Let's do a rally on the fourth to show there is strength in numbers.
Do you believe in Ayn Rand’s philosophy on the ethics of altruism? If each capable individual does their best to be their best by looking out for their own interest then they would fulfill their societal duty to be a productive member of society. This does not mean that you cannot or should not help others.
Looking out for your own interest and being selfish in that way does not preclude you from being generous or thoughtful. It is each one’s responsibility to achieve all that you can. Rand believed that capitalism is the morally superior economic system and that morality demands respecting the individual rights of all. Capitalism drives an economy for all to grow, socialism drives an economy for government and restrictions of freedom to grow.
While we may not have actual proof that we have been photographed by an Automatic License Plate Reader, I would agree with Catherine Clump when she says in her TED talk on YouTube, “And if you drive a car in the United States, I would bet money that they have photographs like this of you going about your daily life.” Even though I live in a rural area and don’t go out much, I am sure there are at least a few pictures with my vehicle in them. The fact that the local government feels the need to track my location is a bit too much of an intrusion into my life. As Crump states, “This information used to be private. “ As Americans, we have the right to roam freely and know that not only are we free to do so; we are able to do so in a private manner.
Crump goes on to say, “At the same time, the federal government is collecting all of these individual pots of data, and pooling them together into one vast database with hundreds of millions of hits, showing where Americans have traveled.” I am alarmed and concerned to learn that the government spends resources on such a violation of our inalienable rights. Citizens need to take actions against this policy of intrusion for the sake of security. We as citizens can do more to improve security than a database full of photographs but first we must protect our rights. Crump tells us, there are steps we can take. As Crump puts it, city councils can pass laws requiring the police to dispose of the data about innocent people. Let’s work from the bottom up, by voting in councilmen who will protect our freedoms and our privacy.
References
Clump, Catherine. “Catherine Crump: The small and surprisingly dangerousdetail the police track about you.” Online video clip. TEDTalks. YouTube. N.p., 11 Dec. 2014. Web. 18 June 2015. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt4o-R9wzrs&feature=youtu.be>.
Wanting to know the logical truth is what drives a person to think with reason and rationale. The world would be a better place if people spent more time debating with reason and have discussions using rational arguments about issues and matters. The problem as Rauhut points out is, “The premises of an argument are the reasons you think your belief about the world is true. Good and reasonable premises for an important claim are hard to come by, since we very often know what we believe, but we often are not quite sure why we do so” (Rauhut, 2003).
Learning that it is not enough to know what we believe but that we must be able to defend our belief with logic and clarity will help to make better arguments. It is not enough to just make a statement because it seems to be true even if said with authority on the subject. Each argument must be able to pass the scrutiny test. Many times, you can simply ask someone why they believe what they believe and that will cause the person to stop and think of the reasons and sometimes decide there is no logical reason why they believe what they believe. Without a strong logical foundation of their belief some will immediately concede that their belief cannot be defended with logic and therefore is a weak statement of belief and possibly change their mind, especially if presented with reason of why their belief is not logical and cannot be defended as a truth.
However, logic needs to be consistent within the argument. Without consistency, there is contradiction. In philosophical investigation, on the other hand, the search for logical consistency becomes a driving force for innovation and philosophical progress. (Rauhut, 2003) Philosophy is, as American philosopher William James (1842-1910) pointed out, “an unusually stubborn effort to think clearly” (as cited in Rauhut, 2003).
Clear thinking allows one to see things with different possibilities and not just as they think it should be which could be based on personal biases or experiences. Thinking without preconceived ideas and opinions allows one to see possibility they could not see before with a clouded mind. Sometimes the range of possibilities can be infinite which is why logic and clarity are necessary to narrow down to what is a valid argument.
Philosophy is about arguing but with a purpose of finding the logical truths and reasonable possibilities. If one dislikes losing arguments, one ought to not get in a philosophical debate with someone who understand the concepts of philosophy as most likely they would lose the argument. However, they may gain a great deal of insight not only about their own belief systems but their world view in general.
Rauhut. (2003). Ultimate Questions: Thinking About Philosophy, 2nd edition.
It is clear that the debate will continue on about LPRs (License Plate Readers) and mass surveillance until either the cameras come down or we as a people lie down and take it. There are two sides to the issue of mass surveillance. Being able to see someone commit a crime or being able to locate someone that has committed a crime is a good thing, no doubt. But what are the costs to our civil liberties?
Watching citizens without any evidence of wrong doing just in case there is a bad guy out there (and we know there is), is like locking up all the good people in case there is a bad guy among the group instead of just locking up the bad guy. Even though there are those trying to sound the alarm about our possible loss of liberties, the governments are steadily putting up more cameras and other types of surveillance technologies.
Will we be a society that completely gives way to being spied on by Big Brother? We have been conditioned to not only be tolerant, but accepting of the increase in mass surveillance and that mainstream media is guilty of “training” people to be complacent as far as being under the watchful eye of video cameras (Dority). The reality of being spied on by the people who control everything is not like the staged reality show “Big Brother” where the residents are well aware of the cameras and the fact that they are being watched. As Dority reminds us that what once was thought to be unacceptable is now upon us and that we are being watched with modern day technology as we give up our right to privacy and due process for the sake of security.
If we as a society continue to let the "powers that be" erode away at our liberties how will life be in the future? Will the surveillance continue to increase? All signs point to yes it will increase until they are peering into our very homes. At what level do they stop? At what point does the public decide that enough is enough? Even though there is a debate on this topic is there enough debate. The public needs to be alarmed but either they don’t care or they don’t know how much they are actually being watched. That is one side of this issue. The liberties we give up for what the other side would say is protection.
The police and those who are in favor of LPRs and mass surveillance in general would argue that the good outweighs the bad. And so what if you are being watched, what do you have to hide. Why do you care if you are doing nothing wrong? The police say it helps them catch the bad guys and the data will only be used for the good of society. The premise of “if we watch, we can protect” is a far reach in the defense of the act of spying. This is what the other side’s debate is about on the topic of mass surveillance and the good they do.
In her YouTube video, Catherine Crump states, “History has shown that once the police have massive quantities of data, tracking the movements of innocent people, it gets abused, maybe for blackmail, maybe for political advantage, or maybe for simple voyeurism.” Think about that, someone you do not know is looking at you, watching you, eavesdropping on your conversations. Really think about that statement. At what point do you want them to stop invading your privacy?
What if you are not committing a crime against humanity, but one against your spouse such as having an affair? Would you want it to be recorded that you met your lover at the corner of Fifth and Main when you were supposed to be on the opposite side of town? Forever providing proof you were at that very spot at that very moment. What if someone who is privy to the data knows your spouse? Extra marital affairs are morally wrong but that doesn’t mean you should get caught in the act by mass surveillance. No more would one have the freedom of doing anything right or wrong without possibly being seen doing it.
There are those who will defend our civil liberties even if we don’t see a need. This debate is far from over and let’s hope the fighters of liberties will not only get louder but grow in mass just as the surveillance has grown in recent years. It is never too late to reign in the control that government has upon our society. We could always start a privacy revolution and just stop driving or going anywhere. Would we trade our freedom to roam for our privacy and freedom from surveillance?
References
Crump, Catherine. “Catherine Crump: The small and surprisingly dangerous detail the police track about you.” Online video clip. TEDTalks. YouTube. N.p., 11 Dec. 2014. Web. 18 June 2015. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt4o-R9wzrs&feature=youtu.be>.
Dority, Barbara. "BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING! (Cover Story)."Humanist 61.3 (2001): 9. Academic Search Complete. Web. 28 June 2015.
Judicial restraint is important to ensure the Constitution does not get changed through judicial activism. The act of “activism” as defined by dictionary.com, “the doctrine or practice of vigorous action or involvement as a means of achieving political or other goals, sometimes by demonstrations, protests, etc.” should not be a part of judicial review.
It would be hard not to let your own ideals and philosophy become part of your reasoning in trying to get others to believe what you believe, but law is not about what a few judges believe. This is the reason judicial restraint should be practiced in most if not all cases. Judges’ decisions should be based solely on the letter of the law. The Supreme Court must not set precedents based on judicial activism. The more laws interpreted by judges the less the constitutionality of the Constitution will be recognized.
It is understandable that sometimes laws need to be changed, but they need to go through Congress and not be set, stretched, or envisioned by Judges. Judges need to only look at the “legal” aspect of things and let everyone else (meaning Congress and the American people) worry about the political and social aspect of things.
Although some argue that policymakers can wait to solve our long-term entitlement problems, CBO's recent Long-Term Budget Outlook suggests otherwise. According to their projections, the Social Security program is in particular trouble -- and much worse than we thought.
According to CBO's latest projections, the trust fund will become insolvent three years earlier than what we previously thought, and its long-term funding gap is 50 percent larger (CRFB.org, 2015). After reading the foregoing statement it should be clear that the current Social Security program is not sustainable and needs reform in a big way.
When the program was put into place people’s lifespan was shorter and there were more paying in to it as compared to those drawing it as compared to today’s figures. The cost to administer the program alone is something of a waste when you consider that the money paid into social security could instead be paid to a private bank account and have similar rules as far as when a person could start drawing their funds out to insure they have money in their “golden” years.
It could work similar to the present 401k’s in as much as the employers would still need to contribute as they do today when they match an employee’s FICA and Medicare tax. As far as Medicare, you would have thought when they were busy passing laws before they read them (Affordable Care Act) they would have revised Medicare to make it more efficient and reduce the amount of fraud.
Why the people in the federal government think everything is better if they run and control it is beyond me. The private sector can run companies more efficient than the government ever could. So while I don’t have an exact solution, I still can see that something needs to be done to have Americans benefit more from the money they earn through their years of employment.
References
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. CBO: Social Security Looks Much Worse Than We Thought. 2015. Available at: http://crfb.org/blogs/cbo-social-security-looks-much-worse-we-thought. Accessed July 25, 2015.