PDA

View Full Version : Do liberals care about this at all?


sugarkang
06-24-2011, 07:14 PM
A woman, standing in her own front yard, was using her video camera to record police officers. Aaaaand then she's arrested. (http://www.boingboing.net/2011/06/22/woman-who-filmed-cop.html)

EDIT: Few weeks later, the police use parking laws to harass her. (http://www.boingboing.net/2011/06/24/rochester-police-use.html)

So, my question is: do liberals feel like this is a problem or is this just cool with you? I'd urge you to watch the first video if you don't have time. It's four minutes long.

At anyone's request, I'd be willing to write a few paragraphs on why the War on Drugs directly causes this sort of thing to occur. Also, I'm willing to entertain any comments about libertarianism being a childish philosophy unrelated to reality and other similar points.

operative
06-24-2011, 07:17 PM
A woman, standing in her own front yard, was using her video camera to record police officers. Aaaaand then she's arrested. (http://www.boingboing.net/2011/06/22/woman-who-filmed-cop.html)

Two days later, the police use parking laws to harass her. (http://www.boingboing.net/2011/06/24/rochester-police-use.html)

So, my question is: do liberals feel like this is a problem or is this just cool with you? I'd urge you to watch the first video if you don't have time. It's four minutes long.

At anyone's request, I'd be willing to write a few paragraphs on why the War on Drugs directly causes this sort of thing to occur. Also, I'm willing to entertain any comments about libertarianism being a childish philosophy unrelated to reality and other similar points.

There's been a string of overzealous police officers arresting people for videotaping.

And to think that we selfish libertarians took time out from scheming to help millionaires to take the time to note it.

sugarkang
06-24-2011, 07:27 PM
And to think that we selfish libertarians took time out from scheming to help millionaires to take the time to note it.

Do the Koch brothers pay you too?

Seriously, when the woman started crying at the end, my head got really hot and then my eyes welled up. And now, I'm just back to being my old sociopathic, non-caring self because this shit happens everyday.

stephanie
06-24-2011, 08:58 PM
I haven't watched the video yet, but I will. I usually hate drawing conclusions based on something taken out of context like this, but may change my mind when I see it.

That said, I think police abuse their authority all the time, and am concerned about it, although I'm not anti-cop in some general sense or anything -- I think there are a lot of reasons why overstepping authority and treating citizens like crap can be a side effect of that kind of job.

But anyway, I'm all for libertarians on this kind of thing. Also, the ACLU and various traditional groups who stand up for people when their rights are infringed.

Starwatcher162536
06-24-2011, 09:04 PM
Fairly disgusting.

sugarkang
06-24-2011, 09:05 PM
That said, I think police abuse their authority all the time, and am concerned about it, although I'm not anti-cop in some general sense or anything -- I think there are a lot of reasons why overstepping authority and treating citizens like crap can be a side effect of that kind of job.

Yeah, but now you've given me the perfect intro to the War on Drugs. If those things were legal, the cops wouldn't be so friggin' antsy all the time. Because I agree with you that cops are antsy for a reason: their lives are on the line. Frankly, people doing bad shit want to hurt them. Heck, I'm not even doing bad shit and I want to hurt them.

I'd just like to add, though, that I think there are certain things that liberals see and just have like a visceral reaction of it being "wrong." For me, this epitomizes it. Oh, and while we both agree that a copper might feel uneasy about the situation in the first video, there's absolutely no justification for the shit they pulled with parking tickets in the second video. This totally relates back to my debate with basman regarding Merchant of Venice and Anthony Weiner.

Wonderment
06-24-2011, 10:35 PM
That said, I think police abuse their authority all the time, and am concerned about it, although I'm not anti-cop in some general sense or anything -- I think there are a lot of reasons why overstepping authority and treating citizens like crap can be a side effect of that kind of job.

Clear abuse of authority and police misconduct in that video. Lucky woman. She will get at least a very nice settlement from the city. The "anti-police" comment from the officer is especially egregious and damning.

operative
06-24-2011, 10:45 PM
I haven't watched the video yet, but I will. I usually hate drawing conclusions based on something taken out of context like this, but may change my mind when I see it.

That said, I think police abuse their authority all the time, and am concerned about it, although I'm not anti-cop in some general sense or anything -- I think there are a lot of reasons why overstepping authority and treating citizens like crap can be a side effect of that kind of job.

But anyway, I'm all for libertarians on this kind of thing. Also, the ACLU and various traditional groups who stand up for people when their rights are infringed.

Speaking of the abuse of authority, here's another relevant story in a somewhat related vein from those greedy Koch shills over at Reason:
http://reason.com/archives/2011/06/20/rape-factories

popcorn_karate
06-27-2011, 04:56 PM
So, my question is: do liberals feel like this is a problem or is this just cool with you? I'd urge you to watch the first video if you don't have time. It's four minutes long.

its pretty funny that you're framing this question for liberals rather than conservatives - you have a rather curious lens that you view society through.

The situation above is exactly the type of issue that should unite libertarians with liberals against the statist conservatives ( Republicans ).

operative
06-27-2011, 05:16 PM
its pretty funny that you're framing this question for liberals rather than conservatives - you have a rather curious lens that you view society through.

The situation above is exactly the type of issue that should unite libertarians with liberals against the statist conservatives ( Republicans ).

And yet it is the liberal president attacking whistleblowers, fighting FOIA requests, etc.

popcorn_karate
06-27-2011, 05:43 PM
And yet it is the liberal president attacking whistleblowers, fighting FOIA requests, etc.

i'm pretty unhappy with this president - though he still seems less bad than the last. Its pretty clear to me that the expansions of police power over the last 40 years has been spearheaded by republicans. Reagan and Bush have done by far the most to eviscerate our freedoms in that time frame.

There has been a strong and consistent rightward shift in the country over that time period lead by republicans. Its true that Dems have gone along with it - just like they got on-board the corporatist band wagon as well. But liberals (rather than Dems) have fairly consistently opposed this stuff while conservatives have not.

stephanie
06-27-2011, 06:04 PM
i'm pretty unhappy with this president - though he still seems less bad than the last. Its pretty clear to me that the expansions of police power over the last 40 years has been spearheaded by republicans. Reagan and Bush have done by far the most to eviscerate our freedoms in that time frame.

There has been a strong and consistent rightward shift in the country over that time period lead by republicans. Its true that Dems have gone along with it - just like they got on-board the corporatist band wagon as well. But liberals (rather than Dems) have fairly consistently opposed this stuff while conservatives have not.

I'd say there are two general forces that tend to support this kind of stuff. First, no matter who is in power, the executive tends to argue in favor of governmental authority. Liberals tend to complain about this, no matter who is in power. The right tends to complain about it when a Dem is in power and not when a Republican is in power. Libertarians of the more sincere sort complain about it more generally, but a lot harder when a Dem is in power (and they seem willing to overlook it when other matters are at stake). But in any case, let's not pretend that libertarians of the more sincere sort play a significant role in US politics.

Second, there's been a huge effort to portray dissent from the RW positions on these matters -- specifically criminal enforcement issues and security issues -- as soft on crime and soft on the enemies of the US, basically unpatriotic. Whenever left-wingers talk about these issues, they get those accusations, full force. Hell, whenever mainstream Dems act less hardcore than, say, Clinton on these issues they get those accusations, as we can see in plenty of presidential campaigns and even the type of criticism Obama has faced.

That doesn't let the Dems who bow down to it off the hook, IMO, but it both provides an explanation and counters quite strongly the idea that the Republicans are somehow preferrable. If the Republicans want me to believe they are other than the problem, they need to figure out how to fight against the majority in their party that flips out any suggestion that maybe civil rights are more important than law enforcement and, for example, that we don't need torture or to hold people at Gitmo to fight terrorism.

chiwhisoxx
06-27-2011, 07:05 PM
I'd say there are two general forces that tend to support this kind of stuff. First, no matter who is in power, the executive tends to argue in favor of governmental authority. Liberals tend to complain about this, no matter who is in power. The right tends to complain about it when a Dem is in power and not when a Republican is in power. Libertarians of the more sincere sort complain about it more generally, but a lot harder when a Dem is in power (and they seem willing to overlook it when other matters are at stake). But in any case, let's not pretend that libertarians of the more sincere sort play a significant role in US politics.

Second, there's been a huge effort to portray dissent from the RW positions on these matters -- specifically criminal enforcement issues and security issues -- as soft on crime and soft on the enemies of the US, basically unpatriotic. Whenever left-wingers talk about these issues, they get those accusations, full force. Hell, whenever mainstream Dems act less hardcore than, say, Clinton on these issues they get those accusations, as we can see in plenty of presidential campaigns and even the type of criticism Obama has faced.

That doesn't let the Dems who bow down to it off the hook, IMO, but it both provides an explanation and counters quite strongly the idea that the Republicans are somehow preferrable. If the Republicans want me to believe they are other than the problem, they need to figure out how to fight against the majority in their party that flips out any suggestion that maybe civil rights are more important than law enforcement and, for example, that we don't need torture or to hold people at Gitmo to fight terrorism.

that's a rather laughable assertion given the last 11 years

operative
06-27-2011, 07:30 PM
i'm pretty unhappy with this president - though he still seems less bad than the last. Its pretty clear to me that the expansions of police power over the last 40 years has been spearheaded by republicans. Reagan and Bush have done by far the most to eviscerate our freedoms in that time frame.

There has been a strong and consistent rightward shift in the country over that time period lead by republicans. Its true that Dems have gone along with it - just like they got on-board the corporatist band wagon as well. But liberals (rather than Dems) have fairly consistently opposed this stuff while conservatives have not.

I haven't seen that opposition. I've seen a whole lot of partisanship, that's about it. Obama gave lipservice to limiting executive power, and then did the exact opposite--in my estimation, that makes him worse than a Republican who openly campaigns on increasing executive power. You're right that Republicans have done plenty to expand executive power, but they at least weren't hypocrites in doing so.

Obama is now executing a completely illegal military operation. This is something that Bush did not do, nor Clinton before him. He's decided that the War Powers act doesn't apply to him. He's also decided that it's within his authority to order the execution of an American citizen. These are pretty serious increases in executive authority.

eeeeeeeli
06-28-2011, 08:48 PM
A woman, standing in her own front yard, was using her video camera to record police officers. Aaaaand then she's arrested. (http://www.boingboing.net/2011/06/22/woman-who-filmed-cop.html)

EDIT: Few weeks later, the police use parking laws to harass her. (http://www.boingboing.net/2011/06/24/rochester-police-use.html)

So, my question is: do liberals feel like this is a problem or is this just cool with you? I'd urge you to watch the first video if you don't have time. It's four minutes long.

At anyone's request, I'd be willing to write a few paragraphs on why the War on Drugs directly causes this sort of thing to occur. Also, I'm willing to entertain any comments about libertarianism being a childish philosophy unrelated to reality and other similar points.
As far as this being a liberal vs. conservative thing, I'll just point out that the woman has an ethnically white accent. You might laugh at how predictable I am, but I was kind of expecting it going in. But I guess that just makes two of us!

Seriously though, liberals have been complaining about this shit for years when it routinely and disproportionately happens to minorities.

All that said, yes, it sucks. But how we see it through our ideological "temperaments" is also fascinating from a larger perspective.

stephanie
06-30-2011, 01:34 PM
that's a rather laughable assertion given the last 11 years

And I think it's laughable that you don't see it.

Now that we both have our snotty, conversation-stopping comments out of the way, I'll defend my point a little.

I said: "Libertarians of the more sincere sort complain about it more generally, but a lot harder when a Dem is in power."

Based on your comment, I assume your perception was that libertarians whined a lot more about Bush than about Obama? That was not my perception, obviously. But that tells us little. That it's not just me, however, can be demonstrated by looking at how the Bush adminstration was able to successfully paint the opposition to its policies on security and the wars as fringe. And not just fringe -- libertarians can be fringy, despite Matt Welch's (and Wonderment's!) insistence that they are such a formidable political force -- but extreme left-wing fringe. See, e.g., the 2004 Republican Convention. If we'd had a stronger libertarian voice out there on these issues, I don't think it would have been so easy to do that. And you'd think that a party that supposedly cares at least somewhat about libertarianism (or so we are now being told!) would have noticed that at least some of the party was upset by the caricature of all criticism of these policies as left-wing extremism.

You can also look at the rise of the Tea Party. You and I may not think the Tea Party demonstrates some kind of popular libertarian force, but it has been claimed as such, and I certainly don't buy the argument that the TP was just as mad during the Bush administration and just pure coincidence caused them to start complaining at the time a Dem got elected. And some of the complaints were in the force of libertarian or pseudo libertarian rhetoric.

Or perhaps your idea is that self-proclaimed libertarian types are unwilling to criticize Obama's policies? Surely, that would be laughable. Or is it that people like Conor Friedersdorf, while critical of Obama, got lots of press for his fights with right-wing talk show nasties? That hardly amounted to criticism of actual policies -- his point, he has said, was that the rhetoric employed precluded real discussion of policies. In any case, if suggesting that RW talk radio might be too extreme = not adequately criticizing Obama in your mind, well, no point in talking further.

chiwhisoxx
06-30-2011, 09:15 PM
And I think it's laughable that you don't see it.

Now that we both have our snotty, conversation-stopping comments out of the way, I'll defend my point a little.

I said: "Libertarians of the more sincere sort complain about it more generally, but a lot harder when a Dem is in power."

Based on your comment, I assume your perception was that libertarians whined a lot more about Bush than about Obama? That was not my perception, obviously. But that tells us little. That it's not just me, however, can be demonstrated by looking at how the Bush adminstration was able to successfully paint the opposition to its policies on security and the wars as fringe. And not just fringe -- libertarians can be fringy, despite Matt Welch's (and Wonderment's!) insistence that they are such a formidable political force -- but extreme left-wing fringe. See, e.g., the 2004 Republican Convention. If we'd had a stronger libertarian voice out there on these issues, I don't think it would have been so easy to do that. And you'd think that a party that supposedly cares at least somewhat about libertarianism (or so we are now being told!) would have noticed that at least some of the party was upset by the caricature of all criticism of these policies as left-wing extremism.

You can also look at the rise of the Tea Party. You and I may not think the Tea Party demonstrates some kind of popular libertarian force, but it has been claimed as such, and I certainly don't buy the argument that the TP was just as mad during the Bush administration and just pure coincidence caused them to start complaining at the time a Dem got elected. And some of the complaints were in the force of libertarian or pseudo libertarian rhetoric.

Or perhaps your idea is that self-proclaimed libertarian types are unwilling to criticize Obama's policies? Surely, that would be laughable. Or is it that people like Conor Friedersdorf, while critical of Obama, got lots of press for his fights with right-wing talk show nasties? That hardly amounted to criticism of actual policies -- his point, he has said, was that the rhetoric employed precluded real discussion of policies. In any case, if suggesting that RW talk radio might be too extreme = not adequately criticizing Obama in your mind, well, no point in talking further.

I don't know what the point about Bush painting libertarians as fringe-ish tells us much about which president libertarians criticized more. Could you clarify that? As for the Tea Party, I don't buy that they were just as angry at Bush either. That seems obviously stupid; if they were, the Tea Party would have started while Bush was in office. But I don't necessarily consider the Tea Party "libertarian". Labels will get us into trouble here. I also don't think the Tea Party is entirely divorced from libertarian ideas, and only fueled by racism. But when I said libertarians, I had a much more narrow definition in mind; movement libertarians at think tanks and magazines, etc. That definition may be a bit too narrow to give much meaning to the assertion, but then again there just aren't that many libertarians. I think their criticisms also manifested themselves in different ways, which makes it harder to gauge. Under Bush, it seemed pretty obvious he was rather un-libertarian from the start, and their anger towards him over war and surveillance was so deep that they basically just gave upon the guy. I thought Obama was rather obviously un-libertarian from the start as well, but lots of libertarians didn't initially agree for whatever reason. A lot of them voted for Obama, and had high expectations, especially re: the cluster of foreign policy and war powers issues. I think Obama let them down in this regard, so they talk as if they're disappointed in him. To me, it seems like the person I hate (dislike, detest, whatever) more is the guy who I never considered any good to begin with, rather than the guy who let me down.

Starwatcher162536
06-30-2011, 09:25 PM
I had an almost exact opposite reaction to the title, funny. I got more of a "I know going to Conservatives on this is a lost cause, so why is my only hope on instigating public outrage on these kind of events, Liberals, silent?" jive.

graz
06-30-2011, 09:25 PM
I don't know what the point about Bush painting libertarians as fringe-ish tells us much about which president libertarians criticized more. Could you clarify that? As for the Tea Party, I don't buy that they were just as angry at Bush either. That seems obviously stupid; if they were, the Tea Party would have started while Bush was in office. But I don't necessarily consider the Tea Party "libertarian". Labels will get us into trouble here. I also don't think the Tea Party is entirely divorced from libertarian ideas, and only fueled by racism. But when I said libertarians, I had a much more narrow definition in mind; movement libertarians at think tanks and magazines, etc. That definition may be a bit too narrow to give much meaning to the assertion, but then again there just aren't that many libertarians. I think their criticisms also manifested themselves in different ways, which makes it harder to gauge. Under Bush, it seemed pretty obvious he was rather un-libertarian from the start, and their anger towards him over war and surveillance was so deep that they basically just gave upon the guy. I thought Obama was rather obviously un-libertarian from the start as well, but lots of libertarians didn't initially agree for whatever reason. A lot of them voted for Obama, and had high expectations, especially re: the cluster of foreign policy and war powers issues. I think Obama let them down in this regard, so they talk as if they're disappointed in him. To me, it seems like the person I hate (dislike, detest, whatever) more is the guy who I never considered any good to begin with, rather than the guy who let me down.
That is a well considered rebuttal ;)
I take no issue!

stephanie
07-01-2011, 01:44 PM
I don't know what the point about Bush painting libertarians as fringe-ish tells us much about which president libertarians criticized more. Could you clarify that?

Yeah, I clearly need to, since that wasn't my point at all.

Bush and the Republicans successfully pained criticism of Bush's war and security policies as coming solely from an extreme left-wing, fringy place. If the voices that were heard criticizing them had contained as strong a component of libertarianism as you seem to claim, then that would not have been possible. There'd have been more awareness -- as currently -- that liberatarians are opposed to some of these same policies. This is one reason why I'm skeptical that the current libertarian movement on these issues can be trusted, however -- either they don't have meaningful power/support or they only got active when the Republicans weren't in power and we can't assume they'd remain active on the issues when that changed.

But I don't necessarily consider the Tea Party "libertarian". Labels will get us into trouble here.

Me either, but they are frequently claimed as such, both by libertarians (Matt Welch has suggested as much) and by various representatives of the movement.

I also don't think the Tea Party is entirely divorced from libertarian ideas, and only fueled by racism.

Two different things. I don't think they are "only fueled by racism" either, but that doesn't make them libertarian.

To me, it seems like the person I hate (dislike, detest, whatever) more is the guy who I never considered any good to begin with, rather than the guy who let me down.

Interesting. When it comes to the passion and intensity with which views are expressed, I think there is often a much greater force directed against those who let you down than those you expected little from. I see this pattern more on the left than the right, though -- the right seem to keep in mind that the key enemy is the left and the RINOs bad only because they are too friendly with liberals. But as has been pointed out, it's common to see opponents as better disciplined than the really are, so I could be exaggering this a little.