As an anarchist, I view all states as police states ---- anarchists are foolish to thing that government is not needed
know that government needs to minimal, does not represent minorities, and know who signs their paychecks On May 25, 8:59 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > The Police State Is PersonalWednesday, May 25, 2011 > byWendy McElroy > Does America now qualify as a police state? And, if so, where do you -- or > will you -- personally draw a hard line and say, "No!Thatis a law or a police > order I refuse to obey"? > As an anarchist, I view all states as police states, because every law is > ultimately backed by police force against the body or property of a scofflaw, > however peaceful he may be. I see only a difference of degree, not of kind. > But even small differences in the degree of repression can be matters of life > or death, and so they should not be trivialized. > A police state is more commonly described as a totalitarian government that > exerts extreme social, political, and economic control. It maintains this > control by a pervasive surveillance of its own citizenry, by draconian law > enforcement, and by granting or withholding "privileges" such theability to > travel. Typically, there is a special police force, such as a Stasi, that > operates with no transparency and few restraints. Unlike traditional > policemen, who respond to crime, the purpose of such state police is to > monitor and control society. > Let me restate my opening question: does America now embody this common > description of a police state? > Clearly it does. The American government exerts extreme control over society, > down to dictating which foods you may eat. Its economic control borders on > the absolute. It politicizes and presides over even the traditional bastion > ofprivacythe family. Camera and other surveillance of daily life has soared, > with the Supreme Court recently expanding the "right" of police to perform > warrantless searches. Enforcement is so draconian that the United States has > more prisoners per capita than any other nation; and over the last few years, > the police have been self-consciously militarizing their procedures and > attitudes. Travel, formerly a right, is now a privilege granted by government > agents at their whim. Several huge and tyrannical law-enforcement agencies > monitor peaceful behavior rather than respond to crime. These agencies > operate largely outside the restrictions of the Constitution; for example, > the TSA conducts arbitrary searches in violation of Fourth Amendment > guarantees. > The Internet would run out of electrons before I could complete a list of the > specifics that constitute an emerging Police America. The extent to which you > are personally oppressed by the state, however, can be estimated by answering > several more abstract questions:How many peaceful activities would make you a > criminal if you chose to do them?How much of your life is spent working to > pay taxes and other government fees?How freely can you relocate your assets > and person outside state jurisdiction?How freely can you use your assets and > person within state jurisdiction? > Few people aside from the state apparatchiks can answer in a way that makes > them feel anything but economically enslaved and physically trapped. > No one should have to chose between family and the state, nor their wealth > and the law. When confronted by such choices, there is no easy or correct > answer. An increasing number of Americans are becoming expatriates for their > own safety and that of their families.But the great majority of people are > rooted in place by extended family, friends, work, inertia, emotional > attachments, or other compelling reasons. > Those who recognize the emergence of Police America and yet feel a need to > stay should ask themselves a question: where is the limit at which you > withdraw your cooperation and say "no!" to a state law or a state agent's > order? Would you inform on a neighbor, as the authorities already urge you to > do? Would you assist a friend or family member even if it made you criminally > an accessory; if so, whom? Would you steal from or harm an innocent person on > command? If ordered, would you assist a police officer to do so, or would you > interfere and, so, become vulnerable to a charge of "obstructing justice"? > There are several reasons for asking yourself such questions now. They > include:The consequences of your act may depend not merely on where you draw > a line but also onhowyou do so. Planning can help you draw your line in a > prudent way.You may be reluctant to draw the lines you wish because you fear > endangering your loved ones, your wealth, or something else valuable to you. > If possible, secure these in advance. Prepare.If you don't know where the > lines are, then you are far more likely to act against your own principles or > interests when suddenly confronted by a distressing, demanding situation like > an officer barking commands.Knowing where your limits are makes it more > possible to avoid situations that trigger them.Harry Browneadvised people to > pay a price as soon as possible because it costs less overall; this applies > to psychological prices as well as to financial ones. It will never be easier > for you to consider this question than right now, in privacy and comfort. > There are no correct answers. The purpose of the exercise is merely to become > more aware of how you, personally, could live under a police state while > retaining your safetyandyour self-respect. > The author of several books, Wendy McElroy maintains two active > websites:wendymcelroy.comandifeminists.com.http://mises.org/daily/5317/The-Police-State-Is-Personal -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
