I have never said that things are okay now, or used the words “accept degrees of freedom”. There was no need for an ad hominem attack (implied). However, you and I definitely have a different view on things. Degrees of freedom is all that you can ever achieve. If you think that you will ever find a human society that allows individuals to be 100% free, you are quite mistaken. Freedom of the individual and control of the individual is a constant tension in a human society, with the society achieving an equilibrium between the two that is workable, based on a significantly large number of factors. When the tension is no longer balanced, change occurs. Freedom and control are not static, unchanging things, they are dynamic and continually changing. The government is not the only portion of society with the ability to change the tension and upset the equilibrium. Witness the end of slavery in the Western world, the dramatic changes in personal liberties brought about by the American Revolution, the shift from radical liberal revolution to despotism of the French Revolution, and many other large events throughout history.

Your contention that we are witnessing a slow transition to a true police state is, in my opinion, incorrect. I appreciate your quote from Mayer, but the reality, viewed historically, is that the change from republic to police state had already occurred by the time those “signs” were there. It happened in 1932 and 1933, long before those signs. And the police state behavior was already present before 1938. The secret police were already arresting in secret, torturing, murdering, running concentration camps.

Other than that example (which is not a real example anyhow), I’ve been wracking my brains and cannot think of a single society that has become a true police state through a long, gradual change. I can think of societies that have gone from being somewhat free to somewhat authoritarian in that manner, but that isn’t the same thing. The United States was a true police state during the years 1941 to 1946, roughly. And it was a dramatic and sudden change brought on by Pearl Harbor. The US was authoritarian, even fascist, from 1933 to, roughly, 1955, and that change was somewhat more gradual. But even that change was brought on through a dramatic series of events (Wall Street Crash, bank failures, etc.), not a gradual, unseen change. Historically, there is no evidence I see that such a thing as a gradual change to a police state actually occurs in societies. If there is something I’m overlooking, I’ll be glad to consider it.

The reality is, if this was a police state, or even the beginnings of one, even a mild one, you and I would not be having this conversation in a public forum. We probably would not have it privately unless we knew each other very well. And we would still be extremely cautious, lest we end up in the hands of the secret police.

Another reality is that societies have problems, justice systems have failures, law enforcement oversteps their boundaries, the executive abuses power, and so on and so forth. But, in general, such things don’t mean catastrophe for the system. Most societies have corrective mechanisms for such mistakes. Believe it, or not, we are watching society take corrective action against the executive abuse of power that is occurring right now. Not perfectly, not always in the way you, or I, think is best, but it is happening. Will we correct to a perfect situation? No, instead, we’ll find a new equilibrium, a new balance of the tension between individual liberty and government power.

We will never return to even the degree of individual freedom that could be found in the United States prior to the Civil War. There is no competition that will force that to happen. As long as the United States is the best choice for individual liberty and economic gain and safety and security, which we are, there is no need for our society to try harder. In a limited market, there’s not much driving change to attract more buyers. Now, if we were to suddenly see a major country become more liberal than the US, that could bring about the change we desire. In the meantime, that doesn’t mean we don’t keep working for liberty and freedom, nor do we accept the status quo as being just fine and dandy. But, we do have to decide, each and every one of us, what is our best interests, as an individual, for our family, for our society, etc.

It is not in my best interest to be an ideologue who screams police state as loud as I can every time a police officer beats up a suspect. Because, by doing so, I destroy any credibility I do have in pointing out the problems. And the problems you point at are real ones. Things that need activism to try to effect change. If you happen to read more than just the three posts where we are having these conversations on this blog and my personal blog, you will see where I discuss many of these problems and take society and government to task. That is part of my activism. What you won’t see is me going to the extreme, because it is not an extreme situation.

Finally, as a rational anarchist, I recognize that I am free no matter what rules society or government of direct democracy or my employer or anyone places upon me. I am free because I, and I alone, am solely responsible for myself and my decisions. If I find your rules tolerable, I comply. If I find them intolerable, I don’t. I act within my moral conscience, regardless of what you try to dictate to me. (you in the generic, third person sense) If the situation is intolerable, I have a moral responsibility to act on it. And I am acting. If this were truly a police state, in the way you think it is, I would not be talking to you in this forum, I would be taking direct action that put my life in danger to effect revolutionary change. I am committed like the pig, not the chicken.

Second, your refusal to look at the past and see where things have been much worse for the cause of liberty appears to be an ideological strait jacket.

Third, We are not a police state. If we were, you and I would not be having this conversation in a public forum because both of us would be held in a prison run by secret police because we are enemies of the state. We probably would not have it privately, either, because neither of us would trust the other enough to have that sort of conversation.

Fourth, yes, things are not in good shape, nor is the country what it was intended to be. However, there are corrective mechanisms within our society and culture that are already addressing many of the more egregious abuses of power by the government. Other abuses of power, ones that matter to you and I, may not get addressed because the larger segment of our society is not worried about them. Our job is to educate, enlighten, inform and help to move things in the right direction. Screaming that we are a police state simply ensures that that you are viewed as a fringe radical by the greater portion of society, especially since we are no such thing.

Discussing, on the other hand, why the “War on Drugs” is a really bad thing in a calm, rational fashion and providing alternative ideas, may achieve something useful.

Your ad hominem attacks (i.e. “Maybe you will accept degrees of freedom as okay, I won’t.”) achieve nothing in this discussion and demonstrate that you haven’t bothered to read what I write. Instead, you shove clear examples of historical police states within the US to the side and just tell me that’s beside the point. You disregard clear examples where the people of this country have reclaimed abusive power from the government and tell me that’s beside the point. What’s the point of this conversation? Are you an ideologue? Or someone who will look at the reality of our 230 years of history and see it for it is. And view today within that context?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

2.You can give examples till you are red, white, and blue in the face that the country is freer than it was in certain years, it doesn’t matter, we are not free as intended by the founding fathers. Maybe you will accept degrees of freedom as okay, I won’t.

3. Again, if it can happen to Jose Padilla, it can happen to anyone. It is the principle, not the number of people detained.

4. I never said it was better before 9/11. That is why I brought up Echelon & Carnivore.

5.When the government openly kills members of the Weaver family, a religious group in WACO, abducts Elian Gonzalez, spies on its citizens in numerous ways, has the authority to prosecute businesses that do not snitch on customers, is given legal power to entrap citizens, is given legal authority to lie to citizens, gives police military style weapons and equipment to use against citizens, you can use all the euphemisms you can think of, rationalize, intellectualize, and try to turn black and white into gray til the sun don’t shine, it doesn’t change the fact that we are becoming a police state.