Police State

[Tomas]

.


POLICE STATE USA? - photos

A police state unquestionably exists when:

http://www.hermes-press.com/police_state.htm

[Tomas]

.


Police State - see imagery

When the head of the secret police took charge,
the people of the fair land looked the other way.

http://www.batr.org/911/policestate.html

[Carl G]

I don't see what the fuss is about. Most people want a police state. Most don't mind surveillance. Most value safety above all.

[Shahrazad]

If that's what you think Carl, why did you act so surprised when I "argued in favor of a police state"? You said you had never heard someone do that.

[Carl G]

I hadn't heard anyone vocalize it to me so directly.

[Shahrazad]

Then how do you know that most people want a police state, if nobody has told you they do?

[brokenhead]

Then how do you know that most people want a police state, if nobody has told you they do?

I think I know what he means, Shah. Not very many people will come out and say it. It's a lot like when you often hear people say that looks are not important. You rarely hear people claim that looks are important, but you know that's what most people really think.

[Carl G]

Then how do you know that most people want a police state, if nobody has told you they do?

Off-hand comments, things I've read, and my observations of people's nature.

[vicdan]

Or maybe your desire to feel superior. Maybe you just need to believe that most people wish for a police state so that you can feel like a freedom-lover, standing out of the crowd in your intellectual and moral superiority.

[Shahrazad]

broken,

I think I know what he means, Shah. Not very many people will come out and say it.

I'm good at coming out and saying things that nobody else will come out and say. I just hate hypocrisy.

[brokenhead]

Or maybe your desire to feel superior. Maybe you just need to believe that most people wish for a police state so that you can feel like a freedom-lover, standing out of the crowd in your intellectual and moral superiority.

FWIW, Victor, I think Carl has a point. I doubt your average citizen - I will stick to US citizens, since they are the only ones with whom I can claim a familiarity - has thought about police states, or whether he lives in one or not. He rather likely believes the police are there to protect him and his property, including his loved ones, since the average citizen considers his loved ones his property. While the average citizen might not wish for police activities to become more overt and ubiquitous, he probably feels a [perhaps misplaced] measure of security when he sees a uniform or two on a subway car otherwise occupied by glowering minority males eying his Rolex and his briefcase.

[brokenhead]

broken,

I think I know what he means, Shah. Not very many people will come out and say it.

I'm good at coming out and saying things that nobody else will come out and say. I just hate hypocrisy.

Yes, I think I have noticed that about you. I have also noticed that, to your credit, you do not say things that other people will not come out in say, just for the sake of saying them. I admire that, since few things are more tiring than someone who is contrary just to be contrary without putting any thought into ideas before expressing them.

[Shahrazad]

Thank you, Broken.

It does fascinate me how easily I can get in trouble for saying something everybody secretly thinks. The whole of society is based on deceiving people, including yourself (general you, not broken). Also, people will condemn others for doing something they themselves do all the time. For example, most people lie all the time, but they won't vote for a candidate who has been caught in a lie. [This is currently happening to two candidates running for mayor in my city.]

[brokenhead]

It does fascinate me how easily I can get in trouble for saying something everybody secretly thinks.

It is the easiest and quickest way to get into trouble, I find. In the real world, sometimes the wisest thing to do is to keep the secret.

[Carl G]

How shall we define Police State?

Wiki says:

The term police state describes a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political control may be exerted by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional republic

[Ataraxia]

Or maybe your desire to feel superior. Maybe you just need to believe that most people wish for a police state so that you can feel like a freedom-lover, standing out of the crowd in your intellectual and moral superiority.

That's pretty harsh.

Carl is really just drawing attention to what is pretty damn self evident. It so obvious even Foucault noticed it.

[vicdan]

And the fact that Foucault believed that, makes his views true -- how?

I myself am inclined to the "give me liberty or give me death" perspective. I communicate with regular people all the time. I see precious few among them who think that it's desirable to give up liberty to gain security.

All of these throngs of sheeple you see discussed in these contexts, they do not exist. They are the invention of those who wish to feel superior to the crowd. The funny thing, though, is that this very concern about distinguishing yourself from the crowd is what makes such people crowd members (just of a different crowd). It's like in "Life of Brian":

Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't need to follow me, you don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves! You're all individuals!
The Crowd (in unison): Yes! We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
The Crowd (in unison): Yes, we are all different!
Man in Crowd: I'm not...
The Crowd: Shhh!

In this game, if you play, you lose. Whether you see yourself as conformist or non-conformist, either way you are conforming already, either way you are one of the people seeking the pseudo-security of delusion -- of membership in the crowd or of superiority to the crowd (i.e. of membership in the 'better' crowd), it makes no difference.

By dint of positioning yourself as the freedom-loving thinker in contrast to all those sheep, you have already chosen security over liberty: security of crowd identity over liberty of thought.

You can't win if you play the game. Whenever you see someone bemoaning the sheep-nature of the common man, you see before you a sheep.

[brokenhead]

You can't win if you play the game. Whenever you see someone bemoaning the sheep-nature of the common man, you see before you a sheep.

Hear that, Sue? What's that you say? Ba-a-a-a humbug?

[Carl G]

I communicate with regular people all the time. I see precious few among them who think that it's desirable to give up liberty to gain security.

Most of them already have given up liberty for security. If you don't see it, then you are one of them.

All of these throngs of sheeple you see discussed in these contexts, they do not exist.

This is false. They do exist.

They are the invention of those who wish to feel superior to the crowd.

This sounds like wishful thinking on the part of a sheep.

The funny thing, though, is that this very concern about distinguishing yourself from the crowd is what makes such people crowd members (just of a different crowd).

If allegiance to truth gives one "concern about distinguishing yourself from the crowd" then c'est la vie.

It's like in "Life of Brian":

Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't need to follow me, you don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves! You're all individuals!
The Crowd (in unison): Yes! We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
The Crowd (in unison): Yes, we are all different!
Man in Crowd: I'm not...
The Crowd: Shhh!

In this game, if you play, you lose. Whether you see yourself as conformist or non-conformist, either way you are conforming already, either way you are one of the people seeking the pseudo-security of delusion -- of membership in the crowd or of superiority to the crowd (i.e. of membership in the 'better' crowd), it makes no difference.

This gobbledygook has nothing to do with the issue. It's the semantics and sour grapes of sheeptalk.

By dint of positioning yourself as the freedom-loving thinker

Being a non-sheep is not positioning oneself. It is being a non-sheep.

in contrast to all those sheep, you have already chosen security over liberty: security of crowd identity over liberty of thought.

Only a sheep would find a way to identify a non-sheep as a sheep.

Whenever you see someone bemoaning the sheep-nature of the common man, you see before you a sheep.

Well, okay, ultimately we're all sheep. Determinism over all. The Lord is my shepherd.

[Ataraxia]

And the fact that Foucault believed that, makes his views true -- how?

I used Foucault--even thought I think him a dud myself-- because he is fairly representative of current social/cultural/philsophical thinking. All my liberal arts lecturers worship him. If even he can see it, anyone should be able to.

I see precious few among them who think that it's desirable to give up liberty to gain security.

It depends how you are measuring it.

Mate, just listen to talkback radio for a few hours--I don't mean the Pat Buchanon-type stations -- I mean just regular people who ring up mainstream radio stations. To a person they'll be demanding that the government should do this, the government should do that for them. They are just begging to be lead by the nose at every opportunity.

It is incessant. Ubiquitous. It is why newsmedia is so popular. People are keen to know where they are being lead next.

By dint of positioning yourself as the freedom-loving thinker in contrast to all those sheep, you have already chosen security over liberty: security of crowd identity over liberty of thought.

That is the sort of double-think that George Orwell would be impressed with. "By separating from the herd you join the herd"

Just because I happen to agree with, say Carl, on one particular matter hardly makes us joint members of some club, or that either us have sought to join with the other (for safety, or otherwise).

[Tomas]

.


Were FBI agents at 'TEA parties'?

An intelligence expert says an FBI source tells him that the Bureau spied on
Americans who took part in "TEA party" rallies last week. (see photo)

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Defa ... ?id=499422

[Tomas]

I don't see what the fuss is about. Most people want a police state. Most don't mind surveillance. Most value safety above all.

Right. In today's world (USA), seems it going their way.

[Dan Rowden]

My definition of a police state:

James Randi Speaks: Charles Lynch

Charlie Lynch is a California resident who owned and operated a medical marijuana dispensary that was fully legal under a Golden State law.

In 2007, federal agents and San Luis Obispo sheriffs raided his home and dispensary and in 2008 he was found guilty in federal court of five counts of distributing drugs.

Because he was tried in a federal court, Lynch's defense team was not allowed to argue that its client was fully complying with state law.

On Thursday, April 23, 2009, Lynch is scheduled to be sentenced. He faces a mandatory minimum sentence of five years and, despite some positive statements from the Obama administration's Justice Department about respecting state laws regarding medical marijuana, Lynch's future is darker than midnight. Indeed, the simple letter of the law dictates he go to prison.

http://reason.com/blog/show/133010.html

[vicdan]

Most of them already have given up liberty for security. If you don't see it, then you are one of them.

My, my. How closely are you familiar with liberty and security? Ever been under rocket bombardment? i have. Ever publicly dissented against a totalitarian regime? I have. Ever lived on $30/week? i have.

You are cute, in a pathetic sort of way.

in contrast to all those sheep, you have already chosen security over liberty: security of crowd identity over liberty of thought.

Only a sheep would find a way to identify a non-sheep as a sheep.

Erm, kiddo, i see you are missing the point... Yes, dear, you are all individauls. just like all the other non-conformist non-sheep. :D

If you play this identity game, you already lost. Someday you will understand.

[vicdan]

That is the sort of double-think that George Orwell would be impressed with. "By separating from the herd you join the herd"

When you make a point of specifically setting yourself up as being non-herd -- yes, that's exactly what you do.

The way out of this trap, this inescapable duality, is to unask the question. MU. You think you have a choice, to join A or B, but by the very act of seeking to make this choice, you already gave up a more important choice -- a choice of whether this plane of coordinates matters at all.

Stop fucking worrying over whether you are a sheep or non-sheep, and just fucking be. The very fact of obsessing over which side of the divide you are on is what traps you within that frame. Both self-proclaimed conformists and self-proclaimed non-conformists are in fact conformists. The only ones who can avoid conforming (but also non-conforming, which is just a different sort of conformity) are the ones who ignore the conformity question itself altogether.

Don't worry about whether you are a sheep or non-sheep. Simply make your decisions in each case. Sometimes they will match majority's decisions, sometimes they won't, why the hell should you care? Stop playing intellectual keeping-up-with-the-Joneses, stop peeking over the fence and worrying about who is more sheepish, who prefers security and who prefers freedom (everyone prefers security in some cases and freedom in others BTW).

Just live your life, mmm-kay?