To sustain belief in these cameras old people are scared every day with stories in the local and national press of thugs on the rampage attacking old people.

In my area ( a semi rural environment) 1.2 million dollars has been spent on these cameras. This money it has been argued would be better spent on giving the young places to enjoy in the evening, but what has happenned is every available sports hall dance hall you name it open space has been sold off for property development, so the kids go onto the street corners.

When people ask the police for a copy of video they are often stalled, only the knowing (a copy can for a fee usually be had from district council within a set time limit) manage to aquire footage. In all cases that I have heard of the cameras have been pointing the wrong way.

The young know where the cameras are so easily avoid falling for that one.

It will stop a terrorist if you hit him over the head with the camera.

So few terrorists acts are performed you might as well set up the cameras to photograph people being struck by lightening.

With the advent of identity cards in the UK we are becoming a police state, a person will need his identity card to collect anything from the bank, post office, pension, hospital treatment, travel, educational faccilities and now there is rumour of doing away with money, that is change in your pocket, this to stop any transactions that do not carry tax.

These cards will carry every bit of info about your health, police record, religion, race, marital status, sexuality, debts, political leanings, biometrics and fingerprints.

360,000 people in the UK will have legal access to these stored files.

Couple the biometrics that are being used by the camera operators to identify in milliseconds each and every one of us and the confirmation of this data from mobile phone GSP, we have cause for concern.

In our small country the cost of ID cards and cameras is truely significant with the population and land mass of the US it will be astronomical.

The technology and software for the collection and management of stored data is purchased in the US.

Several reliable sites point to the UK as being the most controlled area in the world. Where next?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:11 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top