ANPR vans

[Max Preload]

Still, the freedom to disagree is nice to have.

Until dissent is made illegal and TPTB have all the tools to enforce it and there's not a damned thing you can do about it. Don't we already have "hate speech" laws or some such complete fucking bullshit?

[Akzle]

Until dissent is made illegal and TPTB have all the tools to enforce it and there's not a damned thing you can do about it. Don't we already have "hate speech" laws or some such complete fucking bullshit?

well. not so much. we do have freedom of speech.

((but only if you're speeching the party line.))

it's illegal to deny the holocaust happened, or write, print or publish anything saying so.
you're right. hate speech is illegal.
it's illegal to give instruction on the cultivation of cannabis plants.
it's illegal to give instruction or advice on euthanasia.
it's illagal to speak in a manner that will "incite a riot" (whether or not it does)

you should see how many books your government bans (i'm working on getting them all.. y'know, just to stick it to the man)

thems just the ones i know of...

[rastuscat]

well. not so much. we do have freedom of speech.

((but only if you're speeching the party line.))

it's illegal to deny the holocaust happened, or write, print or publish anything saying so.
you're right. hate speech is illegal.
it's illegal to give instruction on the cultivation of cannabis plants.
it's illegal to give instruction or advice on euthanasia.
it's illagal to speak in a manner that will "incite a riot" (whether or not it does)

you should see how many books your government bans (i'm working on getting them all.. y'know, just to stick it to the man)

thems just the ones i know of...

It's also illegal to have discussions about how to entice children into paedophilia.

Now, I'm not so sure I agree with totally unrestricted freedom of expression, I'm just not sure who to trust the decision to as to what should and shouldn't be okey dokey.

Given that we can't agree on everything, and defend our right to disagree, could we agree on a definitive list of what's acceptable? Totally subjective that.

[scumdog]

---
well. not so much. we *do* have freedom of speech.

((but only if you're speeching the party line.))

it's illegal to deny the holocaust happened, or write, print or publish anything saying so.
you're right. hate speech is illegal.
it's illegal to give instruction on the cultivation of cannabis plants.
it's illegal to give instruction or advice on euthanasia.
it's illagal to speak in a manner that will "incite a riot" (whether or not it does)

you should see how many books your government bans (i'm working on getting them all.. y'know, just to stick it to the man)
thems just the ones i know of...

Keep jousting at them windmills - SOMEBODY has to be the token windmill jouster, otherwise we're all doomed, doomed I say...l

[Swoop]

SOMEBODY has to be the token windmill jouster, otherwise we're all doomed, doomed I say...l

The question remains "Who represents the windmills?" eh, eh?

[swbarnett]

Society has it's rules and laws laid down in legislation for the benefit and safety of us all.

If only this were true. Even those laws that are truly there for our benifit are only for the benifit of the majority.

Still, the freedom to disagree is nice to have.

Yes it is. What I want is the freedom to act on my own beliefs where it's only me directly involved. I think driving to the conditions above the speed limit is fine, the law doesn't. Therefore I don't get to live by my beliefs and stay legal.

Given that we can't agree on everything, and defend our right to disagree, could we agree on a definitive list of what's acceptable?

No. God help us if we did. Life would not be worth living it would be so boring. What is required is the legal incarnation of a "live and let live" attitude.

[rastuscat]

Totally agree that we should be free to do whatever we want, as long as it doesn't effect anyone else.

Thing is, driving virtually always effects someone else. Even if it's only the person paying tax to fund the facial reconstruction you are having due to not wearing your seatbelt.

Doing 111 down the Lindis Pass seems so damn innocent and undangerous. So do so many other things, at least subjectively. I could reel off the party line on justifying the enforcement of such rules, but given that the justifications can't be agreed as being definitive, is there much point?

Everyone caught in excess of a speed limit can find a dozen reasons why their speed was safe, why the ticket is unjust, why it's not their bad.

Thing is, the Gubbermint enacts rules, then sends the coercive arm of the state out to enforce those rules. Same with the ANPR thing. Is a question of how they are used. They can be used totally mercilessly to target inconsequential trivial things, though even that's a subjective thing. Some folk see licensing a vehicle as important, though to be fair, it's not on my hit list.

Still, the freedom to disagree is important to have, and I sure hope that it doesn't change. Remember though, that I have the right, just as you might have, to disagree with your, um, disagreement.

Of course, I entirely disagree.

[Akzle]

Therefore I don't get to live by my beliefs and stay legal.
...What is required is the legal incarnation of a "live and let live" attitude.

legal and lawful are two different things. look it up. play the game i do. the more people that do, the less force the government is going to have in future.
the only way it's going to change is from teh populi.

Totally agree that we should be free to do whatever we want, as long as it doesn't effect anyone else.
(...etc)

Of course, I entirely disagree.

rasty.
are you... awake??!

[rastuscat]

legal and lawful are two different things. look it up. play the game i do. the more people that do, the less force the government is going to have in future.
the only way it's going to change is from teh populi.


rasty.
are you... awake??!

Awake? Grrrrrrrrr..........

[steve_t]

Awake? Grrrrrrrrr..........

A victim of selective quoting at its best

[swbarnett]

Totally agree that we should be free to do whatever we want, as long as it doesn't effect anyone else.

Thing is, driving virtually always effects someone else. Even if it's only the person paying tax to fund the facial reconstruction you are having due to not wearing your seatbelt.

This argument just doesn't hold water. The ACC argument will see the removal of all bikes from existence. Along with removing anything else from life that is vaguely dangerous.

The fact that I exist affects EVERYONE else on the planet to some degree. Are you saying that I should cease to exist because I may cause harm to another human simply by being here?

Thing is, the Gubbermint enacts rules, then sends the coercive arm of the state out to enforce those rules. Same with the ANPR thing. Is a question of how they are used. They can be used totally mercilessly to target inconsequential trivial things, though even that's a subjective thing. Some folk see licensing a vehicle as important, though to be fair, it's not on my hit list.

Even if the current Government or enforcement arm uses these laws and technologies with the interests of the public in mind (and I'm not saying that they do), what's to say any subsequent Government will?

Still, the freedom to disagree is important to have, and I sure hope that it doesn't change. Remember though, that I have the right, just as you might have, to disagree with your, um, disagreement.

Of course, I entirely disagree.

Exactly. I will tolerate everything except intolerance.

[BoristheBiter]

I think the question should be reversed.

We see police (and many other agencies) given the right to random search and siezure for a wide range of offences, and in many cases where there IS NO offence, and none is even likely.

We have lost the right to remain silent.

We have lost the presumption of innocence.

Penalties for many offences may now be imposed before any cout hearing is even scheduled.

Our internet traffic is already censored and soon details of our surfing will be stored for "enforcement".

We need identity cards to undertake the simplest of financial transactions, and that will soon be extended to virtually all transactions with any government department or business.

(In our clever country virtual ID cards that contain your photo etc are almost here, except you dont need to carry them, government and private companies will just get them from the DIA website when they interact with you).

We are tracked by a dozen differnent government agencies, and ANPR is part if that picture, (thank god a childishly easy one to fool.)

I am watching my government give itself all the tools of tyranny.

Why would I not expect it to become tyranical ?

I take it you understand the principle of the boiling frog? If not have a read of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

APNR is just another step along the way. Another degree towards "boiling point".

The pervading ideal in the modern western world seems to be one of "eliminate all forms of human suffering no matter the cost". Even if I were to accept that this is a laudable goal, and indeed achievable, the cost would be so high as to be unbearable.

It would involve massive amounts of both Government and private spending on crime prevention, law enforcement, healthcare and medical research. Not to mention the compliance cost to businesses and private individuals.

Everyone would have to spy on their neighbour, or indeed their immediate family, for the first hint of any wrong-doing. This would remove all trust between people and a lot of innocent people are caught up in the paranoia of others. There is a thread on KB at the moment talking about how easy it is for parents hugging their kids in public to be labelled as child molesters.


It may not be immediately visible but the cost is there. The one and only time I was in London I swore I would never live there as it was just too unfriendly for words. All the pedestrians seemed to be wearing blinkers. Eye contact was a strict no-no.

Just in case you in the tinfoil hat brigade need something to really worry about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=F7pYHN9iC9I

I think ANPR vans are the least of your worry's.

[GTRMAN]

How many of those that complain that the government is monitoring them through multiple means still have a facebook account in which they document every detail of their existence.......

George Orwell wrote about a future where big brother was watching you. With Facebook, twitter and every other social media interaction, big brother doesn't need to watch you, for the most part you are screaming every detail of your life at him anyway.

[swbarnett]

How many of those that complain that the government is monitoring them through multiple means still have a facebook account in which they document every detail of their existence.......

Not I. That's exacly why I stay well away from it.

George Orwell wrote about a future where big brother was watching you.

Actually, he didn't. He wrote about the time in which he lived and swappd the last two digits.

[Zedder]

Not I. That's exacly why I stay well away from it.


Actually, he didn't. He wrote about the time in which he lived and swappd the last two digits.

Orwell's book was actually set in the future, he thought all the things he wrote about would come to pass by then but was a bit out in his projection.

Until there's a cop for every kilometre of road or every person, the numbers are very stacked in our favour.

And, if you still want to do something about Big Brother then get out and protest about something to do with it.