"Flavours of Democracy"

[a_majoor]

The big difference between the former USSR, Nazi Germany or Modern China and the UK, United States or Canada is how all this information is used. If Adolf Hitler had the ability to put cameras on every street corner, he would have, and the Gestapo would be reviewing tapes 24/7 to ferret out "suspicious" behavior, however defined.

In the UK, which has the most cameras per capita of any nation, cameras are set up to monitor high crime areas, civil police monitor the cameras and act on criminal activity as defined by statute, and they must explain their actions to the judiciary (video tapes are used as evidence). Often, a warrent must be sought to place cameras where crime partterns are changing.

As well, since data is not centralized, special provisions must be granted to coalate the data for law enfocement and coounter terrorist activities. (Yes, that would be the USA Patriot act; they must be able to show reasonable grounds to start the roving wiretaps, check your library records etc.) This is not the case in real "Police States".  As well, the crime and punishment aspects are divorced, unlike Ba'athist Iraq (say), where the secret police could sieze you, interrogate you, tourture or execute you and dump your body into a mass grave or drop it off at your family home at their own discression.

 

[Zipper]

All very true.

Its just hard to imagine going down this road and not having someone (some group) abuse it in the future. The potential is very much there for misuse. How many times in the past have various law enforcment agencies done the deed, got caught abusing it, and then then been reined in?

Either way. What about the city as state topic? It was getting rather interesting...

 

[Brad Sallows]

>So your going to lock up and throw away the key for "everyone" that commits a crime?

Of course not.  But what about those that are on their third or fourth or fifth etc go?

 

[a_majoor]

>So your going to lock up and throw away the key for "everyone" that commits a crime?

Of course not. But what about those that are on their third or fourth or fifth etc go?

To spin this back into the city state discussion, we are seeing some variations of this. Vancouver attempts to deal with drug problems with a "needle exchange", other cities have treatment programs and some simply institute draconian law enforcement regimes. It is difficult to discern what approach is "best", since the goals overlap to some extent and conflict with others, but mostly because they are also overlain with the efforts of other levels of government (and even international considerations. The DEA is not a big fan of Canada's approach to the "deamon weed", for example.

A "City State" which can set its own rules would be able to try various approaches to law and order, and indeed, several city states can try different ideas. Criminals can be incarcerated, executed or even exiled (the ancient Greeks used all three approaches depending on the crime), while the "national government" and "guilds" simply screens applicents to the Armed Forces and professional positions for previous criminal records from their city states...

 

[a_majoor]

Since this post is more related to the power of the Internet, I attach it separatly:

SOME INTERESTING THOUGHTS ON BLOGS AND THE BRITISH ELECTIONS:

    For decades the national conversation in most western countries has been directed by a few talking heads. Newspapers play important roles but all the evidence suggests that broadcasters have possessed the greatest potential to frame public debate. British politicians have known that communicating their message depends upon getting the nod from a small number of powerful figures in the broadcast media.

    The editor of BBC1's six o'clock news bulletin can make a minister's day by putting his department's latest announcement at the front of the bulletin. Hearing Huw Edwards say something positive about that afternoon's policy launch will even put a smile on Alastair Campbell's face. . . .

    But the blogosphere will become a force in Britain, and it could ignite many new forces of conservatism. The internet's automatic level playing field gives conservatives opportunities that mainstream media have often denied them.

    An online community of bloggers performs the same function as yesteryear's town meetings. Through the tradition of town hall meetings, officials were held to account by local people. Blogger communities are going to be much more powerful. They will draw together not only local people but patients who have waited and waited for NHS care. They will organise parents of disabled children who oppose Labour's closure of special-needs schools and evangelical Christians who see their beliefs caricatured by ignorant commentators.

    All this should put the fear of God into the metropolitan elites. For years there have been widening gaps between the governing class and the governed and between the publicly funded broadcasters and the broadcasted to.

Interesting, and since the gap is probably wider in Britain than in America, it's certainly possible that the impact will be greater -- though not, I'd imagine, if the establishment media can help it.

posted at 06:34 PM by Glenn Reynolds

 

[Zipper]

>So your going to lock up and throw away the key for "everyone" that commits a crime?

Of course not.   But what about those that are on their third or fourth or fifth etc go?

As I said before...

I agree that a certain percentage of criminals who are deemed likely to commit another crime should be kept there. But the vast majority of criminals are either one time commiters (flare of anger, drunk and hit someone, etc.) or people who have a substance abuse problem that if treated properly and given the tools to get a job, just may do so. With proper programs in place, you can at least attempt to save some of them.

A "City State" which can set its own rules would be able to try various approaches to law and order, and indeed, several city states can try different ideas. Criminals can be incarcerated, executed or even exiled (the ancient Greeks used all three approaches depending on the crime), while the "national government" and "guilds" simply screens aapplicantsto the Armed Forces and professional positions for previous criminal records from their city states...

So you think that the individual cities will create their own criminal codes? We already have to some degree. But your thinking it will go further? Interesting.

I'm rather out on this. Their are either two ways I can see these city states rising. One being that as more people live in urban centers as compared to rural, that the power bases move from provincial legislatures to city councils, with even some of the federal powers moving to that level as well.

The other is of course the more Sci Fi version of some massive destructive moment taking place that destroys all communication devices, thus creating an environment for cities to become "islands" of civilization and information if you will. Thus as they gain their communications back, they find that they rely more upon their own communitee's then that of the larger nation.

Weird? Oh yeah...

I think we are moving slowly to something more like the former however.

As for that report Majoor. I can definitely see that happening. Alot of interest groups who went fairly unheard are going to have a far greater voice in future.

 

[pbi]

I think that we have to be very careful to distinguish between the selection of means of delivering social programs (needle centres) or the temporary emphasis placed on various municipal law enforcement efforts (city campaign against hooker strolls) and the devolution of our national criminal code. To me, the posession and enforcement of a common code of criminal justice is an important unifying instrument and a symbol of a sovereign state, and not something that should be devolved to muncipalities with their essentially narrow and short-term political focus. How are Canadians to appear equal before the law if each city sets its own criminal code? One could certainly find fault in our criminal justice system today, but at least the CCC sets out in principle that a Canadian in Prince Rupert and a Canadian in Corner Brook are subject to a common code with certain common guiding principles in its application.

As well, further devolution of powers away from the Federal centre, especially with regards to criminal law (which often has an effect on our relationship with other nations especially the US) would IMHO risk further weakening our ability to present any sort of unified national front when dealing internationally.

City states disappeared because they became obsolete in the face of nation-states. I do not see a city being any more suited to "state": status now than in the days of Athens, Venice or Danzig.

Cheers