posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 10:24 PM
...Where do you draw the line between a 'police state' and properly equiping the police/government/ect. to actuallybe productive in our current
I am asking this because of some of the responses that I got to my Welfare thread, where some people automatically equated my suggesting more
strenuous application requirements with me supporting the "Police State."
Although police brutality, government eavesdropping, and all of that are very real breaches of our rights and i am not trying to imply that they
I have noticed that far too many people throw it out at a drop of a hat--anything they don't like that the govt. does, or in the extreme cases,
anything that it does, period, they say is part of the oncoming police state.
This doesn't help anybody.
I think that we, first and foremost, need to deliniate what is actually a "police state tactic" and what we are simply labeling as such because it
doesn't fit our political viewpoint and, in a Limbaugh-esk fasion, we are counting on the knee-jerk reaction of people hearing that terminology to
steer them away from considering that point of view.
The second point I want to make here, and I think it is far more important, is where do you draw the line between "police state" and police doing
Let's take the example of ankle bracets.
Some people say that this is the hallmark of the police state, and I can understand their perspective, but really--think about if from the other side.
First of all, these people knew they were committing their respective crimes to begin with--why complain about the fact that they are actually
being punished for it? We'd have more to complain about if they weren't. Then consider that putting a bracelet on someone is far cheaper than
housing them in a jail situation.
Another example is the cities that hand out garbage cans and levy fines against people who overfill them. I see the govts. at a lose-lose situation
here: on one hand people demand that they help stop polution, global warming, wahtever, but when they try to do that, it is cited as heavy-handed
The point I'm winding down to is this. In some form or fasion we need a government. You can try to argue that people are going to be much more happy
in a la-di-da-fluffy every man is equal type of environment, but history shows otherwise. Even in democratic societies we humans gravitate towards
strong leaders--I'd argue that's why our constitution has flown away, but that's another topic. We have a responsibility, as a body being governed,
to ensure that the government acts fairly and legally, but at the same time, it is counterproductive to give it no clout at all.
So, let's discuss.