Stardust, I actually find your idealism refreshing, so please don't take the following as a denigration or mockery of that. But if we're not going to put restrictions on cops because "ideally" they'd not abuse their power, then why have any laws at all? Afterall, ideally, no citizen would endanger their fellow Australians by getting behind the wheel drunk. Ideally, no citizen would murder their fellow Australians. etc. We have these protections in place precisely because history has proven time and again that we do not in fact live in an ideal world.
I mean, I agree with you to some extent -- the fact that we need a law in place that says, for example, I can't walk into my neighbor's house and take food off his table is indeed a sad statement on reality. Why in hell would we need such a law? Surely the vast majority of citizens wouldn't even consider doing such a thing? That's true, but for those few who would, we need a fair, consistent, pre-determined manner of dealing with them. I think it applies to the flip side as well: most cops wouldn't fuck it up, but for those that would, we need a fair, consistent, pre-determined manner of dealing with them.
I don't know enough about Australia to know whether you are more or less "free" than us, but as an American, I cannot fathom how you can equate "freedom" to giving authorities more power.
You said some additional interesting stuff in your other post, following your convo with your DH. I have to run, so I can't get into it now, but specifically I'm talking about:
It's more about protecting the individual rights than the rights of a greater society.
It's hard for me to understand the notion of the rights of the greater society outside of the context of the rights of the individual. What is society but a collection of individuals? How can we increase the rights of society while decreasing the rights of an individual within it? More like a fun topic for debate/discussion than really a response to this thread. Anyhow, carry on.
0
Options
81
Needing a ride to Forest Hills and a ounce of weed. Please inquire within. Thanks. Or not. Posts: 58,276
Comments
I mean, I agree with you to some extent -- the fact that we need a law in place that says, for example, I can't walk into my neighbor's house and take food off his table is indeed a sad statement on reality. Why in hell would we need such a law? Surely the vast majority of citizens wouldn't even consider doing such a thing? That's true, but for those few who would, we need a fair, consistent, pre-determined manner of dealing with them. I think it applies to the flip side as well: most cops wouldn't fuck it up, but for those that would, we need a fair, consistent, pre-determined manner of dealing with them.
I don't know enough about Australia to know whether you are more or less "free" than us, but as an American, I cannot fathom how you can equate "freedom" to giving authorities more power.
You said some additional interesting stuff in your other post, following your convo with your DH. I have to run, so I can't get into it now, but specifically I'm talking about:
It's hard for me to understand the notion of the rights of the greater society outside of the context of the rights of the individual. What is society but a collection of individuals? How can we increase the rights of society while decreasing the rights of an individual within it? More like a fun topic for debate/discussion than really a response to this thread. Anyhow, carry on.
Oh, the irony!