Is it a sound argument to say that expanding police powers isn't a problem as long as you've nothing to hide?

Question

I keep running into this argument in some of the Q's I've posed exploring the attitude toward different policing tactics. I think the logic condones the trampling our right to personal privacy and personal safety in ordinary non-violent situations involving the police---like minor traffic violation stops, having a few drinks at a bar, and the more difficult but serious constitutionally protected situations involving the rights of protest, free speech and free assembly over political and social matters. But I am open to rebuttals to my own developing position.

Answer 1

No it is not a sound argument.

For those who believe that, they don't realize that what they are asking for is a Nazi state.

Answer 2

That depends on what your definition of "police powers" is.

And no, I'm not trying to be funny.

It's much like your definition of law, or justice, or freedom is.
If your definition of law is subjective, biased, or is hypocritical, such as "affirmative action" for "ethnic minorities", then it is not a sound definition of law. If you think justice is something that should exist only for minorities, poor people, or yourself, then you are using a flawed definition of justice. If you think "freedom" means the freedom to do whatever you want, no matter what the consequence, then you don't believe in freedom, you believe in anarchy, or rule by the sword.

"Police power" is far too vague an idea to say whether or not it is right or wrong. The police should have every right to stop any and all criminal activity. For example, guy murders someone, and they find him using "illegal" wiretaps, or forget to read him his friggin Miranda rights, then should we let him go? I don't think so. The police should be punished, but the public should not. We should still put the creep in jail.

If the police violate our "rights" in order to catch a criminal, they should be punished somehow, with fines or suspension or whatever. But let's say they KNEW there was a drug ring inside a crack house somewhere, but time was sensitive, and they had to catch these people before they carried out thier plans, I wouldn't care if they had a WARRANT... go in, bag the creeps, and pay a fine and get a suspension. If it was a matter of life and death, and I were a police officer, I'd take a suspension and a fine to SAVE LIVES.

On the other hand, if they invade your privacy and find you aren't responsible for any crime they were looking for, or any serious crime, let's say they found you with pot or something, they would have no right to arrest you. That's where I draw the line.

But that's just me. It's my subjective view of justice and law. Feel free to disagree. The world would be much safer if I were in charge, and the privacy of DECENT people would be upheld.

Answer 3

It is a very sound argument. Of course, they are going by the idea that America would still be a republic (or a democracy, which ever you prefer to call it.)

But unfortunately, as soon as the state has more power than the people it becomes a communism or a totalitarian government.

Of course, the government is just like a business. It seeks to expand itself and it's powers. It's up to you and me to stop it. Of course, If you like the idea of the government having ultimate power. Deciding what you can and can't do based on what will help or hurt America the most, by all means keep letting it happen.

But you need to be very aware that once the government gains to much power, civil war breaks out, dictatorship (or in today's case, we would probably be absorbed by another country...China most likely.)
takes over and a rebellion happens that is stabilized into another form of government, usually a republic.

The reason we have things like freedom of speech, the right to privacy and the right to bear firearms has nothing to do with principle, or even to protect us from other countries. These were put into place to prevent exactly what is happening right now.

They are there to protect us from our government. It's pretty much seen through out history that once a government begins to gain more power from it's people, it starts to become corrupt in an effort to usurp more power.

This continuous cycle ends in the end of the government and is bad for everyone involved.

Legislation cannot uphold your morals for you.
Police cannot protect you.
Your military is not your messiah.
Your president is not your god.

Answer 4

There is of course no absolute right to free speech, courts have already restricted that right in many ways.

Free assembly is also very, very restricted, you can not have a march or gathering without permits in many areas
You are restricted also by fire codes as to how many you can have in a room or building ( still a restriction of assembly)
You are restricted on how close your group can get to an abortion clinic to protest, a violation of both free speech and free assembly.

So actually what you have listed as more serious constitutional rights have been in many ways already alot more restricted than those on minor, ( alot of the minor issues you named are not nationally agreed to but set by state laws and rulings as for as need for cause for a traffic stop, blood limits and the such

Answer 5

It's not a sound argument. This is how police States like Nazi Germany and a few others get started. By giving the police more power you take away individual rights. Such as search and seizure, just because you don't want the police to search your car when you get pulled over doesn't mean that your guilty of anything. It could just mean that you want to get on your way.

Answer 6

Its an often used argument but I don't think it has much merit. One problem is that dragnet searches distrupt our daily routines and waste our time whether we have anything to hide or not.

The other problem is that collecting data and information about us may seem harmless enough and probably is in most cases however, if the information falls into the wrong hands it could be used to cause us harm in some way. The government doesn't have a good record in keeping the confidental information confidental.

Answer 7

My concern with each of the monitoring thoughts they are making use of at present is extra to do with destiny guidelines. The extra stupid techniques the authorities comes up with the extra troublesome it really is to shop on with. i'll inform you for a incontrovertible actuality that in two decades the police will be searching for me because the way issues are going i am going to ought to confine myself to my room and watch BBC television which expenses four hundred kilos a week. enable's settle for it. The streets are transforming into extra risky in accordance to annum. Yobs clutter the streets, immigrants are slowly taking up parts of the united kingdom and CHAV has grow to be a word because there are such distinct of them. old everybody is mocked and little ones are stabbed or shot. And we are meant to be watched each the position we go? real, we are. notwithstanding the folk who're punished are the folk who do not strive against back. The police do not opt to take down anybody risky as they don't have any guns and ought to lose their jobs in the experience that they use too a lot stress (alongside with a moderate bruise on the face those days). this signifies that they are stuck with harassing smokers in the incorrect position or likely quickly knocking on peoples doorways to work out who downloads archives without permission from the owner. Screw that type of philosophy. i'd particularly arise for my rights and visit detention center. the way that society is going detention center will in common words look an same as my highway besides. The benefit is that i'll get loose television and food particularly than having to pay for it.

Answer 8

And what if you have nothing to hide now, but some things you currently do are eventually outlawed? Then you WILL have something to hide as all our civil liberties are taken away, and if they've been tracking you the whole time, they know what you've done.

Even though I feel I have nothing to hide, I still value my privacy and don't want people knowing what I get up to in my free time.

The big problem is- where do you draw the line? Once they start taking, where will they stop taking liberties with our liberties?

Answer 9

We should NEVER give up our rights. Rights of individual is what made our country great. Expanding police powers is a big mistake

Answer 10

Hey, why not just put everyone in jail? Because that is likely to happen with a police state or republic. Just about everyone who doesn't wear a badge is subject to arrest...........

Answer 11

they have to many rights as it is.
police allready abuse the power they have.
i was raided with a warrent to look for drugs but drugs were not what they were looking for.
they were looking for guns and kept saying where are the guns.
they asked for a drug warrent coz i had prior conviction for pot
so they lied to a judge to have me raided for something i didnt have and they were not after.
what they wanted was guns and i had neither