ROFL, so the difference between the US and China is simply "communism".
OMFG you dolt, are you out of diapers?
Topic: Police State? - page 10. (Read 25883 times)
Then we can agree that you regard all countries as police states?
I'll quote:
States operate by tyranny.
If the few rule the many, a police state is the result. Always.
myrkul is against the entire idea of a state. Its a legitimate point of view but has little bearing on whether or not its meaningful to call the US a "police state."
Since you regard all states as "police states" I guess we can move on. I can't help but wonder what adjective you want to use for states like China but that is another day's discussion.
Clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap....
LOL, you are calling me a terrorist lover. I should sue you for libel, fucking idiot. I'm certain you have no assets worth taking.
Terrorist lover.
LOL, you are calling me a terrorist lover. I should sue you for libel, fucking idiot. I'm certain you have no assets worth taking.
..snip...
But there are over 100 states in the world and if all of them are "police states" then the term is meaningless. It implies that tyranny is normal and we should expect it.
But there are over 100 states in the world and if all of them are "police states" then the term is meaningless. It implies that tyranny is normal and we should expect it.
That is the implication, yes.
OK. I guess we need a new word to describe what used be called "tyrannies" now that we are using "tyranny" for normal states. I'm sure the people of Syria will be delighted to know that they no longer live in a tyranny and await the new description of their state with bated breath.
You might not have experienced it, but plenty have.
When I got my johnson grabbed by the fake cop at the airport a few years ago was my clue. I'm not sure what it takes for other people to see it.
Needless to say, homie ain't flying as long as the Feds are in charge of the gates at the airports.
Watching a cop bodily pick up a kid half his size and slam his head into a stone bollard sealed the deal. I vividly remember the sound of his skull cracking against the stone.
I've stood in court and seen a case against me dismissed as the police had forged the evidence and accidentally had different sets of signatures on the "carbon copies." But there is the world of difference between not trusting the police and in saying you live in a "police state." The latter implies that there are other states that are so much more free that your state is repressive.
No, it doesn't. If there was only one state in the world it could still be a police state.
But there are over 100 states in the world and if all of them are "police states" then the term is meaningless. It implies that tyranny is normal and we should expect it.
That is the implication, yes.
Then we can agree that you regard all countries as police states?
I'll quote:
States operate by tyranny.
If the few rule the many, a police state is the result. Always.
myrkul is against the entire idea of a state. Its a legitimate point of view but has little bearing on whether or not its meaningful to call the US a "police state."
Since you regard all states as "police states" I guess we can move on. I can't help but wonder what adjective you want to use for states like China but that is another day's discussion.
My country is a police state. I suppose we'll just have to disagree on what we're each perceiving.
Too bad this poster is an idiot and wholly illiterate:
": a country in which the activities of the people are strictly controlled by the government with the help of a police force"
Terrorist lover.
My country is a police state. I suppose we'll just have to disagree on what we're each perceiving.
Too bad this poster is an idiot and wholly illiterate:
": a country in which the activities of the people are strictly controlled by the government with the help of a police force"
...snip...
And yes, I'm arguing the minarchist case here. States can exist without being oppressive, though they typically don't long limit themselves that way.
And yes, I'm arguing the minarchist case here. States can exist without being oppressive, though they typically don't long limit themselves that way.
So the question is, what state is so much more free than the US that you feel justified in calling the US in particular a police state while that state is not?
The US, circa 2000. Or any year prior, especially prior to 1791.
911 does seem to have really changed the atmosphere in the US but then so did the bombings I grew up with change Ireland. Of course I can see that the US was a lot more free prior to encountering terrorism. However, once terrorism arrived, then the tools to fight back came in its train inevitably. If you feel the US now is so much less free than the US that existed 15 years ago that it qualifies as a police state, then you have my sympathy.
Then we can agree that you regard all countries as police states?
I'll quote:
States operate by tyranny.
If the few rule the many, a police state is the result. Always.
And what event was it that caused the Americans to tighten the boarders and engage in security theater?
And so your point is that being a truly free country, like America, is problematic because their are always going to be mad terrorists in the world who would rather hurt people than think. America is still not a police state.
": a country in which the activities of the people are strictly controlled by the government with the help of a police force"
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/police%20state
(This is for non-native English speakers).
And so your point is that being a truly free country, like America, is problematic because their are always going to be mad terrorists in the world who would rather hurt people than think. America is still not a police state.
": a country in which the activities of the people are strictly controlled by the government with the help of a police force"
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/police%20state
(This is for non-native English speakers).
It implies that tyranny is normal and we should expect it.
The tendency to tyranny is normal. Even Aristotle and Plato were aware of it. There's always a minority looking to seek power over the majority, hence the push to centralization.
And hence, Bitcoin.
But there are over 100 states in the world and if all of them are "police states" then the term is meaningless. It implies that tyranny is normal and we should expect it.
By George, I think he's starting to get it. Yes, grasshopper. States operate by tyranny.
Those are real examples of "police states" - no right to vote to change the laws and no capacity to enforce your legal "rights" against the state.
That describes large swaths of American political and economic life.
My country is a police state. I suppose we'll just have to disagree on what we're each perceiving.
Then we can agree that you regard all countries as police states?
Those are real examples of "police states" - no right to vote to change the laws and no capacity to enforce your legal "rights" against the state.
That describes large swaths of American political and economic life.
My country is a police state. I suppose we'll just have to disagree on what we're each perceiving.
You might not have experienced it, but plenty have.
When I got my johnson grabbed by the fake cop at the airport a few years ago was my clue. I'm not sure what it takes for other people to see it.
Needless to say, homie ain't flying as long as the Feds are in charge of the gates at the airports.
Watching a cop bodily pick up a kid half his size and slam his head into a stone bollard sealed the deal. I vividly remember the sound of his skull cracking against the stone.
I've stood in court and seen a case against me dismissed as the police had forged the evidence and accidentally had different sets of signatures on the "carbon copies." But there is the world of difference between not trusting the police and in saying you live in a "police state." The latter implies that there are other states that are so much more free that your state is repressive.
No, it doesn't. If there was only one state in the world it could still be a police state.
But there are over 100 states in the world and if all of them are "police states" then the term is meaningless. It implies that tyranny is normal and we should expect it.
...snip...
And yes, I'm arguing the minarchist case here. States can exist without being oppressive, though they typically don't long limit themselves that way.
And yes, I'm arguing the minarchist case here. States can exist without being oppressive, though they typically don't long limit themselves that way.
So the question is, what state is so much more free than the US that you feel justified in calling the US in particular a police state while that state is not?
The US, circa 2000. Or any year prior, especially prior to 1791.
Again, assuming you live in a democracy, that is disagreeing with a law that your own community created.
It's a Federal law. Police states are central government affairs.
Quote
Its not an example of police repression if the police are doing the job that they are paid for. So no - that does not make the USA a "police state."
So the Stasi, the NKVD, the KGB, the Gestapo...not police state entities?
Federal law is made by your federal lawmakers that are voted in by your fellow citizens. Once that happens, of course the police will enforce the law.
The examples you posted of police state entities are welcome. Those are real examples of "police states" - no right to vote to change the laws and no capacity to enforce your legal "rights" against the state.
You might not have experienced it, but plenty have.
When I got my johnson grabbed by the fake cop at the airport a few years ago was my clue. I'm not sure what it takes for other people to see it.
Needless to say, homie ain't flying as long as the Feds are in charge of the gates at the airports.
Watching a cop bodily pick up a kid half his size and slam his head into a stone bollard sealed the deal. I vividly remember the sound of his skull cracking against the stone.
I've stood in court and seen a case against me dismissed as the police had forged the evidence and accidentally had different sets of signatures on the "carbon copies." But there is the world of difference between not trusting the police and in saying you live in a "police state." The latter implies that there are other states that are so much more free that your state is repressive.
No, it doesn't. If there was only one state in the world it could still be a police state.
...snip...
Ah - so calling the US a "police state" is not a meaningful criticism then is it? Why not just call it a "state" and reserve the term "police state" for places like Syria.
Ah - so calling the US a "police state" is not a meaningful criticism then is it? Why not just call it a "state" and reserve the term "police state" for places like Syria.
It draws attention to the increasing militarisation of the police in the US and the continuing squeeze on civil liberties.
EDIT: it certainly is a valid criticism, when comparing the US of today with the US of say, 20 years ago.
So its not true now but it could become true if you warn people.
Fair enough.
No, it certainly is true now. You might not have experienced it, but plenty have.
EDIT: pictures of armed police on a street aren't necessarily evidence of a police state. It is however a sight that chills the blood of any who have been on the receiving end of politically motivated police violence.
All US police are armed. And when faced with organised crime, UK police are armed too and they shoot to kill with hollow point bullets.
I think what you are saying is that you had a bad experience with the police. That's because you come into contact with them
the nature of their work corrupts and many of them will lie through their teeth in court to get you banged up. However, they do provide a service we need and they are prepared to die providing it. I can't see why the sight of the armed police going to hunt an armed enemy would upset you.Since I've not been living under a rock my whole life, I am aware that the police are armed in both the US and the UK. Nevertheless it would be rude not to thank you for the information. I was making the point that the pictures posted on page 1 of this thread are not the sole evidence supporting the statement "the US is a police state".
What I am saying is the the police are used institutionally as a tool of political repression, in what most citizens believe are "free" countries. It has nothing to do with my own numerous experiences of this in the UK, although those showed me that it does happen.
Jump to: