Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
Naive would be to think that in the real world the state would not abuse its power given the opportunity. History has proven the opposite conclusively.
No, I don't believe that absolute freedom is possible. Yes, I believe that presumption of innocence must not be violated in a democracy, no matter the objective and the benefits. See if you could plausibly argue against the following violations similar to the no-cause breath test: - Preventatively checking anyone's phone for evidence of child porn without a cause;
- Preventatively searching anyone's home without a cause for possible illegal things (arms, drugs, laundered money);
- Preventatively searching anyone's computer without a cause to ensure they are not involved in any illegal activities...
Any of the above violations could return immensely productive benefits for the society as a whole - identify child predators, terrorists, potential mass-murderers, thieves etc. Why not do that? If someone is innocent, why should they be opposed? |
I get the argument, I just think on it relies on a lot of leaps. We could discuss this move in particular without jumping to “what if one day the police can do a cavity search whenever they want??” but it doesn’t seem like people are interested in doing that.
Checkstops are pretty strategically placed as it is to catch drunk drivers. I went through 2 this summer after having gone through zero previously. I did the breathalyser both times. I was fine both times.
Why don’t we just remove the police’s right to perform a breathalyser period? If someone says no, why should they have to?
Where’s your limit otherwise in a loss of freedom vs population protection? Should we even have to register or insure cars?