For our heritage and freedom ! Home | About | Contact | Vincent De Roeck | Liberty Quotes | The Free State | In Flanders Fields | Nova Libertas | Feeds |

The police state in America

In 2002, I asked my House colleagues a rhetorical question with regard to the onslaught of government growth in the post-September 11th era. Is America becoming a police state? The question is no longer rhetorical. We are not yet living in a total police state, but it is fast approaching. The seeds of future tyranny have been sown, and many of our basic protections against government have been undermined. The atmosphere since 2001 has permitted Congress to create whole new departments and agencies that purport to make us safer - always at the expense of our liberty. But security and liberty go hand-in-hand. Members of Congress, like too many Americans, don't understand that a society with no constraints on its government cannot be secure. History proves that societies crumble when their governments become more powerful than the people and private institutions.

Unfortunately, the new intelligence bill passed by Congress two weeks ago moves us closer to an encroaching police state by imposing the precursor to a full-fledged national ID card. Within two years, every American will need a "conforming" ID to deal with any federal agency.

Undoubtedly many Americans and members of Congress don't believe America is becoming a police state, which is reasonable enough. They associate the phrase with highly visible symbols of authoritarianism like military patrols, martial law, and summary executions. But we ought to be concerned that we have laid the foundation for tyranny by making the public more docile, more accustomed to government bullying, and more accepting of arbitrary authority - all in the name of security. Our love for liberty above all has been so diminished that we tolerate intrusions into our privacy that would have been abhorred just a few years ago. We tolerate inconveniences and infringements upon our liberties in a manner that reflects poorly on our great national character of rugged individualism. American history, at least in part, is a history of people who don't like being told what to do. Yet we are increasingly empowering the federal government to run our lives.

Terror, fear, and crises like 9-11 are used to achieve complacency and obedience, especially when citizens are deluded into believing they are still a free people. The loss of liberty, we are assured, will be minimal, short-lived, and necessary. Many citizens believe that once the war on terror is over, restrictions on their liberties will be reversed. But this war is undeclared and open-ended, with no precise enemy and no expressly stated final goal. Terrorism will never be eradicated completely; does this mean future presidents will assert extraordinary war powers indefinitely?

Washington DC provides a vivid illustration of what our future might look like. 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; only the police and criminals have guns. Surveillance cameras are everywhere, monitoring street activity, subway travel, parks, and federal buildings. There's not much evidence of an open society in Washington, DC, yet most folks do not complain - anything goes if it's for government-provided safety and security.

After all, proponents argue, the government is doing all this to catch the bad guys. If you don't have anything to hide, they ask, what are you so afraid of? The answer is that I'm afraid of losing the last vestiges of privacy that a free society should hold dear. I'm afraid of creating a society where the burden is on citizens to prove their innocence, rather than on government to prove wrongdoing. Most of all, I'm afraid of living in a society where a subservient populace surrenders its liberties to an all-powerful government.

It may be true that average Americans do not feel intimidated by the encroachment of the police state. Americans remain tolerant of what they see as mere nuisances because they have been deluded into believing total government supervision is necessary and helpful, and because they still enjoy a high level of material comfort. That tolerance may wane, however, as our standard of living falls due to spiraling debt, endless deficit spending at home and abroad, a declining fiat dollar, inflation, higher interest rates, and failing entitlement programs. At that point attitudes toward omnipotent government may change, but the trend toward authoritarianism will be difficult to reverse.

Those who believe a police state can't happen here are poor students of history. Every government, democratic or not, is capable of tyranny. We must understand this if we hope to remain a free people.

Dit opiniestuk van Ron Paul verscheen ook in The Free State.

Meer teksten van deze auteur op www.ronpaul.org.

3 Reacties:

At 15:37 Anoniem said...

ja en jij ziet er alleen de slechte kanten van. positieve kanten zijn er zeer zeker ook aan dit systeem. Maar eigenlijk denk ik maar 1 ding.

Amerika is groot en machtig, alles wat groot is, wordt met argwaan bekeken. Amerika dus ook. Alles wat groot is moet kapot of gewantrouwd worden. Ik wist ook al heel lang dat Amerika dit wilde doen, dus doe nu eens aub niet alsof jij een messias bent die het licht in onze ogenen moet doen schijnen. Leuk hoor al dat gedoe om helemaal niets. Er is ongetwijfeld wat tegen te doen, maar waarschijnlijk is dit een vrij omslachtig gebeuren. De site is netzoals de rest van de sufferds, half voorgelicht en denkt nu een expert ergens in te zijn.

De bericht geving is waarschijnlijk maar half, want de negatieve aspecten zullen wel uit het onderzoek gehaald zijn en de positieve zwijgen ze dood. Helaas maar waarschijnlijk waar. De 2de rangs media zijn nu eenmaal doordrongen van subjectiviteit. Geen enkel spoor van onderzoek, nee gewoon klakkeloos elkaar na lullen, dat is het devies om je te doen gelden als DE nieuwe messias.

 
At 15:39 Anoniem said...

k denk serieus dat het wel meevalt. Overheden laten nooit toe dat overheidsorganen die een machtsbasis hebben ongecontroleerd te werk gaan. Dat is wat een politiestaat is. Dus in principe is het helemaal ongecontroleerde chaos die zich dan voordoet.

Politiestaat? Een staat waarin de besturende overheidsorganen hun eigen machtssfeer naar willekeur bepalen zonder enige, althans effectieve controle...

En ja in Amerika zijn ze wat harder, maar wanneer er een student sympathie toont met Bin Laden is er dus wel degelijk een reden tot argwaan. Bovendien is er al aangehaald dat de agent dit gewoon mocht doen. Er is dus geen reden tot ophef over dit filmpje. De ophef komt wederom van mensen die zich maar half laten informeren en met die informatie bedacht hebben dat ze de wereld konden besturen en wijzer maken over wat de waarheid echt is.

 
At 11:36 Anoniem said...

Waarom doet Ron Paul toch eens niet mee aan de Amerikaanse presidentsverkiezingen voor één van de twee grote partijen, i.p.v. wat aan de zijlijn te staan roepen in het Congres of i.p.v. zijn tijd en energie in Third Parties te steken? Waarom, Ron? Het Westen heeft u nodig!

 

Een reactie posten