Re: Is It Really a "Police State"?

Mark — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:46:13 -0700

Various states and cities take turns beating down their citizens. Some may be mere PR blunders, but others seem like something more sinister. One recent one I was amazed to hear about was the permaculture bus seizure (aka PermiBus) in Michigan.

http://www.google.com/search?q=permaculture+bus+seizure

Is It Really a "Police State"?

TimK — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:27:33 -0700

When I referred to Helena-West Helena, Arkansas as a “police state,” because of the 24-hour-a-day curfew it had imposed on all its citizens, and because of the current mandate of the police force there to question citizens while they’re taking a walk or to pull them over for driving down the street, I noticed the usual spate of comments. Many people who read the post sympathized with my position. At least one reader took the attitude: don’t be such a wimp; if they have crime like that, they deserve a police state. The most interesting opinion, however, is what I want to talk about here, that maybe Helena-West Helena isn’t a police state.

The argument is basically this: Citizens there are being hassled by the cops. That’s good to report, but we shouldn’t whine about it being a “police state,” because that only undermines our case. Real police states are totalitarian. Real police states don’t just hassle people who break the curfew; they arrest curfew-breakers. Real police states have soldiers, not cops, patrolling the streets, armed with machine guns. Real police states outlaw free speech. The very fact that the ACLU is complaining proves that it’s not a police state. And in a real police state, situations like the one in Helena-West Helena aren’t repaired. Helena-West Helena is not a police state.

I admit, this argument makes sense to me. It’s very convincing. I can sympathize with that point of view. Except…

Here’s what’s wrong with that argument

It’s based upon the Fallacy of Contrast. Instead of defining “police state” and analyzing the situation in Helena-West Helena to see whether or not it is a police state, the argument merely calls upon images of police states that are far worse than anything we’ve experienced in the U.S. Then it compares Helena-West Helena to them (not the other way around). If those examples are “real” police states, then a curfew to fight crime is not so bad in comparison.

Dr. Robert Cialdini wrote about this “contrast principle” almost 25 years ago, in his book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion.

Be assured that the nice little weapon of influence provided by the contrast principle does not go unexploited. The great advantage of this principle is not only that it works but also that it is virtually undetectable. Those who employ it can cash in on its influence without any appearance of having structured the situation in their favor.

For example, the last time I bought a suit, I also bought some shirts and ties. The salesman did what salesmen always do in such a situation: he sold me the suit first. Why? Because after buying an expensive suit, it seems cheap to load up on 3 shirts and 3 ties to match. I was not looking at the price of the shirts and ties, because I had already paid so much for the suit, because they were pocket change in comparison.

The above argument against calling Helena-West Helena a “police state” is essentially the same thing. After listing how bad things are in some places in the world, how bad things could be, the civil rights violations in Helena-West Helena don’t seem so bad in comparison.

This response to comparisons is hard-wired into our primal brains. It short-circuits our logical mind, and that’s why it’s so persuasive. Abuse of this principle often uses the magic words “seeing things in their proper perspective,” but often, it has little to do with perspective.

Years ago, a certain caller called into the late Harry Browne’s radio show. The caller accused Harry, as I remember it, of whining about taxes. So what if a third of everything we work for goes to government? It’s much worse in Europe, where people have to give 40%, 50%, or even 60% of what they make to government. We could stand to have a little more taxes in this country. Harry was correctly put off by this argument. He said he didn’t get it. And I’ll always remember the illustration he used. “If I have a broken leg, and I meet a man with two broken legs, should I break my other leg to be more like him?” With that comment, Harry Browne put the issue in perspective.

(Note: My memory may have failed me on the details of this call, but I’m pretty sure of the gist. And it’s still a great line, even if I quoted it wrong.)

“1984”
Prints Available from Art.com

What is a “police state”?

The problem with the term “police state” is that no one actually knows what it is. Even “real” police states don’t use the term to refer to themselves. We can identify various police state tactics and characteristics. But no government is a total police state, just as no government is 100% civil libertarian. All governments fall somewhere in the middle, on a scale between civil libertarianism and totalitarianism. So rather than asking, “What is a police state?” maybe we should ask, “How much police state is too much?”

Wherever a government is, on the measuring stick between libertarian and police state, events like drug shootings (in Helena-West Helena) and 9/11 (for the federal government) cause the platform to tip in the direction of the police state. The people are more willing to accept authoritarian intervention in their lives, in exchange for the promise of greater safety. Because the platform has tipped, the government begins to slide away from civil libertarianism and toward the police-state end of the continuum.

Is the situation really as slippery as that? Isn’t there something else we can hold onto as we slide down the slope toward totalitarianism? Is there anything that will give us a foothold? Is there some line we can draw on the measuring stick, as if to say, “Beyond this, we cannot slide, because this is our firm footing”?

The founders of the United States thought so, yes, and they created the Bill of Rights for that purpose. James Madison summed up the reason, in his speech before Congress, when he introduced the Bill of Rights:

I believe that the great mass of the people who opposed [the Constitution], disliked it because it did not contain effectual provision against encroachments on particular rights, and those safeguards which they have been long accustomed to have interposed between them and the magistrate who exercised the sovereign power: nor ought we to consider them safe, while a great number of our fellow citizens think these securities necessary.

Defining a term is like drawing a Venn diagram, an illustrative mechanism sometimes used in linguistics. Suppose we draw a circle that represents “police state.” Outside of the circle, not a police state. Move into the circle… What are the boundaries of the circle?

The best boundary I can lay my hands on, one that is widely understood, is the Bill of Rights. Does that mean that every time the government forays into the circle of civil rights protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it becomes a police state? If so, then by that definition, we in the U.S. already live in a police state. We have lived in a police state continuously for some time. In many ways, even the civil libertarians among us have become numb to it. If that is so, then the words “police state” have no definable meaning.

Or do they?

“Patriotic Leadership”
Prints Available from Art.com

Words are weapons; words are tools

In the classic audio series The Essence of Political Persuasion (now available on CD), Michael Cloud adeptly points out, “The rule in politics is ’Define, or be defined.’” He goes on to explain, this is why we always see wars of liberation, never wars of oppression; we have people’s democracies and socialist republics, never communist dictatorships; population control, never genocide; freedom fighters, never Tyrants for a More Controlled and Authoritarian Future. Governments always suppress treason, never murder dissenters; they nationalize industries, never loot and steal businesses. This is also why we have the Department of Defense, and the Department of Justice, and the Internal Revenue Service, because who could be against “defense” or “justice” or “service”? And the Department of Homeland Security, because who wants “insecurity”? And the War on Drugs—not the war against drug addicts, because that would be wrong. And it’s why everything is done “for the children,” because who is against the children?

And it’s why big-government politicians always promote “freedom” (properly defined), never a “police state.”

Every time they rely on police-state tactics, in fact, it’s always to protect our freedoms. How many police state tactics does a government have to use before it’s earned the label “police state”?

Define, or be defined. Either point out police state tactics wherever you see them, and call them that. Or else let the authoritarians, bit by bit, take away your individual liberties and freedom of choice.

The city of Helena-West Helena, Arkansas is indeed a police state. And apparently it’s still working to protect the freedom of the citizens there. Recently, they even arrested a baby thrower with an outstanding warrant. Now, who could possibly be against that?

Just keep chanting, “police state.”

-TimK

P.S. If you still don’t get the irony in the “Patriotic Leadership” poster pictured above, even after reading what I have to say here about words as weapons, see Penn & Teller: Bullsh*t!, Season 5, the “Mount Rushmore” episode.

The Conscience of Abe’s Turn - Is It Really a "Police State"? - Comments

Re: Is It Really a "Police State"?

Is It Really a "Police State"?

Here’s what’s wrong with that argument

What is a “police state”?

Words are weapons; words are tools