[RickJWagner]

Undecided on Flock.

Totally decided against vandalism. Violations of the social contract suck.

Edit to invite explanations. If you approve of vandalism to flock cameras, what are your feelings about vandalizing abortion clinics, mosques or opposition political headquarters?

[daytonbuilds]

I would also ask, what are your feelings on vandalizing concentration camps? It's about authoritarian control, not bodily autonomy, or religious freedom.

[RickJWagner]

Concentration camps were obviously against international law. Flock cameras are not.

When people decide they get to decide what’s allowable and what’s not, they break the social contract that says the will of the people will prevail. They are acting selfishly, and are damaging society.

[dare944]

Social contract also includes the expectation that, over all, businesses work for the benefit of society, not its detriment.

[RickJWagner]

No, it does not. Social contract allows cigarettes, alcohol, pornography, etc. These are not overall beneficial to society, yet we allow them, by law.

When individuals decide they alone get to decide what’s allowable and what’s not they are proving themselves anti social. The civilised way to make that decision is with the help of the rest of the citizens at the voting booth.

[dare944]

There's no question that, in general, people expect businesses to provide a valuable service that does not harm society in the process. Of course, the consensus as to what things are valuable and what things cause harm changes over time (as is clearly the case for cigarettes). As well, when people sense a violation of their expectations, they should certainly take their outrage with them to the ballot box.

But when people sense that the ballot box isn't listening; that the government is both in bed, and emboldened, by the very thing that violates their sensibilities, they often step outside their part in the social contract and do things that speak louder than simply voting, like destroying property. If you are a US citizen like I am, you will know very well that this method of "discourse" is a foundational and often celebrated act in American history.

These people destroying a few cameras here and there aren't solving the problem of invasive and unaccountable government surveillance. But they are speaking their passion about it, not just to the company or the government but to their fellow citizens. And it looks like some people are starting to listen.

[RickJWagner]

No, I don’t think so.

Just because you think the government isn’t to your liking you shouldn’t declare yourself the implementir of justice and start vandalizing things.

Study American political history, the pendulum goes back and forth. After one sides in power for a while, the other side wins. It happens every time. You shouldn’t act like an impatient child and start breaking things because you imagine the system is broken. It isn’t.

[dare944]

You can insist otherwise, but I suspect that so long as the government continues to ignore people's basic need for privacy, things will continue to get broken.