It Can't Happen Here

CivilLiberty

Active Member
Nov 13, 2004
821
50
28
Hollywood
An email I received this morning by Ron Paul, Republican Congressman from Texas:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It Can't Happen Here

Ron Paul --- December 20, 2004

In 2002 I asked my House colleagues a rhetorical
question with regard to the onslaught of government
growth in the post-September 11 th 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, donít 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 ìconformingî ID to deal with any
federal agency -- including TSA at the airport.

Undoubtedly many Americans and members of Congress
donít 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 donít like being
told what to do. Yet we are increasingly empowering
the federal government and its agents 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 donít 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, Iím 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.

-------
 
The seeds of future tyranny have been sown,
Many people have thought this over the years of American history. Including many of Pres. Lincoln's detractors, most notably John Booth who is purported to have exclaimed after his heinous deed, sic semper tyrannis, or 'Thus Always To TYrants', the motto of the state of Virginia.

Turn's out the President was just taking those steps he deemed necessary to preserve and protect the country he loved so dearly.

But security and liberty go hand- in-hand.
By what measure?

Most logical people understand that there is a trade-off.

, 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 'onforming' ID to deal with any federal agency
What, like a driver's license? Well, now you've scared me.


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.
Such as what I wonder. I haven't noticed a single intrusion into my privacy at all.

Yet we are increasingly empowering the federal government and its agents to run our lives.
Again, I wonder what exactly it is he's talking about.

I'm afraid of creating a society where the burden is on citizens to prove their innocence, rather than on government to prove wrongdoing.
Seems like a rather irrational fear to me.



Mr. Paul doesn't really provide much substance here, but taking into account the tone in which he writes I'm left to wonder if he is competent enough to conduct himself in a manner befitting his office and the people he represents. But ultimately that is for his constituents to decide. Hopefully most of them will read this letter.
 
The email raises interesting points but what would be the result if we did not have any of the existing security measures in place? Could the problem be that society has developed beyond what ealier philosophers and writers could imagine with our technology? Could the decline of human decency as a general characteristic also be at fault. Trust and cooperation are not as common as they once were. Strength of arms is not an assurance of safety.

For example, imagine how easy it would have been to assassinate any leader during the middle ages, using the technology available at the time, and even possibly get away alive. Yet such assassinations where not as common as they could have been. Was it fear of god or fate, belief in divine right, or something else that held fanatics back?
 
Scaredy-cat libbies!!! Police state, what a joke. :cof:
 
Zhukov said:
Many people have thought this over the years of American history. Including many of Pres. Lincoln's detractors, most notably John Booth who is purported to have exclaimed after his heinous deed, sic semper tyrannis, or 'Thus Always To TYrants', the motto of the state of Virginia.

Turn's out the President was just taking those steps he deemed necessary to preserve and protect the country he loved so dearly.

By what measure?

Most logical people understand that there is a trade-off.


What, like a driver's license? Well, now you've scared me.


Such as what I wonder. I haven't noticed a single intrusion into my privacy at all.

Again, I wonder what exactly it is he's talking about.

Seems like a rather irrational fear to me.



Mr. Paul doesn't really provide much substance here, but taking into account the tone in which he writes I'm left to wonder if he is competent enough to conduct himself in a manner befitting his office and the people he represents. But ultimately that is for his constituents to decide. Hopefully most of them will read this letter.
Mr. Paul has a very interestig constituency ! :teeth:
http://nationalatlas.gov/congdist/Tx14_108.gif

some of the poorest counties in Texas
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top