Interesting, I have posted two extremely long posts detailing why we are a police state and neither has appeared. I guess only one side can be heard here.

Consider how someone reading your comment would take it? Especially considering that there is no tone of voice, facial expression, or body language to indicate meaning and tone.

As far as why your posts are not appearing, I have no idea. I have looked at all of my anti-spam tools and you are not being moderated. I checked my error logs and didn’t find a problem. Since you can post other comments, I have to conclude the issue is not within my website or blog.

I think you need to re-read what I wrote.

“That being said, while there are many things wrong with the United States, Eric is correct to point out that modern America is far from a police state.”

Since, up to this point, you have been able to say whatever you like within my blog (yes, I’m the one who pays for, and runs, this place and invites the other authors to contribute), there is nothing that would indicate that we are preventing your comments from appearing.

Now, if you are entirely done with your attacks on people here, we can discuss whatever you want to discuss. If you’re having trouble posting comments, email them to Contributors_thelibertypapers.org@server.fm7.net and one of us will make sure it gets posted. Alternatively, email them to me, and I’ll do the same.

What do you call it when,
Thousands of people are being held by the US government in secret and not so secret prisons without charges, without access to lawyers and are tortured by their guards? Or do you deny this is happening?

Any federal law enforcement agency may secretly enter any home or business, collect evidence, not inform the citizen of the entry, and then use the evidence (seized or planted) to convict the occupant of a crime.

Any police agency has the power to monitor all Internet traffic and emails, intercept cell phones without warrant of millions of “suspects.”

Any Federal police agency can invade any business premises and seize all records on the basis that it is “connected” with a terrorist investigation. Citizens who publicly protest these arbitrary, invasive police actions can be arrested.

Air marshalls can kill a man for exiting an airplane.

Law enforcement can use a gas banned by intermational treaty to kill men, womaen and children in a religious compound.

Visitors to Capitol Hill encounter police barricades, metal detectors, paramilitary officers carrying fully automatic rifles, police dogs, ID checks, and vehicle stops. The people are totally disarmed.

# There are presently 2 million Americans in jail, mostly for non-violent “offenses”.

# The US has the world’s highest incarceration rate, surpassing Russia and China, and the world’s largest prison population.

# With less than five percent of the world’s population, the US now has one-quarter (1/4) of the world’s prisoners.

# There are six times as many Americans behind bars as are imprisoned in the 12 countries making up the entire European Union, even though those countries have 100 million more citizens than the US.

Guilty until proven innocent:A total of $2.6 billion in U.S. citizens’ assets has been seized since 1985.(Government Asset Forfeiture Office) proudly boasts. Eighty percent of these seizures never resulted in an arrest or conviction — indicating that most are being taken from innocent people.

Almost all of our economic activities depend upon receiving the proper permits from the federal government. Transactions involving guns, food, medicine, smoking, drinking, hiring, firing, wages, politically correct speech, land use, fishing, hunting, buying a house, business mergers and acquisitions, selling stocks and bonds, and farming all require approval and strict regulation from our federal government. If this is not done properly and in a timely fashion, economic penalties and even imprisonment are likely consequences.

All our financial activities are subject to “legal” searches without warrants and without probable cause.

Government control of medicine has prompted the establishment of the National Medical Data Bank. For efficiency reasons, it is said, the government keeps our medical records for our benefit. This, of course, is done with vague and useless promises that this information will always remain confidential- just like all the FBI information in the past!

The executive branches ability to use the IRS to intimidate, harrass, coerce people.

I am moving on, I could go on for days listing facts to prove my point, but I live along the Mexican border and I see the police state everyday, live and in person and on the news at night.

Singapore: I would argue that they can make any law they decide – no matter how stupid – and enforce it anyway they choose. It is none of our effing business. And I would betcha that more Americans are killed by law enforcement in this country over the stupid War on Drugs than Singapore.

In fact, you have contended that the USA is a police state even though the obvious symptoms are not happening. You appear to be saying that the US police state is relatively secret and not obvious. So, I really don’t see how Perry talking about his experiences helps your position at all?

So I dare say, based on what I know of most of you, that I am uniquely qualified on this subject.

That being said, while there are many things wrong with the United States, Eric is correct to point out that modern America is far from a police state. Dissent? You never have to look far, even if it comes from liberal opportunists. Look at Hillary Clinton’s babble, and Al Gore’s latest hypocrisy.

In a true police state, they’d have long ago been killed in “accidents” or by “unknown” assailants. Innumerable letters to the editor accuse Hillary, Gore and similar liberals of being “traitors,” but even the most conservative newspapers (at least the editorial staff, not syndicated columnists) refrain from that. The Constitution has a very specific definition of treason, and most politicians are wise enough to abide by it, particularly because politics tends (though it is not always) to be a polite profession. When Scott McClellan said today about Gore, “I think his hypocrisy knows no bounds,” I was surprised the White House resorted to such strong langugage.

There was once several years of a “police state” era in the U.S., under Abraham Lincoln’s presidency. He liked to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and eventually had a few hundred newspaper editors jailed merely for criticizing him. During Southern Reconstruction, opposed by Andrew Johnson (the real reason he was impeached), federal armies occupied several Southern states and essentially held them hostage until their legislatures ratified the 14th Amendment. Now that is tyranny. Today we still have a fair degree of the rule of law.

In no wise am I saying Americans are as free as we ought to be, but usurpation of our liberty is through politicians’ subtlety and social engineering of succeeding generations, not physical force, and it is the latter that makes a true police state. Or should we fall back on the Humpty Dumpty defense, that a word means whatever we want it to mean?

Geesh, I would have thought you would defend my right to say whatever it is I please instead of turning me into the Nazis. Oh well. Nazis didn’t allow free speech, right?

And what is it with you and drugs? Singapore doesn’t have the right to make and enforce its own laws – no matter how stupid? And how is what Singapore does any different than what the US government did to Peter McWilliams? Or is about to do to Marc Emory?

It might be interesting to look up how many people law enforcement has killed in the War on Drugs in this country compared to Singapore’s numbers. I betcha I know which country has a higher number.

Regardless, I can only conclude that your military training to kill and your participation in invading a foreign country, that had done us no wrong, without a declaration of war by Congress that killed God knows how many innocent people in Desert Storm, spit on your oath to the Constitution by your participation now puts you in a position to defend the government that trained you, no matter how egregiously and damnable it behaves toward its citizens and any other peoples that refuse to bow down to it. But, hey, I could be wrong.

Most of the countries I listed are in the top 10 list on CATO for economic liberty, don’t execute folks carrying a dime bag of marijuana, are objectively working to improve political and economic liberty and if they continue on the path they are on will have significant degrees of liberty in the near future. I did not make any argument other than that. So, once again, you are putting words in my mouth.

I don’t believe, and history fairly well demonstrates this, that direct democracy is commensurate with more liberty for the individual. Check Gress’ “From Plato to NATO” for a discussion of the totalitarianism of the Greek city-states. So, making the argument to me that the Swiss got to vote on it doesn’t hold much water. Getting to vote on it doesn’t make it good for the individual. The Germans elected the Nazi’s and Adolf Hitler in 1932, the Italians elected Mussolini and the Fascists, the Americans elected FDR and the Democrats. Political and economic competition and diversity demonstrably can lead to more liberty for the individual, which I have argued in favor of.

A rational argument against conscription? It seems reasonably obvious that if you are coerced to serve in the military of your government, that your liberty has been significantly reduced. Failing what seems obvious and logical, I could appeal to the authority of Jefferson, Madison, Paine, Hamilton, Rand, Heinlein, and others. Failing that, I can point you at this, entry on the topic.

Tell me why I need to present links to CATO to establish that something is “data” or a “fact”? If you read the newspaper, you know that Singapore executes people for possessing relatively small quantities of drugs. Again by reading the newspaper, you know that Hong Kong is now part of the PRC and that the PRC is exerting significant political control over the territory, including not living up to the commitments made on political liberty. I read the Swiss Bill of Rights, and provided extracts from it, as did Robert, to illustrate the argument I have made that the Swiss BoR does not limit the government’s power. I have made several other arguments surrounding direct democracy and being “at peace” and why neither of those things automatically equates to more liberty. You have tossed them out with further appeals to authority or airy waves of your hand simply dismissing the argument.

Finally, you make an ad hominem attack. I don’t know why you chose to do that, but it doesn’t advance your argument, or cause the people you are discussing an issue with to be more favorably disposed to what you have to say:

And who decides what freedom is, evidently the Swiss are happy with their Bill of Rights, but I imagine you and Eric would like to go over there and invade, bomb, occupy, reconstruct and get a new election going to instill your values on them.

Since, at no point have we said any such thing, nor have we said anything that indicates that we favor, or don’t favor, use of the military, for any reason, I wonder why you would say that?

Finally, my comments and discussion are more than one or two sentences because I think that it’s necessary in order to make the argument. Tossing out a single sentence would not support my argument.

One last comment. This is the second time I have pointed out your personal attacks. At this point I will refer review of these comments to another administrator of this blog. Brad will take whatever action he deems necessary.

Robert said:
It’s also obvious that conscription significantly reduces individual liberty.

Eric had said:
1. Switzerland has conscription. Every adult male must serve in the military. That is hardly political liberty. In my opinion, conscription is one of the most significant signs that a country is not really free.

Now, had you made an argument for Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic or the Baltic Republics, you would find that your argument is much more difficult to refute and has to be done on the grounds of social and political stability. Give those countries another decade and even that argument goes out the door. As long as they continue on the path they are on, they will probably end up being more desireable from a purely objective perspective.

To which I replied:
You can dismiss Switzerland if you like, but if your criteria of conscription is the meaning of political liberty, all the contries you mentioned have conscription or had it until very very recently.

So, based on something, Eric has yet to objectively and rationally argue, Switzerland sucks because they have conscription, but Poland, the Baltic states, etc., are freer because thay have conscription. Now there’s a rational, objective argument.

BTW, did you get to vote for your country’s Bill of Rights. And who decides what freedom is, evidently the Swiss are happy with their Bill of Rights, but I imagine you and Eric would like to go over there and invade, bomb, occupy, reconstruct and get a new election going to instill your values on them.

John wrote: First you said: Switzerland has conscription. Every adult male must serve in the military. That is hardly political liberty.

Do you see any hypocrisy there at all?

It’s obvious that the disagreement here is: whether other nations (Switzerland in particular) are more or less “free” than America. It’s also obvious that conscription significantly reduces individual liberty. Beyond that, as Eric has pointed out several times, the Swiss BoR doesn’t limit the authority and power of the Swiss government. In light of that, the “rights” of Swiss citizens are rather precarious. Therefore, Americans are, prima facie, “more free” than the Swiss. So, where’s the hypocrisy?

The only data presented was what I posted from Cato otherwise, all I got were your haughty, long-winded, corn-pone opinions.

Can you not appreciate the value of an objective, rational argument, or do you typically just appeal to authority?