What would a US "Police State" look like?

[SJHovey]

Re: What would a US "Police State" look like?

People should ask themselves from time to time, what would an American police state look like?

Not to try to fit the current situation to it -- that would be absurd as, for example, we will not be arrested for having this discussion. But what at the core is a police state, and how would an American version be different given our history. Would it be explicit, like Germany, or would it retain the empty trappings of a representative system, like Rome under Augustus? Is there a critical test to decide what side of the line we're on? Is a police state by definition excluded by a democratic political system, or is an "elected police state" -- even, a voluntary police state -- possible?

Don't we live in a police state? In fact, isn't it apparent that having a police state is actually necessary to be considered a civilized place to live, as opposed to a place like some countries in Africa or the Middle East? I don't think I'd want to live in a place that wasn't at some basic level a police state.

Any time you have a government organized or controlled police force that uses it's power to keep order, you have some level of a police state. It's all just a matter of scale, isn't it? Doesn't it just come down to how much control the police force attempts to enforce, and how arbitrary their rules?

 

[Kepler]

Re: What would a US "Police State" look like?

Not sure how many A Wrinkle in Time fans are here....there was a recently-discovered three-page section from the manuscript that Madeleine L'Engle excised from the published version as too didactic that explained how the dark planet Camazot could come about anywhere once people become willing to give up personal liberty in exchange for security.

I loved A Wrinkle in Time. Our hippy-dippy sixth grade teacher (who looked exactly like a young Kris Kringle in Santa Claus is Coming to Town) had us read it, and for a 12-year old... mind blown. It's been a while but one of the most interesting aspects of the hyper-conformist state was people were content. We generally think of police states as violently suppressing dissent, but it's probable IMO that an American police state would curtail dissent with the sweet anesthesia of prosperity.

Didn't the police state in Fahrenheit 451 also evolve gradually over time?

Full disclosure, I have only seen the movie. In it, there is only a passing discussion of how it came to be in the fire chief's "ideas made people unhappy" speech. There is a feeling that the "silent majority" favored the crackdown against non-conformists, dissenters and liberals, and that the state is actually quite popular. F451 may indeed be an ideal type of a voluntary police state -- although it's suggested that the regime stays in power by manufacturing consent, there's also the feeling that the percentage of "square pegs" at any given time is vanishingly small.

To a certain extent (e.g., Nixon's "enemies list", and a few other examples that are too recent to allow for sober discussion), we already have laid the groundwork for a police state in the US, in that various government bureaucracies already can be (and have been) used to make a person's life miserable. The text of some laws are written so badly that nearly every person in this country is already violating a law or two every day, and is merely not prosecuted. The laws and the apparatus are already in place.

Richlieu allegedly said "Show me six lines written by the most honest man in the world, and I will find enough therein to hang him." That is definitely one way to subdue a population -- essentially, you make sure they're "criminals" in some sense because once you get your target into the criminal processing system you can easily strip them of their rights and dignity. We saw this at its worst with Gitmo, with a mechanism that allowed an American administration to torture people for years without any formal charge. The Gitmo detainees certainly lived under a police state regime as terrifying as the worst ever created in 1984 or other literature.

Just because people can express opinions without fear of prosecution does not by itself indicate the absence of a police state, it may be that the totalitarian regime allows people to blow off steam verbally in order to keep them in line by other means. We all complain about how complicated the income tax returns are, yet we all dutifully file them anyway.

Hence the need for more exact terminology. There are a few ideas floating around: suppression of dissent (authoritarian state), totalitarian control (dictatorship), unelected authority (tyranny). These are all a little different and their Venn diagrams would overlap but be non-identical.

It seems that the better question may not be whether the US is a "police state" (which you have not defined....), it might be more how far along the road are we already, and can we do anything to reverse it?

The point of this thread is to define it. Merriam-Webster offers the following:

A political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures.

Take that as a stake in the ground. The question is, given American institutions, culture, and historical experience, in what interesting ways would a home-grown American police state manifest those characteristics.

 

[Kepler]

Re: What would a US "Police State" look like?

Don't we live in a police state? In fact, isn't it apparent that having a police state is actually necessary to be considered a civilized place to live, as opposed to a place like some countries in Africa or the Middle East? I don't think I'd want to live in a place that wasn't at some basic level a police state.

Any time you have a government organized or controlled police force that uses it's power to keep order, you have some level of a police state. It's all just a matter of scale, isn't it? Doesn't it just come down to how much control the police force attempts to enforce, and how arbitrary their rules?

I think you are saying we live under the rule of law. A police state is defined in part by the arbitrary exercise of coercion by members of the state police -- the rule of men, rather than of law. If you're driving the speed limit and the cop gives you a ticket anyway just because, and the court enforces that ticket, that's a police state. Below, Fish introduces a different idea, call it the Original Sin State, where you can't help but break the law and so you are always under threat of having the law come down on you. So, you're a Jew after the Nuremberg Laws, or a child smuggled into the US by undocumented workers -- just by existing, you are "illegal." That's certainly a related concept.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: What would a US "Police State" look like?

Richlieu allegedly said "Show me six lines written by the most honest man in the world, and I will find enough therein to hang him." That is definitely one way to subdue a population -- essentially, you make sure they're "criminals" in some sense because once you get your target into the criminal processing system you can easily strip them of their rights and dignity. We saw this at its worst with Gitmo, with a mechanism that allowed an American administration to torture people for years without any formal charge. The Gitmo detainees certainly lived under a police state regime as terrifying as the worst ever created in 1984 or other literature.

The NDAA extended this, too.

By your definition, the police state does exist pretty much everywhere because we have cops acting as judge, jury, and executioner. Any sort of "review" has them as the victim and clears them of wrongdoing. It depends on how far of the last clause we go, because these investigations are typically internal (meaning the procedure isn't necessarily publicly known). The definition is careful to not include conflicts of interest in order to ensure that these activities are not described as a police state, but if there are legal procedures addressing conflict of interest, then it is a police state.

 

[Kepler]

Re: What would a US "Police State" look like?

The NDAA extended this, too.

By your definition, the police state does exist pretty much everywhere because we have cops acting as judge, jury, and executioner. Any sort of "review" has them as the victim and clears them of wrongdoing. It depends on how far of the last clause we go, because these investigations are typically internal (meaning the procedure isn't necessarily publicly known). The definition is careful to not include conflicts of interest in order to ensure that these activities are not described as a police state, but if there are legal procedures addressing conflict of interest, then it is a police state.

I think there has to be some deliberate coordination, too. The people of Ferguson lived under a police state -- that PD was pursuing a deliberate policy of arbitrary harassment, arrest and even murder. The members of the PD (and, it turned out, the DA's office) were all in on it. But in a huge country there will be many Fergusons, and the country as a whole isn't necessarily a police state. The US AG seems to be trying to go after rogue PDs; that's a good sign. OTOH, that type of police overreach and intimidation is so old that radio shows from the 30s were already making jokes about rubber hoses, the back room, desk drawers, etc.

tl; dr: Police power always carries the risk of corruption; isolated instances of corruption -- even lots of them -- isn't the same as a deliberate national program.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: What would a US "Police State" look like?

It's been a while but one of the most interesting aspects of the hyper-conformist state was people were content. We generally think of police states as violently suppressing dissent, but it's probable IMO that an American police state would curtail dissent with the sweet anesthesia of prosperity.

Agreed. A ton of Americans really don't care that much what goes on around them as long as they are entertained, feel relatively prosperous, have their iphone, etc.

 

[Kepler]

Re: What would a US "Police State" look like?

Agreed. A ton of Americans really don't care that much what goes on around them as long as they are entertained, feel relatively prosperous, have their iphone, etc.

The 1.8.1 rule, once again.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: What would a US "Police State" look like?

I think you are saying we live under the rule of law. A police state is defined in part by the arbitrary exercise of coercion by members of the state police -- the rule of men, rather than of law. If you're driving the speed limit and the cop gives you a ticket anyway just because, and the court enforces that ticket, that's a police state. Below, Fish introduces a different idea, call it the Original Sin State, where you can't help but break the law and so you are always under threat of having the law come down on you. So, you're a Jew after the Nuremberg Laws, or a child smuggled into the US by undocumented workers -- just by existing, you are "illegal." That's certainly a related concept.

Isn't it all arbitrary. One man's "rule of law" is another man's view that the state is infringing upon his complete freedom through arbitrary declarations as to how fast he can drive a car.

It's just a sliding scale from complete freedom on the part of everyone (which no one would want if they saw it in action) to something even beyond the worst totalitarian government the world has yet to see.

 

[LynahFan]

Sad truth that most people don't care about the form of their government as long as they are OK.
Have a job
chance at upward mobility
Food on the table
availability of goods
safety for self and family
ability to do things without undue interference
freedom to practice their religion

Have that and most folks will roll over.

Why is that sad? Government is just a means to an end. If everyone has the things you mention above, why should they care about the means?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: What would a US "Police State" look like?

Isn't it all arbitrary. One man's "rule of law" is another man's view that the state is infringing upon his complete freedom through arbitrary declarations as to how fast he can drive a car.

It's just a sliding scale from complete freedom on the part of everyone (which no one would want if they saw it in action) to something even beyond the worst totalitarian government the world has yet to see.

If you want to bring that up, the place where people find themselves to be most oppressed is "victimless crimes", where the government is trying to "protect" the criminal from himself/herself. We've seen a dramatic increase in this since the 1930's (when drug laws were put into place, thanks Hearst and DuPont) to the point where they're no longer protecting anyone; they're simply harassing the populace and stealing time and/or money from them, and that's even the case if the person is found to be not guilty, because they had to spend possibly a fortune just to defend themselves. And don't get me started on the prison-industrial complex, either.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: What would a US "Police State" look like?

Wow, I feel like I just tuned the radio dial to The Alex Jones Show, or stumbled across one of his affiliated websites:

http://www.infowars.com/
http://www.prisonplanet.com/

Scarier? I think Kepler may have led me there with his "are we in a police state" musings.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: What would a US "Police State" look like?

Agreed. A ton of Americans really don't care that much what goes on around them as long as they are entertained, feel relatively prosperous, have their iphone, etc.

Don't forget their Kardashian updates via Twitter.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: What would a US "Police State" look like?

The 1.8.1 rule, once again.

< hand in air >

Please explain said rule to the unfamiliar.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: What would a US "Police State" look like?

< hand in air >

Please explain said rule to the unfamiliar.

He's referring to Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

 

[Kepler]

Re: What would a US "Police State" look like?

< hand in air >

Please explain said rule to the unfamiliar.

10% of people are exceptionally good, 10% are exceptionally bad, and 80% are grouped closely about the mean, excelling neither in virtue nor vice. So: saints vs villains; heroes vs cowards; teetotalers vs alcoholics; the astute vs the gullible, etc.

In this case, 10% of the population are fiercely on-guard for freedom and 10% utter naifs who will believe anything the gubbint feeds them -- the actual sheeple. The middle 80% are not sheeple, but they also don't remain constantly at a hair trigger from crying "tyranny!" and leaping into action. It takes a significant amount of discomfort to move them to be dissatisfied enough to question the basics of the system they live under, but that doesn't mean they're asleep. Mostly they're just conflicted, if not exhausted, by less abstract responsibilities.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: What would a US "Police State" look like?

He's referring to Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

That's what I suspected, but wasn't completely sure.

Personally, 1.8.18 is the one that fits this subject/conversation.

 

[Kepler]

Re: What would a US "Police State" look like?

He's referring to Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

No, I'm not, though that is awesome.

 

[Kepler]

Re: What would a US "Police State" look like?

Isn't it all arbitrary. One man's "rule of law" is another man's view that the state is infringing upon his complete freedom through arbitrary declarations as to how fast he can drive a car.

It's just a sliding scale from complete freedom on the part of everyone (which no one would want if they saw it in action) to something even beyond the worst totalitarian government the world has yet to see.

I hear what you're saying, but I'm not talking about the number line of freedom vs prohibition upon which the selection of any given point is "arbitrary." I'm talking about a much simpler distinction. Rule by law is where police behavior and more importantly the adjudication of that behavior afterwards by the state is defined by a formal legal system. Rule by men (police state) is where this is not so, and instead is up to the personal whim of someone along the way. It's defined process vs ad hoc process -- it has nothing to do with result.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: What would a US "Police State" look like?

10% of people are exceptionally good, 10% are exceptionally bad, and 80% are grouped closely about the mean, excelling neither in virtue nor vice. So: saints vs villains; heroes vs cowards; teetotalers vs alcoholics; the astute vs the gullible, etc.

In this case, 10% of the population are fiercely on-guard for freedom and 10% utter naifs who will believe anything the gubbint feeds them -- the actual sheeple. The middle 80% are not sheeple, but they also don't remain constantly at a hair trigger from crying "tyranny!" and leaping into action. It takes a significant amount of discomfort to move them to be dissatisfied enough to question the basics of the system they live under, but that doesn't mean they're asleep. Mostly they're just conflicted, if not exhausted, by less abstract responsibilities.

Interesting theory, but I more believe the "7 out of 10" theory, (c) Common Man, KFAN Radio: "The Common Man has a theory that 7 out of every 10 people don't use their brains." Those are the ones merrily and blithely traversing life in pursuit of the next < whatever the television tells them they need >. If you're not sure what that looks like look into "JayWalking" or "Watter's World" on YouTube.

If there are sheeple, it's the 7 out of 10 crowd.

I put about 2 out of 10 in your "exhausted by less abstract responsibilities" category. Those are the folks who get up every morning, go to work, keep the 7 out of 10 crowd busy (and from self-nominating for a Darwin Award), get home, deal with the kids, go to bed, repeat.

The remainder are the "Alex Jones" or "Daily Kos" crowd.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: What would a US "Police State" look like?

I hear what you're saying, but I'm not talking about the number line of freedom vs prohibition upon which the selection of any given point is "arbitrary." I'm talking about a much simpler distinction. Rule by law is where police behavior and more importantly the adjudication of that behavior afterwards by the state is defined by a formal legal system. Rule by men (police state) is where this is not so, and instead is up to the personal whim of someone along the way. It's defined process vs ad hoc process -- it has nothing to do with result.

It's the distinction between "a day in court" and "Judge Dredd".