From a philosophical standpoint, why are progressives against installing government cameras in every street corner to prevent and/or solve crimes? Wouldn't this help poor individuals that are disproportionately impacted by crime?
This is an example of the two-sided sword.On the one hand .. it is great with the idea that you have a feeling of security and safety and that the government is protecting you from issues with these cameras.That’s ok … unless the government decided that you are a criminal by redefining the lines of what a crime is.All of a sudden that overreaching safety becomes an inescapable prison, as there is nowhere you can hide and nowhere you can run.So .. the smart person says .. let’s stick an independant authority to maintain and service the cameras so that government doesnt have that degree of control.And .. in all honesty .. how long do you think THAT situation would last?This was most observable in the Obama administration .. where the IRS became a tool to be utilized for hunting and defanging non-desirable opponents .. based on how the government at the time felt.Now put that as an independant authority that is meant to be separate .. and you understand that the control issues would be ameliorared based on the government at hand.You COULDNT have an independant authority without it being exploited .. and you cant have a service preventing crimes in total without having the authority exploit it to its own interests for good and bad.The crimes that are really bad and take place with organized criminals? Well the footage would mysterously disappear (regularly) and the crimes would still take place.Once you have a method of community control through observation .. then you have a means to a method of who is owning the effects of total control.