From: tdawson@wheaton.edu (Anthony Palmer Dawson)
Subject: Electronic Town Hall and Drug Searches (was Perot for President)
Organization: Wheaton College
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 16:37:45 GMT


In response to a post regarding H. Ross Perot's alleged support for
neighborhood drug searches, I wrote the following:
 

>This sounds like a perfect place to apply Perot's Electronic Town Hall;
>if the majority of Americans vote for this activity then implement it.
>Perhaps it could be addressed Congressional district by district as
>needed.  As a law abiding citizen, I would welcome a search of my drug-
>free house if it meant my drug dealing neighbor would be incarcerated 
>and thereby prevented from selling to my children.


This post inspired the masters of the ad hominem argument as follows:


Michael Thomas wrote:
>   Can you say "tyranny of the majority"? What gives you the right to vote
>_my_ rights away? What makes you think that I and a large enough gang of
>thugs wouldn't vote _your_ rights away? The tyranny of the majority doesn't
>distinguish between law abiding and non law abiding for long. 
>   Think about it, Hitler did.

David M. Nieporent wrote:
>Tough.  Despite the impression you may have gotten from politics in the
>1980s, you really don't get to vote on whether to ignore the Bill of
>Rights.  You want this, move to China.  The rest of us will stay here,
>where they respect our rights, at least sometimes.
>
>We won't even get into the 'drug dealing neighbor' crap.  I'd worry more
>about those bars and liquor stores if I were you.
>
>While I won't suggest that anyone do this, because it could get me in
>trouble, it would be really ironic if someone happened to call up one of 
>those 'inform on your neighbor' hotlines and suggest that this guy is a drug 
>dealer.  After the police kicked in his door and/or confiscated his car, I 
>doubt he'd be so callous with regards to our civil liberties.

Tony Pulokas wrote:
>Yeah and I hope they start with the liquor store on the corner.
>
>  Anyway, why wait for the Fourth Amendment to be completely abolished--why
>don't you just move to China where the government takes every step it deems
>necesarry to prevent crime?

Finally, Barry Olson wrote:                                                                              
>I was going to give a reasoned refutation of this message, but i               
>noticed you are posting from wheaton, il. Never mind.  


Fortunately a few people condescended to "give a reasoned refutation," to wit:


Ranjan Bagchi wrote:
>Would you still support this if "house search" involved
>a body cavity search of you, your wife, and your children?
>
>	Would you willingly turn in copies of all of your keys to
>your local police dept so that they could do a search anyway, since
>you aren't breaking any laws?
>
>	Do you mind being treated like a criminal?
>

/June  wrote:
>Have you ever seen what the Narcs do when they search a house for
>drugs?  Are you really sure you're willing to have someone beating
>on your door at 3 AM, telling you to hit the floor and tearing your
>place to hell, and leaving you to clean up the mess and damages when
>they don't find anything?

and Jim McMaster wrote:
>I have a drug-free house, too, but I would *not* accept the police
>rummaging through it randomly, on the off chance I might have some
>drugs.  Try reading the Constitution before posting such drivel.
>
>Do you know what happens to your house when the police search it?  Do
>you think they leave things nice and neat when they leave?  And what if
>they decide they need to find something to justify the search, and
>bring in some drugs of their own to plant, just in case thay don't find
>anything?
>
>If you think random searches are the way to protect your freedom and
>security, you are seriously deluded.


The obvious response to these arguments of "privacy invasion/property 
destruction" is couched in my original post.  How many Americans do you think 
would vote for the kind of searches you propose?  Not many.  If the Perot 
administration cannot come up with a viable, legal, Constitutional program to 
present to the American people, then the Town Hall has worked to prevent an 
injustice.  If they develop a fair and implementable solution to a problem, 
then reasonable Americans will vote for it and welcome the positive results.
Am I a hopeless populist?  Perhaps, but reasoned refutations are welcome ;-).  

Cordially,

Tony Dawson

tdawson@wheaton.wheaton.edu

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18386 ca.politics:3522 ba.politics:2678 alt.politics.homosexuality:2214