On the other side of the policy debate, however, are worries that the technology to track and monitor is being used "because it can be" and that the type of surveillance society described in the novel 1984 -- where even normal daily activities are watched or tracked -- could actually come to pass. While the public may feel that cameras focused on diamond-cutters are legitimate, many would object to being filmed in a department store changing room. There is perhaps no more striking policy issue than what to do with released sex offenders. In most states, for example, convicted sex offenders are required to register after they are released from prison, they are tracked on various maps, so those living in the vicinity can see where and who they are. They may not live in proximity to schools or playgrounds, may not frequent social networking Web sites, and may have to wear a GPS ankle bracelet that constantly monitors their location. These are well-intentioned efforts to protect the public and especially children, as few people believe that imprisonment will change a sex offender's ways for the better.
However, in some cities, released sex offenders have been found sleeping under bridges, as no location in that city meets the required distance from areas frequented by children.
When California legislators last year passed a law outlawing the forced implanting of identification or tracking chips in human beings, many thought they were being foolish. Who would seriously consider such a plan? However, in January 2008, a proposal to tag sex offenders' bodies with chips was advanced in Britain, which already has a debate raging over national ID cards. The reasons given were public safety, and overcrowded prisons that cost too much. Under this rationale, the offender carries part of the prison with him or her back into society at less cost to the public.
And on the plus side of the controversy over surveillance initiatives, British surveillance cameras helped identify four terrorists accused of planting bombs on the London subway.
In the public arena, conservatives and liberals often differ on "how far government should go," in policy making. Beginning in January 2008, it is illegal in California to smoke in a car if a child under 18 is present. On one side of this controversial bill is the desire to protect children from the harmful effects of tobacco smoke. On the other is the desire to keep government out of ordinary affairs that occur in one's own car or house.
Most often, politicians will avoid taking a position on an issue if they think it will lose them the support of this or that group of voters. If pinned down, however, most paint these policy questions as right or wrong, black or white. This is in keeping with a long tradition of Aristotelian two-valued logic. However, when a politician weighs in on "one side" of an issue, he or she must then ignore or discredit the logic in the competing point of view. When politicians attack a rival, they must ignore or attack their rival's strengths, impugn their initiatives and record of accomplishments, and exaggerate their weaknesses or failures. In such a two-valued system a third or fourth point of view is unwelcome by the others and is attacked as "confusing," being "a distraction," or "undermining one of the candidates." Political candidates who "break with the party line" are seen as "traitors," or worse, "independents."
In our complex interrelated world, few issues are black or white, and it is time for a more enlightened approach to policy development. Take, for example, Alfred Korzybski's "infinity-valued logic." Any issue, according to Korzybski, is best examined on an entire spectrum that ranges from "ultimate wrongness to "ultimate rightness." Thus, policy development would consist of examining an issue, evaluating the different points of view and the possible effects of various approaches, and selecting the policy that would be most likely to advance the well being of individuals and families, as well as society in general. That is a tougher job, perhaps, than being simply "blue" or "red," but it should result in better policy and better government.
