This is a city of ~25K people, so quite small. Several articles have pointed out that the city, not Flock, bears the costs of the vandalism, so in this instance the city counsel that enabled the city to enter into the contract with Flock to the detriment of its citizens have now burdened the city with a substantial budget item. If the cameras are replaced, you can bet that they will likely be torn down again. At some point there will be a reckoning with voters, and hopefully the idiots that enabled the surveillance state will be voted out.
Yes, but not paying for new cameras to be installed, and the contracts will end.
My City Council made an agreement to install them early last year when they should have known better, but with all the recent backlash against them they’re pretty much guaranteed not to renew the contract. I’m hoping they decide to cover the cameras for the remainder of the contract, but I’m not sure if the contract allows that.
Last election in the US the people voted for the fascist politician. Knowing he was a fascist politician. Some stayed at home knowing the fascist politician could win.
It might be that people just enjoy the fascism and the online echo chamber is not reflective of real life.
The catch here is the question of democratic legitimacy: If people believe that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed and that this consent should be established and communicated through the results of a popular vote, it’s gonna be hard to get them to support a replacement whose mandate doesn’t derive from such an election.
So you can take out the fascists, but that doesn’t mean that you can install non-fascists and have the relevant organs of government obey them.
It doesn’t really matter if they support it. As we’ve seen with the current administration, things can be forced through in spite of the will of the governed.
…because the people carrying out the orders obey the people giving them. My argument is that they do so because they believe that the people giving these orders have the right to give them (legitimacy).
If you installed an illegitimate (in the sense of “not democratically elected”, even if it had broad support anyway) government, people loyal to the democratic system rather than any particular faction may not be so cooperative.
No one working for the current administration is loyal to the democratic system. That went out the window as soon as Trump got in office and started pumping out executive orders.
I think you’re confusing the politicians with the people carrying out the orders.
If your boss, elected or appointed according to the rules, gives you an order his office is empowered to give, without the organs that have the power to check him interfering, it would be quite presumptuous of you to decide whether or not the order is lawful.
A state governed and administrated by institutions hinges on those institutions carrying out their function. The issue isn’t that people are obeying orders, it’s that the institutions whose job it would be to declare those orders unlawful are dragging their feet or just plainly not doing their job.
It’s the tip that’s abusing the democratic system to derail it, but you’re not gonna save it just by blowing up the rails yourself: You’ll need to have new (better) rails ready for a quick and smooth transfer.
This is a city of ~25K people, so quite small. Several articles have pointed out that the city, not Flock, bears the costs of the vandalism, so in this instance the city counsel that enabled the city to enter into the contract with Flock to the detriment of its citizens have now burdened the city with a substantial budget item. If the cameras are replaced, you can bet that they will likely be torn down again. At some point there will be a reckoning with voters, and hopefully the idiots that enabled the surveillance state will be voted out.
They don’t even have to be voted out if the voters persuade them to resign.
Even if it’s the city that beats the cost, at some point they will decide it’s no longer worth the cost to replace them.
Probably still paying for them even if not there. Some stupid contract.
Yes, but not paying for new cameras to be installed, and the contracts will end.
My City Council made an agreement to install them early last year when they should have known better, but with all the recent backlash against them they’re pretty much guaranteed not to renew the contract. I’m hoping they decide to cover the cameras for the remainder of the contract, but I’m not sure if the contract allows that.
Maybe. But still incentivizes not renewing the contract. One can hope.
That money will be gone either way, might as well not have the dystopian cams.
Lol. You know that last sentence is satire or you are an idiot.
Should we all just give up and never resist? Resistance can work.
Fuck off. Voting works when people do it.
We shouldn’t be waiting for elections to come around to get rid of fascist politicians.
You’re right but that’s not at all what I was saying or pushing back against so thanks I suppose.
Last election in the US the people voted for the fascist politician. Knowing he was a fascist politician. Some stayed at home knowing the fascist politician could win.
It might be that people just enjoy the fascism and the online echo chamber is not reflective of real life.
The catch here is the question of democratic legitimacy: If people believe that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed and that this consent should be established and communicated through the results of a popular vote, it’s gonna be hard to get them to support a replacement whose mandate doesn’t derive from such an election.
So you can take out the fascists, but that doesn’t mean that you can install non-fascists and have the relevant organs of government obey them.
It doesn’t really matter if they support it. As we’ve seen with the current administration, things can be forced through in spite of the will of the governed.
…because the people carrying out the orders obey the people giving them. My argument is that they do so because they believe that the people giving these orders have the right to give them (legitimacy).
If you installed an illegitimate (in the sense of “not democratically elected”, even if it had broad support anyway) government, people loyal to the democratic system rather than any particular faction may not be so cooperative.
No one working for the current administration is loyal to the democratic system. That went out the window as soon as Trump got in office and started pumping out executive orders.
I think you’re confusing the politicians with the people carrying out the orders.
If your boss, elected or appointed according to the rules, gives you an order his office is empowered to give, without the organs that have the power to check him interfering, it would be quite presumptuous of you to decide whether or not the order is lawful.
A state governed and administrated by institutions hinges on those institutions carrying out their function. The issue isn’t that people are obeying orders, it’s that the institutions whose job it would be to declare those orders unlawful are dragging their feet or just plainly not doing their job.
It’s the tip that’s abusing the democratic system to derail it, but you’re not gonna save it just by blowing up the rails yourself: You’ll need to have new (better) rails ready for a quick and smooth transfer.