Man faces 75 years for recording cops
- Thread starter taktikz
- Start date
I'm not so sure people actually believe this at their core. I think their beliefs are informed by what they are told. As you say, propaganda is extremely powerful.
When I talk to folks (irl) about this stuff, I'm reminded of a (hypothetical) child who is told that she is stupid, ugly, and worthless throughout her life. In later years, she comes to believe she is stupid, ugly, and worthless. Same with voters. They believe that which they are told over and over. Like children.
It is what informs their perspective about rights (their own and those of their neighbors), laws, and the state's authority over their lives. Heck, people still think Lincoln was a wonderful president, that the war on the south was about freeing slaves, and that FDR pulled us from the depths of depression. Again, propaganda is extremely powerful.
So, when I see folks raging against the machine (in this case, regarding the "right" to film cops), I wonder what informs that perspective. Is it an understanding of natural rights versus legal rights? Or, is it merely emotion-driven blowback stemming from an affront to their personal (and inconsistent) notion of their rights? As I mentioned, once someone agrees that their rights are granted by charter, they essentially acquiesce that anything the state says goes. That is, until they "vote the bastards out," at which point voters replace them with a new set of bastards.
Here, I'll leave a relevant quote taken from this piece (which, by the way, is a good read that has very little to do with this discussion):
Sadly, the endurance of the oppressed - at least, in the U.S. - seems limitless.
Exactly my opinion. How is it that cops can sit outside bars/clubs waiting to catch someone get into their car and start swerving instead of doing everyone a favor and calling them a cab!
No, the government wants to jail you, fine you, and embarrass you.
Fucking bullshit.
agreed with this. Preventative policing would be much better than the way it is done now - but the way it is done now meets everyone's quotas.
I know a guy that was sleeping it off, they rousted him, forced him to get moving, then stopped in 100 yards later. They knew what was up. Even the judge said in court it was a loser move by the cop - the guy was fined the minimum.
I don't think it's an understanding of natural versus legal rights. Most people haven't been taught the difference. But a fair question is what drives the emotional response? Is an affront to their personal (and yes, inconsistent) notion of rights not also an acknowledgement of their core natural right?
It's difficult to say. But even if a person's emotional response expresses a subconscious recognition of their natural rights, I have little faith in it. Here's why:
Emotions are not anchored to anything reliable. That means they can be easily manipulated, which results in a host of inconsistencies.
For example, a person may support property rights, but also support a $447 billion jobs plan. He might criticize the war in Iraq, but think we should support (lead) NATO in Libya. He may disapprove of a TSA agent sticking her fingers up his girlfriend's hoo-hah, but fully support cops conducting warrantless searches of suspects' cars. In effect, he doesn't know what he believes nor the reasons he believes the things he does.
And the worst part is this: an emotional person's position on any of these things is tenuous. That is because emotions are unreliable.