Free Markets, Free People

“I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom”

Michael Bloomberg on what you’re going to have to put up with because, you know, freedom comes in second to safety:

In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday the country’s interpretation of the Constitution will “have to change” to allow for greater security to stave off future attacks.

“The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry,” Mr. Bloomberg said during a press conference in Midtown. “But we live in a complex word where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.”

Yeah … no.  What you’re seeing there is just a different way of saying what potential tyrants (authoritarians) have said for centuries.  A shorter version is what Bloomberg said before seen in the title.  That’s what he really means.  This? This is just him saying the same thing but trying to dress it up so it sounds semi-acceptable and reasonable.  It is neither.  What has to change is we need to stand up and say “no” finally.

Because, as you know, the Constitution has remained a consistent obstacle to the authoritarians who would rule over us:

“Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms. New Yorkers probably know that as much if not more than anybody else after the terrible tragedy of 9/11,” he said.

“We have to understand that in the world going forward, we’re going to have more cameras and that kind of stuff. That’s good in some sense, but it’s different from what we are used to,” he said.

Or, welcome to the surveillance state. You may surrender your privacy rights over there.

Face it – the terrorists have won.


PS: Oh, btw, we made The New Yorker yesterday.  Ironic, no?

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

35 Responses to “I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom”

  • It’s really sad that all that hand-waiving over Bush’s rights transgressions was all a shame.
    It was all political, not ideological.

  • Introducing the new “Rights Sham-Wow” … It wipes your rights away in a jiffy.

  • Someone ought to introduce Mayor Bloomberg to the old-school treatment for politicians and bureaucrats who think they’re God:  tarred, covered with chicken feathers and ridden out of town on a rail.  Plus a sign around his neck that says, “I’m your intellectual superior; obey me.”

  • Remember, you’re giving up your rights to make you more free….bwaaaahaahahahahahahahahahaha….I mean, make you more secure.  You like security right?  Just let us think for you, now go huddle with the others in the corner of your pen and we’ll feed and water you when it’s appropriate.

    • It’s a real shame that only Michael Moore got upset that Boston had descended into a “police state,” if only for a day.

      • And all these two had left were 5 pipebombs, a semi-auto M4 carbine, two handguns and a BB gun.  Apparently, there isn’t an endless supply of pressure cookers out there.
        The police only had automatic everything, and those EVIL large clips that nobody ever needs.
        This really casts some real comedy over the original statement that the police weren’t going to shoot back at Dzhokhar while in the boat, but the audio recordings of the “exchange” sound like a fire at a fireworks factory.  Even if Dzhokhar still had the M4, just couldn’t make all that much noise.

        • Yeah, look at the photos of forensic’s examining the side of that boat….they could have put more holes in it I suppose, but they definitely veventilated it, which is not mentioned at all in any of the media reports I’ve come across yet.  Unless the holes were put there by whatever explosive devices went off by the windscreen.  It wasn’t clear who set those off either.  None of which is also mentioned in any of the reports.
          Clearly we’re playing that angle down for the sheep, I mean, general public.
          And I don’t know about you, but I don’t at this moment feel any more, or less, secure than I felt before this whole thing started.  Life happens, that’s the way it is.  When your number is up, it’s up.

      • Only because they were Muslim terrorists. Had they been Tea Partiers he’d have been calling for mass round ups and internments make no doubt of that.

    • If one or two men can so thoroughly shake the security apparatus of the United States, the idea that the Second Amendment’s protection against tyranny is outdated, because the U.S. is now a modern superpower, and therefore “resistance is futile,” is simply not going to hold up. Imagine, after all, what even a small militia group of perhaps a dozen members could do, if the battle were not between terrorists and a country whose people can still convince themselves that they’re relatively free; but between a determined and angry citizenry who will no longer submit to enduring a long train of abuses and usurpations, and the government perpetrating those abuses. Now imagine a couple dozen of those militia groups. Now imagine hundreds of them.

  • I’m just waiting for him to somehow tie large sodas to this somehow, then the circle will be squared.

  • Again, we need to bring up some common-sense limits on the press. Without wall-to-wall coverage of these events, and the publication of photos, names, and lurid details, these sorts of attacks would be far less likely to happen. The genius of this common sense approach is that it works well with gun violence, bomb violence, or Dale’s specter of “pill violence.” (I suppose the Tylenol tampering cases falls into that category.) Any journolist who opposes such common sense limits are obviously complete whackos. Oh, and if it saves just one life…

    • Clearly we need to rethink our view of the First Amendment and the Constitution with regards to the press.  This isn’t the same country as we founded, times have changed, yada yada yada.
      Just like we’ve discovered the terror clause that suspends the 4th Amendment hidden in the margins.

  • “But we live in a complex word where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.”
    WE = ME (Michael Bloomberg) who gets to decide just how many of your rights I’ll have to take away
    YOU = YOU (not me, Michael Bloomberg. I’ll always be among the privildged few….or so I think)
    OUR = Me (Michael Bloomberg, decide by myself but its really YOU who’ll have to live with the consequences of MY decision)

  • I honestly don’t see what’s so bad about cameras in public places.  So what?  How does that take away your freedom or privacy?  Who even looks at them, they’re usually only looked at after some crime or event.  Who would have time?   To be sure we have given up lots of freedoms in order to be safe – absurd amounts.  Usually that’s involving some action (e.g., can’t ride in the bed of a pick up truck, have to have kids in child seats until a certain age, etc.)  But cameras?  They don’t inhibit my freedoms or rights one bit.

    • It’s even more so when the chief of police in Boston tells us that the facial recognition software didn’t work as the most paranoid would have you believe.  They had to review the video by hand with one portion viewed over 400 times.
      It may comfort the paranoid, but it means that all those cameras aren’t going top stop the next fanatically suicidal group of crazy cretins who really don’t worry about the celebrity of it all.

      • Until they kill someone, what can the police do anyway?  As if they would kick them out of the country for anything less.

      • They do serve a more prosaic purpose which is to protect against your every day property crime or incidents that happen where there are less people around.
        Even then they are not as useful as people think. And of course, they can be provided by private concerns worried about such issues.

    • Busy public places already have cameras in them. Adding more, and having the tax-payer pay for them all for a one in a thousand bombing attempt seems a waste of money.

      • The best evidence obtained by Boston authorities came not from a Bloombergian surveillance web, but from a simple Lord and Taylor security camera. The camera was there, not based on some law from our demigod political overseers, but because they probably needed it to keep ambulance chasing lawyers away.

        • Of course, it turns out the FBI knew about this guy and he lived 2 blocks from the bombing. but they can’t quite connect the dots.

    • Did you seriously just ask how constant surveillance removes privacy?  Do you even know what these words mean?

      • He has his own version of reality.  But it’s sometimes entertaining when he interacts with reality reality.

        • You can’t prove that.  There is no empirical way to demonstrate what you’re saying.  It’s all faith based, in other words, religion.
          *Paging “Ott Scerb”*

  • If we didn’t give out residency and citizenship like it was candy, this wouldn’t need to have this discussion.

    • What exactly, other than the need to renew your “green card,” does citizenship give you these days ?
      Court after court has required that non-citizens get the same benefits as citizens.  There is some (disputed) evidence that both brothers in the Boston bombing were registered to vote but only one was a citizen.  Even though federal laws specifies otherwise, offers benefits to new immigrants.

  • We have always had certain restrictions of our rights; otherwise we would be like the Conservative Libertarian’s dream land—Somalia.

    • That’s correct, learning to live with abridged rights will move us towards the correct dream-land of old Soviet Russia.

    • Nice to see you move on from strawmen to red herrings.  You are a logical fallacy factory, aren’t you?

  • I think the world has had enough of people who have no belief system, no policy for jobs, no policy for education, no policy for rule of law, but who just want to kill people because they don’t like what they see.”

    Did John Kerry just say that Muslims have “no belief system” ?

    • No I think he just slammed the President, his advisers, his Attorney General, Harry Reid, and the better part of the Democratic party.

    • Ummmm, Islam has specific policies for charitable donations, interest-free banking, an entire system of law called sharia, and its own system of religious schools. In fact, Islam is probably the MOST codified religion out there, and includes specific instances where killing is allowed.
      So Kerry is an idiot OR he is saying that only Western values matter.

  • Using this mind-set and viewed historically each new abridgment of freedom will be set at an ever lower bar until you arrive at Communism.
    This begs two questions:
    1) Was it Incompetence or Intention that the 0bama regime ignored multiple warnings by the Russians on Dirt-bag #1 (a.k.a. Speed-Bump)
    2) Would Mayor Bloomberg be in such a position of power had it not for his wealth? if so, Why is wealth-based power not an issue with Progressives?

    • ” Would Mayor Bloomberg be in such a position of power had it not for his wealth? if so, Why is wealth-based power not an issue with Progressives?”
      It would be a problem if Mayor Micheal Bloomberg was Mayor David Koch or Mayor Charles Koch.  Then all that wealth used to buy control and influence elections would be EVIL.