zlacker

>>pera+(OP)
This was very predictable. Tools invented for military operations abroad eventually, predictably find their way back domestically.

Despite that, its a dangerous thing to happen. I am aware of how unlikely it is for the current US Government to use the drone offensively, but once you have a massive fleet of drones flying over the US, patrolling "troubling" neighborhoods constantly, the temptation to use those abilities rises significantly.

I hope that Congress takes action to outlaw this practice, but I have little faith it will happen. It seems like everyday the country is falling further into the pit of becoming an authoritarian police state.

>>pm90+Qf
There seems to be a slightly schizophrenic relationship between the public and the government. The rather vocal wings of political discourse understand that half the time government will be controlled by people they really don't like. However the practical resistance to giving said people access to and control over major aspects of people's lives seems to be rather weak.

>>roenxi+y91
No kidding about the schizophrenia. I don’t understand how people can implore the government to do more such as UBI or universal healthcare yet in the same breath complain about not being able to trust the “police state.” I doubt we can have privacy and a strong effective government. A strong government will be one that’s in your life a lot. Whether it’s under the auspices of good intent or not is probably irrelevant by that point.

edited for clarity

>>Stylus+Xn1
I might be one of these people?

I want a government that trusts us and respects our rights (e.g., non police state) and that helps to provide for the poor and vulnerable (e.g., healthcare).

I don't see any conflict between these goals. Our medicare providers are not flying drones and kneeling on necks.

>>ghetto+5q1
There is massive conflict between the goals when power and money enter the discussion.

I’m also not sure where what you describe exists and how it’s implemented. I am curious to learn if anyone has any sources on such a place: great healthcare, highly involved citizens and low government intervention in daily life. And no, I’m not being sarcastic, I am sincerely wondering about it.

>>Stylus+Fq1
I thing "government intervention" is too nuanced and expansive of a concept to meaningfully debate as if it were one thing.

It would include at least:

Police-state policies. Examples: laws against voluntary drug use, policies like stop-and-frisk, our incarceration rate, restrictions on contraception, etc., seem particularly in your face. Historically, the military draft. I'd oppose these.

Basic public-safety policies. Examples: Laws like speed limits, or driving while intoxicated, or some limits on gun ownership (e.g., folks with a history of violence shouldn't have machine guns). These will always annoy some people, but I'd support most of this.

Environmental and business regulations. These really make some folks mad. But I'm strongly in favor of clean air and water, solvent banks, safe working conditions, etc., and think regulations here are really important.

Social policies. Many people were/are violently opposed to school integration, affirmative action, gay marriage, etc. But I think we have a moral imperative to view and treat { blacks, women, gays, jews, ... } as real people, and history has shown that we won't do this on our own.

I certainly can see some cases where there are overlap between these. Example: government needed an army to enforce school integration. But, mostly mostly these are orthogonal, and lumping these into one "big government" bucket just makes it a muddy issue.

I could be wrong.