Consensus Building Against The Police State?
Radley Balko takes a look at a recent Reason/Rupe poll that shows a slowly growing consensus against the police state we're creating.
"... police militarization has flourished in part because while partisans on the left and right have been quick to denounce heavy-handed tactics when used against people with whom they sympathize or to enforce laws that they oppose, they've been somewhere between silent and gleeful when such tactics are used against their political opponents. But that too is changing. The reaction to the book has been encouraging, from across the political spectrum."
"More broadly, I think there's an increasing pan-ideological realization that the creeping surveillance/security/military state is starting to tread on the values and principles that are critical to a free society. And more encouraging yet, a willingness to speak up when government violates the rights of one's political opponents."
I don't know that I place much value in public opinion polls. They often change quite quickly and seem affected by whatever sound bites Joe and Jill Sixpack hear in the news on a particular day, I do seem have noticed a growing concern from both the Left and Right over civil liberties. That this sentiment seems to be growing relatively slowly, does that mean those concerns might last a while?
posted by Fred Mangels @ 8:32 AM
16 comments
16 Comments:
"The police state?"
"they've been somewhere between silent and gleeful"
gleeful? how do they know if they are silent?
" creeping surveillance/security/military state is starting to tread on the values and principles that are critical to a free society"
yes.
" government violates the rights of one's political opponents"
This is always the ultimate measage from Reason or any other libertarian source - tear down government and this is what this post is about to by using extreme terms like "police state".
Yes there is a problem with an over-ambitious surveillance state. The best way to combat that is through winning politics ie through one of the two parties.
Get over it the two parties are the ones that put the police state infrastructure in this has been going on for the last 30 years and is truly bipartisan it has now become so fortified an entrenched I'm afraid there's only one outcome to resisting it lucky for us even with all their military might they can't even hold a city of mud huts in the middle of the desert protected by people with nothing more than small arms and a willingness to die for what is theirs
THC
...this has been going on for the last 30 years and is truly bipartisan it has now become so fortified an entrenched.
Yep, and to suggest that electing more of the same is the answer to the problem is ludicrous.
Folks, what if most of the damage was done by one party? Granted the Dems are involved too, but what if most of the damage was done by a party or ideology that fundamentally doesn't agree with government. ie drowning it in the bathwater?
And as always, if the two parties aren't working for you what is the solution? Piecemeal elections of reformers like Perot or the Minn governor?
Before your complaints can be taken seriously you have to come up with a viable alternative. it isn't 30 years, (although most of the problems did start with Reagan's policies to include the too small highest marginal tax rate and the militarization of our foreign policy)....anyway .... it isn't 30 years, it's 150 years of the two party system with I took the time to type up for Fred and his readers a while back. How do you deal with that without "necessary and justified violence"?
You're right the real problem started with the creation of the Federal Reserve But it has certainly escalated in the last 30 years especially since 9/11 the only way this will be resolved peacefully is for about two thirds of the nation to stop going along with the corrupt government and to simply start telling them no but the corporations have so much money time and material invested in this take over I don't think there is any other conclusion besides another civil war but I hope to god I'm wrong
There it is. No, civil war is not an option. Dig in your heals, become politically active, take the Republicans back from those only concerned about the wealthiest 1% and we will have a much more effective government. And while you're at it try to pass along that government is there to help contain the excess of corporations. We can control government with our vote. Trying to control the private sector with your money is fruitless as the wealthy will always have more say.
John would you seriously say that Obama hasn't increased the presence of the police force even surpass that what Bush started I just don't understand why people that were so against Bush cannot see the tyranny that Obama has brought into office I voted for him in 2008 but now I feel that if he's not in peached he will set the precedence for a full-on dictatorship in the near future
THC
Yes he has anon. It's an institutional problem where the executive has been unable to reduce his (hopefully soon her) authority. It's also a particular problem with the nature of what we are fighting right now - terrorism. In balancing safety vs privacy many people believe in safety. This is a bigger question than we can honestly discuss here. I see both sides and Democrats like Obama have not given up safety for privacy. Imagine if another 911 happened on a Democrats watch what would be said. It's a balancing act and if you want the balance to be less intrusive, the consequence may be less safety. It's complicated like most of politics.
But "tyranny" is a loony adjective to use. If you choose to use it please understand that you are continuing our strong local and national tradition of demagoguery. By any rational description our country has never been subject to a tyrannical administration. The only oppression seems to be our collective inability to get off our couches on election day. That and figure out that only two parties are capable of maintaining a successful candidate locally, or nationally.
demagogue...
" (technically politician who) appeals to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument"
If not tyrannical then what would you call a government that clames it has the authority to disappear its citizens for no reson and with no evidence,that it can experiment on you with out you're approval,force you to buy commercial products. One that declares that there is a 100 mile constitution free zone around the entire border including oceans (thats were you and I live by the way) and as we speak are making secret deals with international corporations behind our back Congress isn't even allowed to know what it in the TPP..I dont have time to list all the examples but the most alarming one is the blantent disregard for the law and constitution, that is suppose to govern us all equally but now no longer. So if not tyrannical then what?
THC
I think like your choice of the term "tyranny" many of your examples are exaggerated for rhetorical effect THC. Forcing one to buy a commercial product? Are you speaking of health care or fluorescent bulbs? Health care we didn't go far enough - we will someday hopefully. We need a single payer system that covers everyone, get medical insurance out of the way of business so they can focus on business and guarantee it so people don't have to work a lifetime and then chose between treating their cancer or keeping the home they labored their whole life for. The Constitution allows for us to govern ourselves.
THC - what about the blatant disregard for the law illustrated by our local THC providers - curious about how law-and-order fits in there.
Those are actually my initials not a chemical I like to smoke that's one thing I love about liberals your opinions are so matter of fact... and you're right you must know what's best for me I can tell because you speak with such intelligent I now bow to my Messiah. Have you ever seen any of the old real footage of the Jews in Germany standing on the side of the road in front of ditches with their hats in hand being polite to the officers right before their mowed down by machine gun fire i hope that never happens to you but i know it wont happen to me but dont think for a minute it can't happen in the USA just like it has happens everywhere else
ugh. If your thoughts on policy are based on a fear that the holocaust may be in our future, then I understand why your policy preferences may be a little clouded. It's the politics of fear. I understand both parties are guilty, (see global warming) but I don't try to focus on the fear, I try to focus on the slow, rational strides toward building a community and society.
Or we could live in fear of becoming Nazi Germany.
I don't know what's best for you, but together we do need to plan our society. For example - are gas prices going to go down? What if we start incentivizing more infill rather than expanding our suburbs and exurbs. Or are we OK all just doing our own thing? Is that a sustainable path?
My Hope is that everybody will withdrawal consent before it gets that bad But even if the only history you read was in the classroom you should understand the cycle that we're now in we had one of the best societies in the world and because of that we prospered in wealth and in knowledge then as a society we became complacent and lazy and decadent in our apathy criminal elements have taken over our government and rose to the top these criminals are back by powerful corporations with untold billions of dollars backing their plays they have control of all the money they could ever want now they simply thirst for all the power and if they're not stop soon I fear it will be much worse than the Holocaust So while you're worried about restructuring your community I'm worried of the Game of Thrones being played that will inslave us all If history does one thing that is it repeats itself so again John I hope you're right and I'm simply a naive and missed informed accept the fact that all the fact that I point out come from government sources such as Supreme Court rulings white papers Freedom of Information releases and congressional hearings but maybe they are overstated and just misinformation
THC
"will withdrawal consent before it gets that bad" Does that mean stop voting? Do you know that actually supports one party - the Republicans? They don't want you to vote (google goo goo complex, Weyrich)
"had one of the best societies in the world" curious, when was the apex? the eighties? what policies would have kept us there?
" became complacent and lazy and decadent in our apathy" isn't apathy what you are hoping for in the first quote now?
"criminal elements have taken over our government" this is just not true. We DO need to tidy up our rules to make $$ have less influence, we do that by voting getting involved - people power CAN overcome $$ power - but we have to be.... not...apathetic.
"you're worried about restructuring your community" You missed the next two words in my sentence - we can do both. This isn't the game of thrones. This is a Democratic Republic. There is a difference.
But the GoT is AWESOME! do you know the theory on Snow's lineage?
Wow John I don't even know what to say your kind of like debating with a person that can't hear and keeps repeating the same mantras government goooood I hope your naive ness works well for you I'm sure it'll help keep your blood pressure and stress level down anyway debating the subject anymore would just be a waste of both our time cheers and good salutations
THC
Post a Comment
<< Home