"We'd like a police officer on every corner. Then we could close the prisons." [emphasis added]Quoted, to the best of my recollection of a conversation roughly twenty years old, of an executive member of the ACLU in stating her organization's goals to me. I detected not a bit of irony nor disparagement of my concerns. Simply speaking, she was conveying a liberal stance she believed to her core was the right course for society. I have no doubt as to her sincerity. What I always doubted was that she could have ever thought badly of the people who had convinced her such a goal was good. She was, at the time, the mother of two. I got the impression she had not thought out the long term consequences well at all. Consequences for herself, or her children and the world they'd inherit.
What prompted the recollection of the ACLU's wish for omnipresent police -- and my recounting of it today -- was this story noted by Drudge: Drone may be coming to Miami-Dade
Howard Simon, the executive director of the ACLU of Florida approves of the drones but also advocates strict regulation of the drones. "Technology: there's no reason not to embrace technology if it makes the streets safer, if it helps the police. The concern is, though, that every new technology also has within it the capacity to threaten people's privacy," he said. [emphasis added]The two sentences of Mr Simon's quote represents the goals and the consequences -- split into two separate thoughts. The details of how the second thought might substantiate, and used by whom, was what was ignored by old my friend. The ACLU is thoroughly Marxist in its origins, and you know the history of Marxism. Anyone who thinks that the last sentence was only rhetorical eyewash (and it is that too, on a simple level) needs to do more research on the organization.
I can explain why the ACLU stance is threatening. But I bet there are wise people in your local neighborhood who could help you explain it in local terms.
It involves the Left's love for power; its hiding behind liberal softheartedness. And it's dependent upon the liberal's beliefs (assertions!) that: man is basically good; that poverty, the result of unequal outcomes, is the sole cause of crime; and that social justice requires society to pay for those inequities. And this will be done by empowering those with a super-moral commitment. Hence the Left's love of modern liberalism. And, hence, the Statist's love for and protection of the Left. (Conservatives: convince a "liberal" of this, and you've birthed a new conservative.)
I wished to keep this introduction to the sort of thinking short. Please question me, rhetorically if necessary, so I will feel better that more people have come to understand the danger.