The Creeping Sovietization of America

[VMI77]

You know I don't mind a police officer coming up and saying hello and commenting on the view. They are people too, and I will likely respond very kindly and talk with you about the weather and perhaps even how much I love the way the birds reflection glints up off the water. However if I have to go get my husband for a baseball game and they have nothing more than I am taking pictures of wildlife then they need to let me leave and not be legally entitled give me the 3rd degree on my pictures of sea gulls, as it seems this police chief thought they were.

I agree. Aside from the issue of policy, a good part of this is the manner in which the contact is made. I've been asked by an officer about what I'm taking photos of in a casual way that expressed some curiosity about photography in general, and my camera --I didn't mind at all and he probably found out whatever he wanted to know; and I've been challenged as if by taking a photo I was performing a criminal act and was a potential terrorist. In the first case my right to take a photograph was not being challenged; in the second case, the officer clearly communicated the notion that I had better stop taking photos if I didn't want something bad to happen. It was really just an exercise of arbitrary authority since my offer to show the photos I'd taken was rejected and when asked, the officer admitted my conduct was not illegal --indicating she already knew I wasn't up to anything suspicious or criminal.

[VMI77]

I disagree with your interpretation. Note, in every single case you cite here "suspicion" goes together with "crime." The suspicion is to related to possible criminal activity. Taking photos is not a crime, and there is no reasonable way to draw a conclusion, solely based on the fact that someone is taking photographs in a public place, that such a person is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity. Looking through binoculars is not a crime either, nor is drawing pictures or taking notes, so by the standard you relate here, there is no basis for detaining people for any of these activities.

Look bottom line is the SCOTUS says a LEO can approach any of us at any time for whatever reason under Reasonable Suspicion... It doesn't need to resultant from or be based on overt/covert criminal activity. Their words not mine. I was just as surprised as the next guy. Do I agree with it? No... is it case law? Yes.

They basically did an end run around the 4th Amendment with the Reasonable Suspicion law because Probable Cause needs some reason to perform a stop, search, and result in possibly seizure. Reasonable Suspicion only needs the suspicion of the Prudent Officer to have a "HUNCH" and in the process of acting on their assumption of nefarious activity can thus act on it and stop you and ask to search you (superficially).... Be it photography or whatever you can come up with.

How many times have you seen cops on TV simply stop someone on the street and initiate contact because of a suspicion of possible criminal activity and ask for an I.D. and where they're going, what they're doing? Hence, Reasonable Suspicion.

Don't like it... Then figure out a way to change the case law.

Sorry if you don't agree with it but that is how is is written.

I think we're talking about different things. Let me repeat: taking photographs in public is not a criminal act --there is no law that prohibits taking photographs in public. No matter how many times I press the shutter release or zoom my lens in and out, it isn't transformed into a criminal act. Pointing my camera at one subject or another doesn't transform it into a criminal act --so what is the basis for suspicion of criminal activity? As giga says, an officer can approach anyone at anytime and ask questions. The issue here is whether or not you can disregard the question or the contact and walk away, or whether the police have a legal basis to detain you. Your citation refers to a suspicion of criminal activity. I don't believe the court ruling authorizes the police to simply walk up and detain anyone they want to without suspicion of criminal behavior. If your interpretation is correct then the police can detain anyone anytime for anything, and we're already living in a police state.

I don't care what the police do on TV --TV is not the law, nor is it reality. TV shows reflect the political agendas of the people who create them and they are seen by their creators as tools for shaping society to serve their agendas. Back in the old days, you might hear Sheriff Andy say he couldn't do this or that because it was Unconstitutional. These days the Constitution is usually portrayed as an impediment to the imposition of the "collective" will. The left hates the concept of individual rights embodied in the Constitution and attempts to undermine it at every opportunity. This is perhaps most obvious in their claim that the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right, but their animus to individual rights applies across the board --except in particular instances where the assertion of individual rights can be temporarily exploited to further the collectivist agenda and ultimately abolish individual rights.

[gigag04]

Actually there a few subject matters that are against the law. Think children...

[Heartland Patriot]

I disagree with your interpretation. Note, in every single case you cite here "suspicion" goes together with "crime." The suspicion is to related to possible criminal activity. Taking photos is not a crime, and there is no reasonable way to draw a conclusion, solely based on the fact that someone is taking photographs in a public place, that such a person is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity. Looking through binoculars is not a crime either, nor is drawing pictures or taking notes, so by the standard you relate here, there is no basis for detaining people for any of these activities.

Look bottom line is the SCOTUS says a LEO can approach any of us at any time for whatever reason under Reasonable Suspicion... It doesn't need to resultant from or be based on overt/covert criminal activity. Their words not mine. I was just as surprised as the next guy. Do I agree with it? No... is it case law? Yes.

They basically did an end run around the 4th Amendment with the Reasonable Suspicion law because Probable Cause needs some reason to perform a stop, search, and result in possibly seizure. Reasonable Suspicion only needs the suspicion of the Prudent Officer to have a "HUNCH" and in the process of acting on their assumption of nefarious activity can thus act on it and stop you and ask to search you (superficially).... Be it photography or whatever you can come up with.

How many times have you seen cops on TV simply stop someone on the street and initiate contact because of a suspicion of possible criminal activity and ask for an I.D. and where they're going, what they're doing? Hence, Reasonable Suspicion.

Don't like it... Then figure out a way to change the case law.

Sorry if you don't agree with it but that is how is is written.

I think we're talking about different things. Let me repeat: taking photographs in public is not a criminal act --there is no law that prohibits taking photographs in public. No matter how many times I press the shutter release or zoom my lens in and out, it isn't transformed into a criminal act. Pointing my camera at one subject or another doesn't transform it into a criminal act --so what is the basis for suspicion of criminal activity? As giga says, an officer can approach anyone at anytime and ask questions. The issue here is whether or not you can disregard the question or the contact and walk away, or whether the police have a legal basis to detain you. Your citation refers to a suspicion of criminal activity. I don't believe the court ruling authorizes the police to simply walk up and detain anyone they want to without suspicion of criminal behavior. If your interpretation is correct then the police can detain anyone anytime for anything, and we're already living in a police state.

I don't care what the police do on TV --TV is not the law, nor is it reality. TV shows reflect the political agendas of the people who create them and they are seen by their creators as tools for shaping society to serve their agendas. Back in the old days, you might hear Sheriff Andy say he couldn't do this or that because it was Unconstitutional. These days the Constitution is usually portrayed as an impediment to the imposition of the "collective" will. The left hates the concept of individual rights embodied in the Constitution and attempts to undermine it at every opportunity. This is perhaps most obvious in their claim that the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right, but their animus to individual rights applies across the board --except in particular instances where the assertion of individual rights can be temporarily exploited to further the collectivist agenda and ultimately abolish individual rights.

In regards to the final paragraph of your reply, I believe that this is a serious problem. The PUBLIC AT LARGE perceives that what they see in PORTRAYALS of LEOs on TV must be the way LEOs do and can act. Like you said, those creating and making these programs for TV have an agenda. They WANT the public to be trained to a standard of activity and conduct that THEY like. On one hand, they will often vilify police who are doing the hard jobs out there against sometimes vicious criminal thugs...while also showing the public in other programs that the police can pretty much do whatever they want and the average citizens better comply or else. Depends on the program and the intent...BTW, I really do enjoy learning things by reading discussions like this, especially with smart folks like y'all, and those who have LEO knowledge and experience.

[The Annoyed Man]

Actually there a few subject matters that are against the law. Think children...

Asking for useful clarification..... Do you mean any children, or just children under certain circumstances? For instance, when I was last in France in 2005, I was at a little village carnival, and I took pictures of various scenes, including children on a merry-go-round. If that were in the United States, that would be illegal? I obvloulsy understand that child pornography would be illegal (and indefensible under the first amendment because it harms the child's rights among other things). but I have, on a number of occasions, taken pictures of children in public. Sometimes it was a specific child, and done with the parent's permission, and other times it was general "children at play" pictures in public parks and that kind of thing.

[VMI77]

Actually there a few subject matters that are against the law. Think children...

Yes, I'm generalizing for simplicity. For instance, even from a public location it could be illegal to use a telephoto lens and take a photo through the window of someone's home. Still, it's not illegal to take a photo of a child in a public place when there is no invasion of privacy anymore than it is illegal to take a photo of an adult in public. A photo of an adult could be illegal even in public if it violates a reasonable expectation of privacy --such as someone taking a photo under a woman's skirt, and the same is true for children. However, these days, unless you've obtained permission from the parents first, taking photos of other people's children is not a good idea, no matter how innocent the photo. There is no law that prohibits photographing children in public, and if there was, then every business with surveillance cameras would be violating the law, and Google would have violated the law numerous times with their street view images.

[VMI77]

I don't care what the police do on TV --TV is not the law, nor is it reality. TV shows reflect the political agendas of the people who create them and they are seen by their creators as tools for shaping society to serve their agendas. Back in the old days, you might hear Sheriff Andy say he couldn't do this or that because it was Unconstitutional. These days the Constitution is usually portrayed as an impediment to the imposition of the "collective" will. The left hates the concept of individual rights embodied in the Constitution and attempts to undermine it at every opportunity. This is perhaps most obvious in their claim that the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right, but their animus to individual rights applies across the board --except in particular instances where the assertion of individual rights can be temporarily exploited to further the collectivist agenda and ultimately abolish individual rights.

In regards to the final paragraph of your reply, I believe that this is a serious problem. The PUBLIC AT LARGE perceives that what they see in PORTRAYALS of LEOs on TV must be the way LEOs do and can act. Like you said, those creating and making these programs for TV have an agenda. They WANT the public to be trained to a standard of activity and conduct that THEY like. On one hand, they will often vilify police who are doing the hard jobs out there against sometimes vicious criminal thugs...while also showing the public in other programs that the police can pretty much do whatever they want and the average citizens better comply or else. Depends on the program and the intent...BTW, I really do enjoy learning things by reading discussions like this, especially with smart folks like y'all, and those who have LEO knowledge and experience.

Yes, it's a huge problem and no doubt partly responsible for where we find ourselves today as a nation. I've observed a good three decades of the media trying to undermine the Constitution, especially when it comes to concepts of individual rights and self-defense. The right to self-defense has been under unrelenting media attack for as long as I can remember --in movies, on television, and in mainstream newspapers and magazines.

[Jumping Frog]

Not a big deal really.

Well, the reasonable way you present your argument regarding polite police officers and regarding consent contact sounds very reasonable. If you walked up to me and conversationally asked, "How you doing. What's up." I'd politely engage with you.

My issue is all the contacts reported every week in this country that aren't so mannered and polite. Taking a look at the Photography is Not a Crime blog, two points stand out. First, there are cases that aren't so polite, and often end with police violence against the photographer, especially when photographing police behavior. Second, this is far more common than most people realize, with 20 or 30 such incidents blogged every month.

Here is one example of detention and search that does not seem reasonable to me.

Chris Noe, who is running for office in Darien, Connecticut, was shooting the above video for his campaign when he was detained by police.

This is how he explains it on the Youtube description:

Swarmed by cops. I made this video and seconds later a Napoleon Complex cop with the K9 Unit stopped and detained me for 30 minutes. He wanted to search my motorcycle, I said no. His curt response, "OK, we'll do it that way." He called for backup. Like Keystone Cops the motorcycle cop arrives with a saddle bag wide open and the police cruiser has a new scrape from the right rear door into the fender. The K9 cop wants to know what I am videoing. What I am doing with it. He has his gun at the ready creating intimidation of my being shot. All this as I tell him I am running for First Selectman.

You make the comment that there is no expectation of privacy when photographing in public, but the term "expectation of privacy" seems like a red herring. Someone simply walking down the street is out in public, and also has no "expectation of privacy". But he does have a reasonable expectation of being able to peaceably enjoy his own lawful activity without police interference or harassment. A policeman cannot start randomly confronting people for simply walking down the street, detain them, and demand ID. I don't see legally photographing public scenery as any different than walking down the street or any other lawful activity.

Saying, "Hi" to me is one thing. A police officer aggressively detaining me for 30 minutes at gunpoint for doing absolutely nothing illegal is not acceptable to me. Confiscating and erasing my pictures or video is clearly committing an offense, yet that frequently happens as well.

[Medic624]

I don't care what the police do on TV --TV is not the law, nor is it reality. TV shows reflect the political agendas of the people who create them and they are seen by their creators as tools for shaping society to serve their agendas. Back in the old days, you might hear Sheriff Andy say he couldn't do this or that because it was Unconstitutional. These days the Constitution is usually portrayed as an impediment to the imposition of the "collective" will. The left hates the concept of individual rights embodied in the Constitution and attempts to undermine it at every opportunity. This is perhaps most obvious in their claim that the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right, but their animus to individual rights applies across the board --except in particular instances where the assertion of individual rights can be temporarily exploited to further the collectivist agenda and ultimately abolish individual rights.

WHAT!?!?...

Did you seriously think I meant something as ridiculous as say Law and Order?

No, I meant the loosely based in reality and highly edited shows like "COPs" etc... and also the first hand experience I have had doing ride alongs and talking to my numerous LEO friends and acquaintances when I was still working as a Paramedic...

As far as the rest about the Left... We all know the extreme Lefties abhor the Constitution and the Republic it has created.

[VMI77]

I don't care what the police do on TV --TV is not the law, nor is it reality. TV shows reflect the political agendas of the people who create them and they are seen by their creators as tools for shaping society to serve their agendas. Back in the old days, you might hear Sheriff Andy say he couldn't do this or that because it was Unconstitutional. These days the Constitution is usually portrayed as an impediment to the imposition of the "collective" will. The left hates the concept of individual rights embodied in the Constitution and attempts to undermine it at every opportunity. This is perhaps most obvious in their claim that the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right, but their animus to individual rights applies across the board --except in particular instances where the assertion of individual rights can be temporarily exploited to further the collectivist agenda and ultimately abolish individual rights.

WHAT!?!?...

Did you seriously think I meant something as ridiculous as say Law and Order?

No, I meant the loosely based in reality and highly edited shows like "COPs" etc... and also the first hand experience I have had doing ride alongs and talking to my numerous LEO friends and acquaintances when I was still working as a Paramedic...

As far as the rest about the Left... We all know the extreme Lefties abhor the Constitution and the Republic it has created.

Back at ya.....are you kidding about COPs? --it's one of the most agenda driven leftist TV shows out there, and that's without even considering the impact of the TV camera on how police conduct themselves. There is no such thing as a "reality" show, if by "reality" you mean a show that to some high degree reflects reality (versus the absurd nomenclature of TV land). It's all in the editing.....but as far as COPs goes (from an article describing how TV execs push the liberal agenda):

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/t ... ews-193116

"Shapiro released two videos Tuesday, one featuring COPS creator John Langley saying he’s partial to segments where white people are the criminals...."

A quote like that one is just scratching the surface. And I disagree that "extreme" lefties abhor the Constitution --whatever you mean by "extreme." You either believe in individual rights, or you're a collectivist, and assign rights to groups. The MAJORITY of leftists are collectivists, and since the Constitution assigns rights to individuals, the majority Left is anti-Constitution --though they have no problem exploiting it for the destruction of Constitutional government in anticipation of the great Socialist Utopia.

[Medic624]

I don't care what the police do on TV --TV is not the law, nor is it reality. TV shows reflect the political agendas of the people who create them and they are seen by their creators as tools for shaping society to serve their agendas. Back in the old days, you might hear Sheriff Andy say he couldn't do this or that because it was Unconstitutional. These days the Constitution is usually portrayed as an impediment to the imposition of the "collective" will. The left hates the concept of individual rights embodied in the Constitution and attempts to undermine it at every opportunity. This is perhaps most obvious in their claim that the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right, but their animus to individual rights applies across the board --except in particular instances where the assertion of individual rights can be temporarily exploited to further the collectivist agenda and ultimately abolish individual rights.

WHAT!?!?...

Did you seriously think I meant something as ridiculous as say Law and Order?

No, I meant the loosely based in reality and highly edited shows like "COPs" etc... and also the first hand experience I have had doing ride alongs and talking to my numerous LEO friends and acquaintances when I was still working as a Paramedic...

As far as the rest about the Left... We all know the extreme Lefties abhor the Constitution and the Republic it has created.

Back at ya.....are you kidding about COPs? --it's one of the most agenda driven leftist TV shows out there, and that's without even considering the impact of the TV camera on how police conduct themselves. There is no such thing as a "reality" show, if by "reality" you mean a show that to some high degree reflects reality (versus the absurd nomenclature of TV land). It's all in the editing.....but as far as COPs goes (from an article describing how TV execs push the liberal agenda):

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/t ... ews-193116

"Shapiro released two videos Tuesday, one featuring COPS creator John Langley saying he’s partial to segments where white people are the criminals...."

A quote like that one is just scratching the surface. And I disagree that "extreme" lefties abhor the Constitution --whatever you mean by "extreme." You either believe in individual rights, or you're a collectivist, and assign rights to groups. The MAJORITY of leftists are collectivists, and since the Constitution assigns rights to individuals, the majority Left is anti-Constitution --though they have no problem exploiting it for the destruction of Constitutional government in anticipation of the great Socialist Utopia.

Huh, Do you even READ what people write when they respond? I had already said it was "loosely based in reality and HIGHLY edited". And, we're saying the same thing as far as the Left (or the extreme left wing faction)...I simply dont paint with such a wide brush. Im not lumping so much of the left leaning populace into the radical category... its just not as cut and dried as the majority of people who say theyre on the left who want to undermine the U.S. Constitution. If given the choice and nailed down most believe in the tenets of the Constitution BUT still want all the handouts to go along with it. Its not as simple as that but, that just shows they dont fully understand what it means when they read;We hold these truths to be self‐evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Most who assign themselves and align with a specific way of thinking when pressed realize theyre not as not as ALL this way or THAT. Im a (mostly) Libertarian with some Republican leanings. Its just not all black and white or radical as I believe you to portend it to be.

[Heartland Patriot]

I don't care what the police do on TV --TV is not the law, nor is it reality. TV shows reflect the political agendas of the people who create them and they are seen by their creators as tools for shaping society to serve their agendas. Back in the old days, you might hear Sheriff Andy say he couldn't do this or that because it was Unconstitutional. These days the Constitution is usually portrayed as an impediment to the imposition of the "collective" will. The left hates the concept of individual rights embodied in the Constitution and attempts to undermine it at every opportunity. This is perhaps most obvious in their claim that the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right, but their animus to individual rights applies across the board --except in particular instances where the assertion of individual rights can be temporarily exploited to further the collectivist agenda and ultimately abolish individual rights.

WHAT!?!?...

Did you seriously think I meant something as ridiculous as say Law and Order?

No, I meant the loosely based in reality and highly edited shows like "COPs" etc... and also the first hand experience I have had doing ride alongs and talking to my numerous LEO friends and acquaintances when I was still working as a Paramedic...

As far as the rest about the Left... We all know the extreme Lefties abhor the Constitution and the Republic it has created.

Back at ya.....are you kidding about COPs? --it's one of the most agenda driven leftist TV shows out there, and that's without even considering the impact of the TV camera on how police conduct themselves. There is no such thing as a "reality" show, if by "reality" you mean a show that to some high degree reflects reality (versus the absurd nomenclature of TV land). It's all in the editing.....but as far as COPs goes (from an article describing how TV execs push the liberal agenda):

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/t ... ews-193116

"Shapiro released two videos Tuesday, one featuring COPS creator John Langley saying he’s partial to segments where white people are the criminals...."

A quote like that one is just scratching the surface. And I disagree that "extreme" lefties abhor the Constitution --whatever you mean by "extreme." You either believe in individual rights, or you're a collectivist, and assign rights to groups. The MAJORITY of leftists are collectivists, and since the Constitution assigns rights to individuals, the majority Left is anti-Constitution --though they have no problem exploiting it for the destruction of Constitutional government in anticipation of the great Socialist Utopia.

Huh, Do you even READ what people write when they respond? I had already said it was "loosely based in reality and HIGHLY edited". And, we're saying the same thing as far as the Left (or the extreme left wing faction)...I simply dont paint with such a wide brush. Im not lumping so much of the left leaning populace into the radical category... its just not as cut and dried as the majority of people who say theyre on the left who want to undermine the U.S. Constitution. If given the choice and nailed down most believe in the tenets of the Constitution BUT still want all the handouts to go along with it. Its not as simple as that but, that just shows they dont fully understand what it means when they read;We hold these truths to be self‐evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Most who assign themselves and align with a specific way of thinking when pressed realize theyre not as not as ALL this way or THAT. Im a (mostly) Libertarian with some Republican leanings. Its just not all black and white or radical as I believe you to portend it to be.

In regards to the highlighted text above, they USED to have a name for those folks...they used to call them DEMOCRATS...

[VMI77]

Huh, Do you even READ what people write when they respond? I had already said it was "loosely based in reality and HIGHLY edited".

Yes, I got it. My response was both a general remark about the nature of so called "reality" shows, and a specific comment on the agenda driven nature of COPs. You were contrasting a show like COPs with a show like Law and Order --I"m contending that they are both fictional and agenda driven. I don't think that because COPs purports to depict direct experience and Law and Order is at least one step removed from it, that COPs is necessarily any more "realistic" than Law and Order. All we're talking about are different methods of distorting reality. In fact, given the selective focus of COPs versus the broader focus of a show like Law and Order, one might well make the case that COPs is actually more fictional.

And, we're saying the same thing as far as the Left (or the extreme left wing faction)...If given the choice and nailed down most believe in the tenets of the Constitution BUT still want all the handouts to go along with it. Its not as simple as that but, that just shows they dont fully understand what it means when they read;We hold these truths to be self‐evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Most who assign themselves and align with a specific way of thinking when pressed realize theyre not as not as ALL this way or THAT. Im a (mostly) Libertarian with some Republican leanings. Its just not all black and white or radical as I believe you to portend it to be.

I don't think we are saying the same thing. You're saying that collectivist thought reflects radical left thought; I'm saying collectivism is the defining feature of left thought, and the defining feature of libertarianism is the concept of individual rights and responsibilities. I'm also saying it isn't just a matter of ignorance: that if those you assume are confused understood the meaning of the Constitution, a good number of them would reject it. Of course there are also collectivists on the Right, but the fundamental defining principle of libertarianism is that ONLY individuals have rights, not groups. There is no middle ground between these two positions, just like a woman can't be half pregnant --you either believe rights are individual rights or you don't. Yes, there are probably varying degrees of collectivism, from mild socialism to full out communism, and the milder collectivism allows some room for individual rights --with the condition that when there is conflict they are subordinate to the collective. That's not the principle embodied in the Constitution. In fact, without subordinating individual rights to group rights --collectivism-- politicians couldn't rob Peter to pay Paul, and nearly the entire edifice of modern US government would be defunct.

Like Schumpeter in my signature quote below, I think most people like lofty phrases about freedom, maybe even like the idea of it in theory, but aren't up to living it as their reality. Most people prefer safety to liberty.

[Medic624]

Huh, Do you even READ what people write when they respond? I had already said it was "loosely based in reality and HIGHLY edited".

Yes, I got it. My response was both a general remark about the nature of so called "reality" shows, and a specific comment on the agenda driven nature of COPs. You were contrasting a show like COPs with a show like Law and Order --I"m contending that they are both fictional and agenda driven. I don't think that because COPs purports to depict direct experience and Law and Order is at least one step removed from it, that COPs is necessarily any more "realistic" than Law and Order. All we're talking about are different methods of distorting reality. In fact, given the selective focus of COPs versus the broader focus of a show like Law and Order, one might well make the case that COPs is actually more fictional.

And, we're saying the same thing as far as the Left (or the extreme left wing faction)...If given the choice and nailed down most believe in the tenets of the Constitution BUT still want all the handouts to go along with it. Its not as simple as that but, that just shows they dont fully understand what it means when they read;We hold these truths to be self‐evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Most who assign themselves and align with a specific way of thinking when pressed realize theyre not as not as ALL this way or THAT. Im a (mostly) Libertarian with some Republican leanings. Its just not all black and white or radical as I believe you to portend it to be.

I don't think we are saying the same thing. You're saying that collectivist thought reflects radical left thought; I'm saying collectivism is the defining feature of left thought, and the defining feature of libertarianism is the concept of individual rights and responsibilities. I'm also saying it isn't just a matter of ignorance: that if those you assume are confused understood the meaning of the Constitution, a good number of them would reject it. Of course there are also collectivists on the Right, but the fundamental defining principle of libertarianism is that ONLY individuals have rights, not groups. There is no middle ground between these two positions, just like a woman can't be half pregnant --you either believe rights are individual rights or you don't. Yes, there are probably varying degrees of collectivism, from mild socialism to full out communism, and the milder collectivism allows some room for individual rights --with the condition that when there is conflict they are subordinate to the collective. That's not the principle embodied in the Constitution. In fact, without subordinating individual rights to group rights --collectivism-- politicians couldn't rob Peter to pay Paul, and nearly the entire edifice of modern US government would be defunct.

Like Schumpeter in my signature quote below, I think most people like lofty phrases about freedom, maybe even like the idea of it in theory, but aren't up to living it as their reality. Most people prefer safety to liberty.

Okay...well we actually do agree. Unfortunately for the last few generations we have been sitting by trying to play by the rules while the left was making small but steady incremental plans to completely undermine all that was intended and set forth by the founding documents.

Safety is only so appealing option because the majority cannot think about anything but their own needs or the needs of their collective agenda.

[wharvey]

This has been a most interesting thread. One of the few I've bothered reading past page 2.

Police checking out possibly suspicious activity is nothing new and in no way improper. Way back in the very early 1980's I was living in Corpus Christi, TX. One night I drove over to Indian Point, across the Nueces Bay Causeway, and was taking some night shots of the Corpus skyline and the lights along the ship channel. Almost before I got started a police car drove up and one of the officers asked what I was doing. I told them I was taking pictures of the lights. One of them looked that way and basically said, they do look cool and left telling me that there were quit a few crimes in the area and to be careful.

That is reasonable and proper. That cop was doing his job and I have no problem with that. The present training that LEO and security now get may be better than ever before but is also the problem. Now every activity, other than completely main stream is considered suspect. After all, why would an honest person be out taking pictures instead of sitting in front of the boob tube! Look at how many look down there noses at those who bowl, or participate in the shooting sports. No one however thinks anything wrong with vegetating watching a football game.

The "advanced training" has reduced many LEOs to a them vs. us mentality. If you are not a member of the establishment then you must be up to something and given us the attitude that if the government says its OK then it is. Don't forget, the SS were just following the rules and acting properly according to the government.

What I really find interesting is the deer in the head light look I get when I'm question and respond,
"If you loose your rights does it really matter who took them, the terrorist or our own government?" It seems that it just goes over 99% of the peoples heads.

It is really too bad that history generally isn't taught in public schools. Oh, they teach that Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492 and Megellan did.... . No cause and effect. No why did this happen and what were the results. They are taught how the governments like the socialist use propaganda but never seem to allow an understanding of just what propaganda is and how our own government uses it everyday.

BTW, I often wonder what would now happen if I responded to the normal question, "Are you a U.S. citizen?", at our "border" check points as I did back in the late 70's. My response was, "No, I'm a Texan." Back then the officer chuckled and said to get out of here. Now???