Reason Magazine: Blind Partisanship is Serving a Good Cause....
Like many disenchanted voters in 2006, I was hoping for a Dem victory in Congress...not because I thought the Dems platform was really any better taken as a whole but simply because I wanted to end the "yes men" fest in DC. Of course, I really wanted a Dem president and a GOP congress in 2004 but that didn't happen. But this is the next best thing.
Well, though the results haven't been perfect, we are seeing some progress. Now that the Dems control the purse strings, the GOP is assuming its role of appearing to be for more fiscal restraint and now that the Dems can ask questions about warrantless searches and other overreaches of executive power, someone is actually asking questions!
Jacob Sullum of Reason has an interesting article out today on the the virtues of partisanship where he explores some good coming out of the partisan brawling in Washington.
He may seem a bit cynical but his point of view has great support in libertarian and disillusioned circles.
I suspect the president's decision to stand up for fiscal responsibility by threatening to reject appropriation bills he considers too extravagant has something to do with the fact that his party no longer controls Congress. Likewise the legislative branch's sudden enthusiasm for challenging the president's expansive view of executive power. I was pleased by the Republican defeat in last fall's congressional elections, and so far my hope that blind partisanship would serve the cause of limited government seems to have been vindicated.
With only 2 vetoes and discretionary spending records that surpass LBJ, "even pretending to care about fiscal restraint is an improvement", says Sullum.
But Sullum does feel more real progress can be made on executive power front. Just before the pending Dem majority took office,
the Bush administration announced that it would henceforth seek judicial approval for monitoring international communications involving people on U.S. soil, as required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
....
a move Bush officials claimed was a security threat suddenly became feasible.
He ends the article with:
The Democrats are performing an important public service by pressing questions like these, even if they are mainly interested in embarrassing the other party and gaining an electoral advantage. I'd prefer a principled commitment to civil liberties and the rule of law, but I'll take partisan hostility in a pinch.
If it works....why not.
Comments :
I've heard
plenty of such arguments, also amongst some Objectivists (much more to the Right as a whole than Libertarians) who said that voting for Kerry and divided government in the process was much better for fiscal discipline and furthering of freedom than keeping one Party rule precisely due to partisanship grinding things down to a halt.
I hated the argument then but now I am not so sure.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
That was one of my arguments
for voting for Kerry....that and that I wanted something new in Iraq. Of course, Kerry didn't have GREAT positions on Iraq but I thought the overall view of not going our of our way to vindicate the warnings from extremists that we were trying to occupy Arab land was commendable. Kerry did say this much in one of the debates. He said that building 14 bases in Iraq and the Middle East was not a good way to win over Arabs and defuse the allure of Al Qaeda's message to fence sitters. This tidbit got very little press.
But, back at home, I thought a Dem president with a GOP Congress was the winning combo. Kerry would have vetoed, well, EVERYTHING....not necessarily because it was too much much money, but often because it wouldn't have been "enough"....this is the "a la Newt/Clinton combo" that could have really stunted spending as it did in the 90s. GOP reps and senators are at their best when playing chicken with a dem president.
A GOP president with a Dem congress, however, is still better than one party rule. The bills being vetoed are bound to be bigger though than vice versa. But the self-serving "gotcha politics" of divided government is still there and that's a good thing in terms of keeping everyone a little more alert otherwise
OTH
If Kerry had won we would likely not have gotten a '06 democratic majority in Congress that can hold oversight hearings....... which are proving to be quite revealing.
But the Middle East would probably look a hell of a lot better. IN spite of his 'elitism' and uncrusted sandwiches, and long thoughts...... he would have made a good President. Except the R's would have gone crazy swiftboating his every blinking breath.
It is the economy, stupid.
hehe
But that makes it fun!
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
yeah
For some reason the GOP/GOP combo made them into the most ridiculously fiscally liberal government in recent history... It doesn't make much sense to me unless you assume that all those glowing campaign statements about small government and limiting spending were just that - campaign statements and lies to get elected as republicans.
The GOP has abandoned Conservatism when there was no check and no one to strut the fiscal conservatism before. Since they are so cavalier with it, I do not trust them to behave with a full control of both branches of govt.
Now I trust Dems even less. So I think for now, unless I am sure that GOP would recapture congress, I would prefer a GOP president.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Fiscally corrupt
Writing yourself and supporters big checks is not fiscally liberal or conservative.
At least you are honest
enough to say so. I admire you for that.
( we tried to warn you, but you dismissed us as lunatics. got to get a partisan jab in there somewhere )
It is the economy, stupid.
Thanks so much for this.
IN these partisan times..... it is encouraging to realize that partisanship can have value. And some folks have the perspective to recognize it's value.
_______
Unrelated sort of: Don't know if you are already aware of this site or not.
epic
Electronic Privacy Information Center
I would think libertarians ( and everyone) would be especially interested in this issue of how to deal with privacy in this now high tech post 9/11 era.
About that govt of ours. We saw Joe Lieberman come out in favor of MORE electronic survelliance, as in contracts through Homeland Security to install cameras all over the place. I am so wary of this, I could spit.
Instead of putting the money into more police, and training and equipment they want contracts for cameras (can you say Lobbyists) to help 'protect' us from terrorist threats. Likely some guy in a booth monitering all the cameras getting paid ten bucks an hour to watch people (and not always the right ones), as if that is more effective than eyes and feet on the ground that can respond immediately and the uniform itself is a deterent.
It is the economy, stupid.
Do you have an argument
for why you think that there is something wrong with putting a camera in a public place where no reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy?
I was hoping somebody would ask this
On the radio the other day they had a police chief who used to be against cameras but had changed his mind after he saw how useful they were to identify criminals (generally after the crime, so the prevention is a secondary effect). I dunno, I think there are legitimate privacy worries about storing all that data. I'd have to be convinced there were safeguards against misuse.
I imagine John is against the idea and I'm curious to hear his take.
There's also the face-recognition technology they're developing to track bad guys, sort of the next level of intrusion.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I see Maddy's point
In a way, it does seem relatively harmless and somewhat useful. I see the benefit. but the benefit is an easy sell...it's contemplating the potential can of worms (see side effects and unintended consequences) where one takes pause. I'm just skeptical...I always worry about what will happen next.
That doesn't mean I can't be sold. I'm just not totally sold YET.
My initial disposition towards "great ideas from government" is not unlike the one I would have to a dangerous husband turned handyman with his new craftsman tools looking for projects around the house and stuff to "fix". Thinking about just makes you take a deep breath and imagine the worst.
"Honey, don't worry, I can do it!"...famous last words.
how is it intrusion
if it is done in public? How is face-recognition software and cameras in public place terribly different from actually having extra police policing the place? The same effect can be achieved by simply adding more police who learned the faces of all the bad guys. Of course that is difficult and expensive to do, so why not use technology that does not intrude on anyone's privacy since it is used in a public place?
I am missing something in this debate.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
You are missing
the slippery slope to Die Polizei stopping you on the street to ask, "Your papers? Ver ist your papers?"
yeah :)
Well actually I am all about rolling down that slope.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Well, there are legitimate concerns,
and rather than go all Godwinian and paranoid, I'll give you a good contemporary example: Singapore. Singapore is regulated to the hilt with security measures and hidden cameras, which may be well and good for stopping criminal activity - except that some things considered criminal in Singapore are problematic. Homosexuality is illegal in Singapore, and one of the ways gay culture has managed to survive and thrive in hostile environments is by the creation of counterculture and "safe" space.
Maybe this is part of my reason for distrusting overintrusion into private lives: the knowledge that some people may always need safe space. Though in this case the primary problem is a legal one, I don't think it's possible to get your laws 100% "correct" in a way that that no longer requires safe spaces, ever.
Is it worth it, then, to risk providing the criminal element with safety? I think so, yes, just like it's worth it to enter all trials with an assumption of innocence.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
pico, you're sounding
libertarian here.
Of course, this discussion wasn't about intrusion into private places, it was about cameras in public places.
We aren't at the stage yet where people propose that everyone have a camera in their homes that feed to the government. (We do require that everyone feed private information about their income, for example, to the government, and we are so numb now that no one seems to object, although the "permanent database" arguments being made on this thread can and were made in the case of an income tax.)
Therein lies the problem;
is a street considered public space? Of course it is - and the public nature of street traffic is one of the reasons illegal countercultures can have a hard time developing: if the authorities know that a certain joint is a "hangout" spot, they can tape and record at will. It's the same reason that gay bars in this country have a hard time developing on busy strips (not always the case, but definitely a truism in many areas of the country): it's the recognition that one faces when entering and leaving a building that deters traffic, and that's just recognition by other people, not cameras.
There is a libertarian streak in me sometimes, but it's nowhere near strong enough to get me to cast a vote for Ron Paul (sorry John!)
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Possibility of abuse
A police officer can arrest or not based on illegal activity. Face recognition software and a massive database activity is susceptible to use by those that control access to the database. Let's see if there are any embarrassing photos of my opponent...
Would you be OK putting the entire database into the public domain and letting anyone search? If so, I'd have no privacy issues, and I expect the politicians would all change their minds on whether they support it.
this doesn't make sense
No one is suggesting putting it into the public domain. So this argument is useless.
Yeah police already control access to it, and they will keep the access to it. No one is changing who actually controls this database and no one is giving it to the politicians.
What you said either amounts to some strange conspiracy theory borne out of the common liberal conjecture that any new tool given to Law Enforcement somehow is automatically available to the politician. And this is not even a new tool per se - since the database already exists and is used by the Law Enforcement.
Ok, so I don't see any valid argument.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
This what I get for answering your question
How is face-recognition software and cameras in public place terribly different from actually having extra police policing the place?
The permanent, searchable record is what is different. Just like following people around and searching for DNA and fingerprints they may have left in public places.
And you dodged my question. I am suggesting putting any such system in the public domain. Would you be OK with putting it into the public domain and if not why not?
your question is meaningless
because no one is suggesting putting the database itself in the public domain. It would remain under police control like it is now. Of course I am not OK with putting it into the public domain, just like I am not OK with putting all the classified info from FBI, CIA, NSA, and Pentagon into the public domain. Any more irrelevant questions?
The permanent searchable record is going to be owned by police just like it is right now. All you are doing is adding more valuable data to make their job easier.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Meaningless to you, but I am actually curious
Let me put it in a more technical way. When I submit a request for information via the Freedom of Information Act, what exception should apply? It isn't national security. It is public information that you have stipulated doesn't violate privacy, so why can't I access it?
The other information that you mention IS either considered private and the government needed a warrant to get it or is public domain (like arrest records). National security is the exception for classified information. Doesn't apply here.
I think you are misinterpreting an issue here
Just because the information was gathered in a public place, does not mean the information itself is suddenly for public use. When police do surveillance in public, they are not required to divulge that information, and same goes for any other law enforcement agency.
It's proprietary information that belongs to the government and no one will release it to you nor should anyone release it to you. I disagree with your framing and so there is not much point to continuing this because the issues that you raise are not issues to me.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
It is private or it isn't
Try to keep the two scenarios seperate. Yes, you would let law enforcement have it but not everyone else. You were asking why people would be concerned if law enforcement had those type of records.
I'm asking why you would care if everyone had access. You seem to be avoiding answering it for some reason I really don't understand. I'm honestly curious as to your opinion.
Yes, I expect your answer to have some bearing on the question as to why people might not want law enforcement to have access, but let's deal with the reasonableness of the analogy later.
Again
Would you be against putting a human in a public place who has built in fce recognition technology? At least the camera using face recognition would filter out anyone else while focusing on a certain face.
Reminds me of someone I worked with in NYC. He had vanity polates for a while with his name, "Oscar," on them. then he got rid of them.
Seems that people would come over to his place, and within his sife's earshot would say things like, "Hey, Oscar, saw your car up on the West side the other night." Since Oscar lived in Kew Gardens, this created problems for him.
So, basically, you are worried that such a system would save data that might someday fall into the hands of your wonderful and sainted wife. Is that right? ;-)
Of course *I'm* not worried
but I acknowledge that not everyone is as perfect as am I, and some might object to extensive monitoring of their activities.
However, consistent with my general approach of showing little concern for individual rights when they're stacked up against some nebulous greater good, I'll tentatively sign on for cameras.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
"Monitoring"
Is the seam for argument.
WE can all see the difference between the police observing you as you walk by a camera, on the one hand, and the police listening to your telephone calls because one of those rubber stamp judges gave them a wiretap warrant. This is in between.
When can police monitor you? Now, they can monitor you any time they wish, at least in public. Heck, the can even order a pizza and camp outside your house in a van.
So, does your wireless access have WAP encryption? (The local kid can crack WEP in a couple of minutes.)
Is your home wireless router on WiGLE? Mine appeared just two days after i set up the network!
WPA2 of course
SSID Broadcast disabled.
That's the way to do it.
knocienz
Is your network on Wigle?
Just searched
Nope. Not there
Cool
either you are in an area with fewer tech kids, or you put it up originally with no SSID broadcast. (Even that doesn't always help.)
You did bore all the way down, right?
And note that the actual location is where the receiver was, not the router.
Just lucky I guess
I always used encryption, but I did broadcast SSID for quite a while.
Yes, I bored all the way down and searched around; filtered by SSID.
Sounds good
I always go directly to the address.
Believe it or not, I'm still running WEP. I knew nothing when I set this up, I had to use a Win98 (not SE) computer to host, which is not legal. I spent 3 days figuring out how to do it, no sleep, importing little programs to get past incompatibilities.
When I got it up and got through a couple of glitches, I intended to go to WAP (I don't think I have WAP2), but nobody wants to help me do the upgrade. I've been threatening to just do it anyway.
I also noticed that my signal was picked up over a block away. My daughter and her X both had laptops which couldn't pick it up that far away. Maybe it's the famous Cantenna! War driving is popular in this area.
What amazes me on the map is how many defaults are still on. Of course that can come in handy.
rights v greater good
Is there a right to go unrecognized in public?
Yes!
It is the economy, stupid.
Dead set against it...
the right to not have to identify yourself without probable cause of having committed a crime is an essential part of any free society...
Agreed.
It is not that much of a real deterrent for all practical purposes more police would be better.
But don't worry. It's coming. Why? Because there is money to be made.
All those Homeland Security $$$ have to be spent on private contracts for cameras. It will be a bonanza for survelliance companies. Who do you think will get the contract? Diebold has security cameras at my bank. Perhaps you should run out and buy some stock shares.
It is the economy, stupid.
I think the DHS should be abolished...
I was dead set against it when it was created and I'm dead set against now. And you are going to find very little sympathy from me from private companies drinking at the trough of the federal government to perpetuate a survellience state. Exactly the type of coporatism i'm opposed to.
Also agreed
And guess who is chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security.
Wait for it......
Joe Lieberman. With each passing day her further disgusts me. You know she will make a bundle directing all the contracts. And feel the power controlling all the strings. It's gagging.
(I know I used the wrong pronoun. I did it on purpose.)
It is the economy, stupid.
Diebold? Not a chance
Diebold, 2006 sales: $2.9 Billion
Raytheon: $20.9 Billion
Northrup Grumman: $30 Billion
Lockheed Martin: $39.6 Billion
Let's just say that IF this happens, It won't be diebold
Bwhahahaha
It is the economy, stupid.
btw, missliberties
I'm glad you think like Bush. If you remember, when the idea for a Homeland Security department came out, he was against it. He said somethng about merely moving furniture arond was not what made for a good response, and that it would only waste time. It was only when he realized that Congress was going to do something with or without him that he got on board/.
But that is a typical government response. Just make a new department, make it look like you're doing something.
What a shame
Unfortunately I can't whisper in Bush's ear like Karl Rove.
He certainly has not been served well by his advisers.
Nor has he come through with his promise to rebuild New Orleans........
Remember that staged photo-op after Katrina. And all those other photo-ops.
My favorite is the one with Bush serving up a plastic turkey on a tray to the troops in Iraq on Thanksgiving. The troops made a great backdrop.
Sacrificing sound policy decisions for raw political gain becomes transparent after time.
It is the economy, stupid.
Believe what you will
But this has been one of the least political presidents in my lifetime.
Time and again he has taken positions that were political suicide, sometimes taking positions that pleased no one on either side!
But if you choose to see it otherwise, well, you DO make your own reality.
:) Wholeheartedly agree! n/t
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
cough choke cough
cough cough gag
I am just an observer.
But this President set it up so the battle lines drawn were good vs evil. If R's are the good guys what does that make D's.
It is the economy, stupid.
Let's see
No Child Left Behind. almost universally hated by R's, supported by Ted Kennedy, though, a fomous R.
More recently, comprehensive immigration reform. Hated by most R's, (for whom the president had harsh words), loved by that R, Ted Kennedy.
But I was speaking more broadly. He has adpopted positions that have not been good politically. No political person would have told him to take that split the baby, satisfy no one, anger the base, position on embryonic stem cell research. The Iraq would have cost him a second term if the Democrats hadn't decided to give him the election.
And I don't see Bush drawing those battle lines. I do see YOU drawing the battle lines.
I think politics should be played differently.
A week or so ago I saw part of an interview with Nancy Pelosi. She was asked about Bush. She said, "He's a wonderful person. Both he and his wife Laura are wonderful people." then she said that it was his policies that were blind, or words to that effect.
Are you saying you respect Nancy's opinion?
It is the economy, stupid.
Yes
Is there some reason you know that i should not respect Nancy's opinions? Please share.
pragmatically speaking, a
pragmatically speaking, a dem president and a gop congress is probably that best scenerio that can be hoped for...other than, of course, a left-libertarian president and a right-libertarian congress :)
very true
very true...oh well, it was a pleasant thought for a moment.
of course, I would also take
of course, I would also take a Ron Paul presidency and a democratic congress in a heartbeat :)