Florida Governor DeSantis and Texas Governor Greg Abbott deal a Blow to Controversial Flock Cameras so do more and more cities. Really!

Bad news! This was probably a stupid decision by both governors Were they giving in to some populism and some social media pressure?

It very much looks like a government overreaction!

I blogged here recently about the phony Flock camera controversy.

"Gov. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., notified local law enforcement that automated license plate recognition systems, such as Flock cameras, can no longer be used on the State Highway System. ..."

"... The decision comes days after Florida governor Ron DeSantis called the license plate reading technology “out of control” [???] in remarks during a press conference last Wednesday. ..."

"... similar action by Texas, which last week ordered state agencies to stop funding Flock cameras. Texas governor Greg Abbott’s office cited abuse of the surveillance system, including the recent indictment of a Lufkin, Texas police officer with 100 felony counts related to allegedly searching Flock’s database to track people without authorization. ..."

"New data compiled by a Bay Area anti-surveillance advocacy group shows that not only are American localities dropping cameras from Flock Safety, but they are doing it at an accelerating rate.

Communities from Lansing, Michigan, to Pflugerville, Texas, are ending their relationship with Flock, largely over concerns regarding out-of-control surveillance, unwanted data sharing, high expenses, and reports of police abusing the tool. ..."

DeSantis Deals Blow to Controversial Flock Cameras

Florida and Texas move to block Flock cameras over privacy concerns

Cities terminate Flock contracts at record pace in August

Privates, digitales Geld, die RealUnit Schweiz AG

Empfehlenswert! Bedenkenswert!

Von Hayeks Denkschrift zur App - Liberales Institut

How America Prospered Before the Introduction of the Income Tax in 1913

Recommendable! Food for thought! Yes, one can argue that the introduction of the income tax by the US in 1913 was a huge mistake and it enormously fostered the expansion of Big Government in the following decades and until now!

However, on the other hand the article is quite naive! "Before 1911, the U.S. federal government raised almost all its tax revenue from customs duties (tariffs) on imported goods and domestic excise taxes" (Google Search).

Or in other words, how is the federal government to generate sufficient revenues to operate and fulfill its government functions (like defense, law enforcement)? Of course, less government revenues also means less or smaller government!

Naivete is a very common criticism of classical liberalism!

"The power to tax is the power to destroy" is a famous quote from Chief Justice John Marshall in the 1819 U.S. Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland" (Google Search)

"‍Taxing labor has deterred American growth and prosperity. It has exacerbated income inequality. Most importantly, it is immoral.

Ratified in 1913, the Constitution’s Sixteenth Amendment enabled the federal government to levy an income tax. That amendment should be repealed. It conflicts with the Thirteenth Amendment, which bans slavery and involuntary servitude. When you work until May [Tax Freedom Day] every year to pay off your burden to the government, you are in a form of involuntary servitude. ...

It would also unleash capital formation throughout the economy. Every business startup needs capital to fund growth. Before the Sixteenth Amendment, Americans saved much more of their income.

The average savings rate in the nineteenth century was somewhere between 10 percent and 14 percent; today the rate is about 4 percent to 7 percent. ..."

How America Prospered Before the Income Tax — The Coolidge Review

Indian classical Liberals: An Online Archive of Indian classical Liberal Works

Amazing stuff! I must admit, I was not aware of any classical liberalism tradition or thinkers in India.

Indian Liberals: An Online Archive of Indian Liberal Works

Free-Born John: Champion of English Liberty around the time of the English Civil Wars 1642–1650

Recommendable!

"... Every May [UK Labor Day], trade unionists, socialist politicians like John McDonnell MP, and associated organizations gather in the sleepy village of Burford in Oxfordshire to celebrate Levellers’ Day. There are banners, speakers, the Internationale, a “community group workshop on biodiversity,” and other festivities aimed at preserving the memory of a 17th century political movement known as the Levellers, whom the celebrants praise for “their wish to abolish property rights and develop an equalisation of wealth.” ...

An exemplar is probably the man most associated with the term Leveller during his lifetime, John Lilburne [1614-1657], or Free-Born John. ...

Lilburne was at first a champion of religious liberty, publishing and importing unlicensed Puritan tracts. This brought him to the attention of the Attorney-General, who in 1637 prosecuted him in the Star Chamber for unlawful printing and publishing of “Libellous and Seditious books.” The Star Chamber required all those before it to take an “ex officio oath” to swear to answer all question put to them, before knowing the charges. Lilburne refused to take the oath.

He based his objection on Clause 39 of Magna Carta, the “nullus liber homo” clause that states that no free man can be stripped of his liberties unless by the law of the land. He argued that a secret oath that leads to self-incrimination was illegal, and that freedom from such abusive processes was the birthright of all Englishmen, basing his arguments on earlier work by Sir Edward Coke. This led to his moniker, Free-Born John. The Star Chamber ordered him whipped and pilloried. 

By his stance, Lilburne started a movement that demanded what we would now call due process or natural justice. The legal process referred to in Magna Carta required protection against self-incrimination, notice of any charges, confrontation of accusers, trial by jury ... and freedom from arbitrary imprisonment, alongside the freedom of Englishmen to publish, speak, and follow their own religious conscience...."

Free-Born John: Champion of English Liberty "For John Lilburne, every Englishman should stand shielded from the arbitrary decisions of those in power"

Source

What is the controversy about Flock cameras?

Update of 8/14/2026: The company behind Flock is already responding. "Flock Sets New Safeguards in Face of Backlash

Flock Safety, the company behind more than 120,000 license plate cameras nationwide, announced sweeping reforms Thursday [8/13/2026] following a bipartisan backlash over mass surveillance and police misuse of its network. The biggest change: Images will now be deleted after seven days instead of 30. [This is an extremely short period. Need to be raised.]

By the end of 2026, [police?] officers must attach a case number to every search, and a system that flags abnormal activity becomes mandatory, locking users out until an administrator reviews. ..." (The Flyover)

I have been noticing for some time that Flock cameras (aka automated license plate readers (ALPRs)) have become news items and subject of debates/controversies/vandalism etc.

I suspect with the help of machine learning and computer vision these systems have become quite capable over the last 10 years or so.

Do the benefits outweigh the disadvantages/harms? As a classical liberal, I would tend to say yes at this time.

Probably, these cameras make unruly, aggressive or drunk drivers behave better. Thereby saving lives. E.g. in residential communities these cameras may make e.g. non resident drivers (deliveries, visitors etc.) more cautious.

Probably, these data can be essential tools for law enforcement to e.g. more quickly solve crimes and catch criminals or frequent offenders and so on.

Of course, the use of those data require substantial oversight to prevent abuse, misuse, or innocent individuals getting suspected etc.!

Another issue would be how strict or aggressive law enforcement is based on these data. A matter for legislators and the executive branch to handle.

According to Google Search:
"Flock cameras are automated license plate reading (ALPR) and vehicle surveillance systems made by Flock Safety.

They capture images of passing cars, logging the license plate, make, model, color, and unique features like bumper stickers or dents, and store this data in a searchable network used by law enforcement, businesses, and HOAs [homeowner associations, residential communities].

How Flock Cameras Work

Data Capture: Solar- or battery-powered cameras snap photos of every vehicle passing in public view, recording time, direction, and specific vehicle characteristics.
Cloud Database: The images and metadata upload to a cloud network that allows police to search vehicle tracking data across multiple jurisdictions.
Retention Limits: Data is typically set to auto-delete after 30 days by default, unless flagged for an active investigation. ..."

Here is one of the latest, respective news articles that triggered my curiosity/attention to this subject:
College student accused of destroying Flock cameras — and the community comes out in droves to defend him | Blaze Media

The Constitution's Forgotten Economic Tradeoffs relative to the The Articles of Confederation

Recommendable!

The Constitution's Forgotten Economic Tradeoffs | The Daily Economy "The Articles of Confederation are often remembered as a failure. But their limits on taxing and commercial power offered greater protection for economic freedom than the Constitution that replaced them."

David Hume, Scottish Political Philosopher who died in 1776

Recommendable! The author of this article uses Michael Oakeshott a lot for his argument.

David Hume was part of the Scottish Enlightenment. E.g. Friedrich August von Hayek wrote a lot about him as a classical liberal.

Caveat: I did not read the entire long article.

"... In contrast with the individualism of the natural rights school of Hobbes and Locke, Hume viewed the family as the basic unit of society: “the first and original principle of human society … is no other than that natural appetite between the sexes, which unites them together, and preserves their union, till a new tie takes place in their concern for their common offspring.”

However, the natural love of family (and friends) implies and indeed demands a “limited generosity” [akin to limited government] toward others. Our limited generosity, along with scarcity, means that justice [not equity] is necessary for several families to unite in a larger society, which in turn is essential for security and prosperity.

Though Hume accepted that smaller, uncultivated societies could get by for a while without government, he was clear that no large-scale society would be possible without justice. Against Hobbes, Hume viewed justice as prior to government, which was underpinned by what he called “laws of nature.” Three fundamental “laws of nature” stood out for Hume, all related to property (the prerequisite for peaceful coexistence): the stability of possession, its transfer by consent, and the performance of promises. The total system of human law was an amplification of these fundamental laws of nature. ..."

David Hume, Political Philosopher – Max Skjönsberg

Source

Trade, Trust, and Civilisation: The Hidden Economic Message of Nolan’s 'Odyssey'

Very recommendable! I blogged here about the movie recently.

"That question lies at the heart of Johan Norberg’s recent book Peak Human, which argues that societies rise not simply because of military strength or exceptional rulers, but because they develop the institutions that make cooperation, innovation, and voluntary exchange possible. Historians once explained the fate of civilisations primarily through battles, conquests, and empires. Increasingly, however, scholarship has shifted its attention towards less dramatic but ultimately more decisive forces: secure property rights, political stability, trust between strangers, economic freedom, and the peaceful exchange of goods and ideas. Armies may conquer kingdoms, but commerce is what allows civilisations to endure."

Note: If correctly described in the article below, then it appears Johan Norberg regurgitates what August Friedrich von Hayek has said many times before in his writings. Maybe the author of this article below is not aware of this.

"Nolan’s emphasis on trade is therefore far from accidental. Archaeology has revealed that the eastern Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age was home to one of the most sophisticated commercial systems the world had yet seen. Rather than a collection of isolated kingdoms, it formed a remarkably integrated economic network linking Egypt, Anatolia, the Levant, Cyprus, mainland Greece, and beyond. Copper, tin, wine, olive oil, timber, textiles, ivory, glass, spices, and precious metals travelled enormous distances through interconnected markets.

The most remarkable evidence for this commercial world emerged almost by accident in 1982, when a diver discovered the wreck of a merchant ship off the southern coast of modern-day Turkey. The Uluburun shipwreck, dating from the fourteenth century BC, contained more than ten tonnes of Cypriot copper, almost a tonne of tin, African ivory, Baltic amber, Mesopotamian glass, Mycenaean pottery, and gold jewellery. No primitive economy could have organised such a logistical operation. Long before the Industrial Revolution, an extensive international trading system already connected societies separated by thousands of kilometres.

Commerce alone, however, was not enough. These networks depended upon institutions of cooperation. The Amarna Letters reveal rulers addressing one another as “brothers,” exchanging gifts, negotiating alliances, and maintaining permanent diplomatic contacts.

Greek society reflected the same logic through xenia—the sacred obligation to offer hospitality to strangers. In a world where long-distance trade depended on trust between people who had never met, such norms were not merely moral ideals; they were essential economic institutions. ..."

Trade, Trust, and Civilisation: The Hidden Economic Message of Nolan’s 'Odyssey' (Unfortunately, no author name is provided as if written anonymously) "A fragile web of trust and voluntary exchange holds societies together"

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer unfortunate legacy, the Employment Rights Act of 2025

Recommendable! How stupid is this new law!

Was Keir Starmer a mediocre PM to put it mildly? I bet he was!

For decades, the government of the UK is heading in the wrong direction! Here is another example!

Once a classical liberal and largely free market economy is more and more becoming socialist since 1945.

Most of the victims of this legislation will be young individuals entering the labor market or inexperienced individuals of any age trying to change jobs etc. These adverse effects have been known for several decades!

"... Burdensome regulations, such as 

day one paternity leave, 

ordinary parental leave, and 

statutory sick pay

might on the face of it look beneficial to workers, but not if they make employers more adverse to hiring new workers, especially young people without previous work experience. Young people who are either working flexible hours or looking for a permanent job don’t want mandated employment benefits if it means we won’t be hired in the first place.

Other regulations, such as workers being given the right to sue their employer for unfair dismissal after 6 months on the job – reduced from 2 years – will only create a more legalistic market, where employers spend more time managing legal risk than creating employment opportunities.

One benefit of having a free labour market is that it allows young and inexperienced workers the chance to gain experience and skills.

If the cost of hiring increases because of new employment rights, then it will be the youngest and least essential workers that will be laid off, or employers will simply hire less people. ..."

Young workers need freedom

F A Hayek - The Futility of Socialism

Recommendable! Where is the Friedrich August von Hayek of our time?

(434) F A Hayek - The Futility of Socialism - YouTube

What the United Kingdom can learn from the United Arab Emirates in terms of business environment and free markets

Very recommendable! An interesting country comparison that may well apply to other European countries as well (e.g. France, Germany)!

Arab merchants, businessmen/-women and traders make it possible!

A very well timed article to greet and inspire the new PM Andy Burnham!

"When British policymakers look to the Gulf, they often assume Dubai’s rise was built on limitless oil wealth. That misses the more interesting lesson. Dubai’s free-trade instincts go back to 1901, when its rulers scrapped import and export taxes to attract merchants from more restrictive neighbouring ports.

Today, oil accounts for less than 1 per cent of Dubai’s GDP. The emirate has prospered by becoming what might be called a ‘platform city’: a stable, business-friendly hub that provides the infrastructure, light-touch rules, and predictability private enterprise needs to grow. ...

Dubai treats residents and businesses less as subjects to be managed and more as customers to be served. Government performance is regularly judged by the quality and speed of delivery. There is a local saying that the government “works at the speed of business”, and that mindset matters.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, this agility helped Dubai reopen safely and quickly, attracting global talent from countries with more rigid restrictions. For the UK, a similar customer-service culture in Whitehall would be a serious shift: a state that sees its role as enabling enterprise, rather than slowing it down through bureaucracy.

Free markets depend on trust. Dubai has turned social order into a real competitive advantage. Its low crime rates and strong culture of civic responsibility create a sense of security that is hard to measure but easy to value. Residents routinely leave valuables unattended with little fear of theft. [This used to common in the UK decades ago, if I am not mistaken.]

For a global financial centre, this matters. Trust reduces friction, lowers costs, and makes a city more attractive to investors, entrepreneurs and families looking for stability. ...

One of Dubai’s most effective tools has been its network of free zones, which historically offered 100 per cent foreign ownership and zero taxes. Just as importantly, these zones have acted as testing grounds for more liberal rules before they are applied more widely.

The Dubai International Financial Centre is the clearest example. It operates under its own English common law framework, with independent courts and a regulatory system designed for international finance.

Dubai actively competes for skilled people. Its Golden Visas, remote working schemes and Green Visas give professionals, entrepreneurs, and investors clear routes to live and work there without being tied to traditional employer sponsorship. ..."

What Britain can learn from Dubai

Adam Smith's Legacy in Alberdi's Argentina

Recommendable! How much is Javier Milei influenced by Juan Bautista Alberdi?

"... However, one of the deepest and most successful applications of Smithian philosophy occurred in the Southern Cone of the Americas. Juan Bautista Alberdi, the intellectual father of the Argentine Constitution (1853), did not merely read Smith; he transformed his economic theories into a foundational institutional framework for a new nation. ..."

Adam Smith's Legacy in Alberdi's Argentina – Constanza Mazzina

Juan Bautista Alberdi (Source)

Fixing the roads: How tolls saved Britain from pothole hell in the Industrial Revolution

Food for thought! How about going back to private roads and tolls?

"The ‘turnpike’ toll road system deserves far more credit for improving roads in eighteenth-century England and Wales, a new study argues. Analysis of nearly 100 travellers’ diaries reveals that turnpiking improved comfort and reduced danger on the roads, as well as speeding up wheeled vehicle journeys. ..."

Fixing the roads "How tolls saved Britain from pothole hell in the Industrial Revolution"

Zum Publizisten Sebastian Franck (1499-1542)

Empfehlenswert!

"Wenn man an Reformation denkt, kommt den meisten Luther in den Kopf – ein paar besonders historisch Interessierte verbinden damit vielleicht noch Namen wie Calvin, Zwingli und Melanchton. Dabei war die Gruppe der Protagonisten, die die Stimmung des Wandels aufgriffen und mitprägten, deutlich bunter, vielfältiger und übrigens auch moderner und ungleich sympathischer als diese entweder konservativen (Luther) oder fundamentalistischen (Calvin) Herren.

Eine herausragende Persönlichkeit jener Zeit war der nordschwäbische Publizist Sebastian Franck (1499-1542). Der autoritätskritische Idealist war den weltlichen und geistlichen Autoritäten ein Dorn im Auge, wo auch immer er sich gerade aufhielt. Er fand kaum Unterstützung oder Sympathie für seine Ansichten, die heute fast durchgängig akzeptiert sind – in den verschiedenen Kirchen wie auch in der gesamten Gesellschaft.

So postulierte er etwa, dass selbstverständlich auch „Türken und Heiden“ ein rechtes und gottgefälliges Leben führen könnten – eine Vorstellung, die die wenigsten damals auch nur ihren Mit-Christen in einer anderen Konfession einräumen wollten.

Franck war tatsächlich ein Vorreiter der Aufklärung, weil er sich gegen das strukturell konservative Verständnis von Luther wandte, allein die Bibel sei eine Quelle der Offenbarung. Im Gegenteil: Für Franck spielte das „innere Wort“ des Menschen, also sein Gewissen und seine Vernunft, die wesentliche Rolle bei der immer besseren Erkenntnis des Glaubens.

Entsprechend wandte er sich auch vehement gegen jegliches Wahrheitsmonopol. Aus seiner Sicht war absolute Gewissensfreiheit unumgänglich, weil sie allein garantierte, dass keine Autorität den Fortschritt der Erkenntnis hemmen konnte und es zu einem echten Wettbewerb der Ideen kommt. Francks Welt- und Menschenbild war so anti-autoritär und pluralistisch, wie unsere Gesellschaft erst im Laufe des 20. Jahrhunderts wurde." (Quelle)

The Hungarian Tocqueville

Recommendable! Hungary is a special European country even during the communist era.

I have to admit, Sándor Bölöni Farkas was not familiar to me.

"In September 1831, inside the brick walls of the Massachusetts state prison at Charlestown, two European visitors—unknown to one another—paced the corridors, taking notes on the newest American experiments in penal reform. One was the young French aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville; the other, a Transylvanian Unitarian nobleman named Sándor Bölöni Farkas. Both had crossed the Atlantic to study the democratic republic that fascinated—and unsettled—Europe’s old order. For a brief afternoon, their paths converged as they observed the silent prisoners and the curious system of American discipline. Neither could have known that each would soon write a book that would shape their nation’s understanding of liberty and influence generations to come. Tocqueville returned to France to compose Democracy in America. Farkas returned to Kolozsvár (Transylvania) to write Journey in North America—published a full year earlier, in 1834. ..."

The Hungarian Tocqueville – Anna Smith Lacey

Why Do Intellectuals Love Socialism? [What Would Hayek Say?]

Recommendable!

The Myth of Virtuous Democracy

Recommendable!

Liberty: What Did the Founders Mean? | PragerU

Very recommendable!

Crony Capitalism is NOT Capitalism

Recommendable!