
The Criminalization of Everyday Life - mankypro
http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175781/
======
dmix
I wish people would move beyond 1984 and quote more Foucault's Discipline &
Punishment [1]. There is a much deeper-rooted problem in society than mass
surveillance or militarization of police. It's the question of why we all let
this happen without any resistance. We accept and welcome our controllers.
Foucault wrote about the effects of prisoner mindset in society in the
1960-70s. Our subjugation and tolerance to authoritarianism is very widespread
and not limited to just police.

We're not just afraid to be anti-authoritative, we're institutionalized since
our birth in schools and the concept of control is in embedded in every aspect
of life (such as in language found in politics, school work, or newspapers).

Mass-surveillance is just a more direct implementation of "panopticon" [2]
applied to everyday life, existing at all times. Having committed a crime is
no longer the requirement to be imprisoned, whether physically or mentally.

[http://www.amazon.com/Discipline-Punish-Birth-Prison-
Vintage...](http://www.amazon.com/Discipline-Punish-Birth-Prison-Vintage-
ebook/dp/B007OLYO7I/)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon)

~~~
jseliger
_quote more Foucault 's Discipline & Punishment_

Foucault's style is (possibly deliberately) obtuse, and his knowledge of
history dubious at best, per Keith Windschuttle's book _The Killing of
History_ : [http://www.amazon.com/The-Killing-History-Theorists-
Murderin...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Killing-History-Theorists-
Murdering/dp/1893554120?ie=UTF8&tag=thstsst-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957)
.

 _It 's the question of why we all let this happen without any resistance_

Because it's easy, because _most of the time_ it doesn't affect us, and
because it's hard for one voter to fix the problem. Bryan Caplan's _The Myth
of the Rational Voter_ is very good on this subject. Most people (and voters)
don't even know how many Senators their state has, or their terms, let alone
why complex subjects like privacy are important. Based on Caplan's book, I
think ignorance is a more reasonable explanation than a fear of being anti-
authoritarian or an institutionalized mindset.

~~~
rolux
That critique of Foucault is much too cheap. To any halfway competent theory
hacker, it will sound like "But Python uses significant whitespace, and Guido
van Rossum's knowledge of language design is dubious at best." It's hard to
base a serious discussion on that type of argument.

To me, one of the major takeaways from Foucault is his renouncement of the
"repression hypothesis". In a nutshell, he proposes to understand power not as
a binary relation between oppressors and the oppressed, but as a much more
molecular system that spans all sectors of society, and whose modus operandi
is not primarily repression, but rather motivation (making someone speak,
articulate desires, etc).

Deleuze's "Postscript on the Societies of Control",
([https://files.nyu.edu/dnm232/public/deleuze_postcript.pdf](https://files.nyu.edu/dnm232/public/deleuze_postcript.pdf),
also linked a bit further down), written in the late 1980s, can serve as a
very lucid short introduction to (and escalation of) that idea. Worth the
read, it's really just five pages.

~~~
pistle
Foucault is SmallTalk. Tangentially inspirational, but mostly useless in
modern practice.

Deleuze's postscript... "metastable states coexisting in one and the same,
like a universal system of deformation."

That's your counter-argument?

~~~
coldtea
> _Foucault is SmallTalk. Tangentially inspirational, but mostly useless in
> modern practice._

I don't think you can categorize a philosopher/historian in such crude terms.
For one, this pressuposes that there's some "modern practice" of history,
which makes it incompatible or difficult for practical reasons to use
Foucault's theory anymore. That's not the case in the least -- modern academic
discourse in such matters refers to Foucault all the time.

(And even if the comparison was apt, I'd still take SmallTalk over, say, Java
that replaced it, any time of day).

> _That 's your counter-argument?_

No, his counter-argument is a lucid essay, of which you extracted, out of
context (and cut in half), a small, non characteristic, phrase that you find
troubling. Might as well extract some oneliner from type theory full of heavy
math notation to "prove" that Haskell is impossible to learn.

In fact, the paragraph the excerpt belongs to is crystal clear, wether you
agree with it's contents or not.

What he says in that part is that in older societies (those based on
disclipline), a person moved from one place of instilling discipline to the
other (from school, to army service, to vocational education, to the factory,
etc). In contrast to that, in modern societies, all those distinct places and
stages have been merged (the school is also like a prison, the workplace is
also like the army, etc).

~~~
Perceval
Calling Deleuze lucid is the opposite of the truth: his use of language is
obfuscatory and arcane.

~~~
steveklabnik
Deleuze by himself is actually very straightforward, I bet you're speaking of
his work with Guattari.

------
crazygringo
I can't say I'm exactly surprised. If you ran a police department, you're not
about to turn down a free tank -- I mean, how cool is that, toys for the
boys?!?!

What's bothersome is that a police department is _allowed_ to do this. That
DoD rules don't prohibit selling/giving military equipment to police
departments. That state legislatures don't prohibit it. A police department,
like any organization, is always going to amass all the power/capability it
can. Where are the people who are supposed to be limiting and regulating it?

~~~
Houshalter
Whats wrong with a police department having a tank? I'd say it's a waste of
money, but if it's completely free there's no downside.

~~~
DanBC
It's not completely free. They need to pay to store it, insure it, run it.
They need to have staff (diverted from their other tasks) to maintain it and
operate it and bureaucrat it.

There's a hit to their public image too. When your home or car is burgled you
don't want to see a tank.

And, as toomuchtodo hints at, heavily arming a police force leads to those
guns being used. Ignoring "bad guys" for a moment, shooting innocent dogs of
innocent people is probably a bad thing. Shooting innocent bystanders is
probably a bad thing.

[http://www.popehat.com/2013/12/05/nypd-baby-you-know-we-
love...](http://www.popehat.com/2013/12/05/nypd-baby-you-know-we-love-you-why-
do-you-make-us-angry-like-that/)

Obvious Popehat bias, but still, it's pretty alarming.

~~~
Houshalter
>It's not completely free.

True but it's really no different than a truck or existing police vehicles
cost-wise. And it's free. In fact it looks pretty similar to police vehicles
already in use:
[http://i.imgur.com/DQFJESy.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/DQFJESy.jpg)

>And, as toomuchtodo hints at, heavily arming a police force leads to those
guns being used.

Perhaps, but this is a vehicle, not a gun. It's just a big bullet proof truck.

~~~
kbenson
Nothing is ever free, it's paid for at some point. In this case, it's our tax
dollars, which could be spent on something more worthy. I know for my state,
if I could direct all that money towards trade programs for prisons, I think
that would be a much better investment towards serving the same goals, even if
it takes longer to pay out.

------
MrZongle2
When I read something like this, I always think back to when I would see some
tinfoil-hat type ranting on Usenet 20 years ago about the growing
surveillance/police state in America. It was generally eye-rolling or
unintentionally hilarious stuff.

What's depressing is that it's starting to look like they were right.

~~~
sliverstorm
The real tinfoil types believe that the government cloud research facility in
Alaska controls the weather globally and can cause earthquakes and tsunamis on
command. We don't have any indication to believe _that 's_ true yet.

~~~
MrZongle2
True; there are the tinfoil hat types that believe that there was a second
gunman on the grassy knoll, and then there are those that believe Bigfoot
killed Kennedy with the mind powers he learned from the Lizard People of Zeta
Reticuli B.

Edit: from the downvotes, I can only assume that I've offended the Bigfoot
fans.

~~~
larrys
"from the downvotes, I can only assume"

Separately, as a karma strategy, it makes sense to upvote something that you
reply to (regardless of whether you agree or disagree) as it tends to make
your reply higher up (because the parent comment is higher up) and get more
visibility which in theory should result in more karma.

~~~
evacuationdrill
I do this, but I justify it by thinking that the thread was important enough
to me to reply to, so I should vote. I don't care about karma, but I'm more
likely to get replies, or so I hope.

------
iambateman
If every police station in the country is equipped with military-grade weapons
and vehicles, what happens in the event of despotic leadership?

Suppose someone rises to power with little regard for legislative oversight
and activates the sleeping military at home. It might start with a real (or
faked) terror event coordinated across several major cities. It wouldn't take
much at all, 5-10 cities, and suddenly: 1\. Internet & cell communications are
shut down 2\. a national state of emergency is declared 3\. A curfew is issued
4\. Dissidents are squashed via a military police force with little recourse
themselves. 5\. Everyone is required to have location-aware implants "for
safety."

With a little fear, a government could take full, permanent control of their
citizens via aggressive laws and more aggressive enforcers. Would it even take
two weeks?

~~~
rprospero
Perhaps I'm naive, but I never understood why a despotic US President would
need all of these weapons and vehicles. I mean, they're a nice convenience,
but they're complete unnecessary for a takeover.

My thought would be that you just need the presidency and maybe six high
ranking military officers. You then declare a presidential address where you
announce that you're declaring yourself dictator for life. If anyone objects,
you'll nuke Moscow. Of course, Russia will respond by annihilating the entire
US, so objecting to the take over is essentially a death sentence.

Let the citizens have their guns. They can't shoot an ICBM.

~~~
ahomescu1
Sounds like a B-movie plot.

The problem is, the newly-appointed tyrant would need everyone in the military
to play along with the blackmail. All it would take is a few rogue Air Force
pilots to shoot down that ICBM.

~~~
chongli
How on earth is an Air Force pilot going to shoot down an ICBM? A Minuteman
III can reach speeds of 15,000mph.

~~~
etherael
With magical patriot fuel that provides thrust relative to the amount of
ridiculous drama that has thus far been painted on the stupid propaganda movie
reel. Likely when the meaningless death of the goofy but loveable sidekick has
been concluded somehow and the ex quarterback pilot jock is sufficiently
despairing and enraged at the same time while his high school sweetheart is
crying over said death in some sterile but tense government control room and
he can hear her on comms as he spurts out his last gasp of impotent rage doing
the actually impossible thing and making watching vaccuous halfwit proles feel
proud to be American.

Queue complete bullshit speech by sufficiently aristocratic looking political
figure about lessons hard learned and tests successfully overcome.

Swelling music, much tribalism, wow.

Roll credits.

------
aestra
WOW! The most shocking linked article is the kids who got arrested for waiting
for the bus. They were excepted to plea bargain. That's right, the charges
weren't dropped!!!!!!

edit the DA dismissed the charges but the police chief thinks the arrest was
justified.

[http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/04/charges...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/04/charges-
against-ny-teens-will-be-dismissed/3868097/)

Interview with the coach (he seems like a really nice guy):

[http://www.infowars.com/kids-arrested-waiting-for-school-
bus...](http://www.infowars.com/kids-arrested-waiting-for-school-bus/)

~~~
bilbo0s
Ok... that one is crazy.

Obey the cop and get suspended... or obey the teacher and go to jail.

Just leaving these kids in no-win situations. SOMEONE has to be willing to
listen and hear the kids out.

Either the cop has to hear them out, and then say "OK, well I'll just keep an
eye on you until your teacher comes."

Or the teacher has to hear them out, and then say "Well, OK, it was my fault
for telling you guys to stand there so I'm not going to suspend anyone this
time."

But you can't put kids in a situation like that and then say... "It's YOUR
fault!"

That's insanity. This wasn't ANY of these kids' fault.

~~~
aestra
Did you see the interview with the coach? He showed up, identified himself,
said these kids were in the right place and they were going to a basketball
game all while speaking very respecfully and the cops said if he didn't leave
the coach was going to jail too! Apparently being out in public is illegal.

They were going to a basketball game not school so they probably wouldn't get
suspended but they were expected to be there. Plus they wanted to be there. It
was according to the coach the normal place they caught the bus for games.

~~~
smtddr
_> >Apparently being out in public is illegal._

Only if you're black.

~~~
digitalengineer
You're thinking _1900 's_ style. It's the 2000's now and _anyone_ can be
deemed 'illegal'. If you look poor that is.

------
api
This is a common way that a totalitarian state can be implemented on top of an
apparent democratic republic: pass so many laws (and contradictory / complex
laws) that anyone can be found guilty of something, then enforce the law
selectively.

~~~
rumcajz
Yep. We've had something like that in Eastern Europe during the communist era.

~~~
spiritplumber
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the
power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals,
one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes
impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

(From Atlas Shrugged -- Damn, it's bad when I of all people am quoting Ayn
Rand).

~~~
jotm
What's wrong with Ayn Rand?

~~~
mathgladiator
Generally, people don't like her for lacking 'heart'. However, most people
don't actually understand her message, nor do they appreciate her definition
of selfishness.

It's very unfortunate because her writings were on the spot on about human
behavior.

~~~
mentalpiracy
Rand is difficult for many people because her philosophy is essentially
standalone; take it all or take none of it. You cannot really take one small
lesson of Rand on its own - it always comes tightly bound to the premises it
is derived from.

------
ericthor
>“in an era of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and mass killings in schools,
police agencies need to be ready for whatever comes their way..."

There has always been terrorism in the United States.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States)

As well as mass shootings. [http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-
shootings-m...](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-
mother-jones-full-data)

This current "era" isn't defined by the number or scale of these tragedies but
by institutions' and the public's reaction to them. If we want to protect the
lives and welfare of the average U.S. citizen our money and efforts would be
better spent tackling some of the less newsworthy health issues.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_preventable_causes_of_d...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_preventable_causes_of_death#Leading_causes_in_the_United_States)

Also the time frame of the Sandy Hook Shooting was extremely brief. The
shooter was believed to enter the school around 9:30 the first 911 call was
made at 9:35 and the last shot heard was at 9:40 and the police enter at 9:44.
The MRAP and other military artillery obviously wouldn't have made a
difference due to time frame of the tragedy.

------
JonnieCache
The fact that this is being instigated by the federal government makes me
suspect that this is deliberate planning for the long-term consequences of
american societal breakdown, for when the war on drugs isn't enough to control
the ever-growing underclass anymore.

Does this kind of thinking still place me firmly with the tinfoil contingent?

~~~
alan_cx
Having a so called police force like this _is_ societal breakdown.

To me, current US policing looks much like how the Brits patrolled Northern
Ireland back in the day, with the army. Only thing the US is missing is check
points and road blocks. Don't kid yourselves, the US does not have a police
force, it has a domestic army.

Only hope Americans have is in the individuals who wear the uniform. Would
American uniformed son and daughters, mothers and fathers turn on non
uniformed Americans?

On the other hand.... If the main government got all evil and what not,
couldn't this local police force defend the people with all this hardware?
Aren't they all sort of independent, under local state or what ever control? I
mean, it we are talking revolution and all that, its not a given who side the
police would be on, is it?

~~~
dingaling
An interesting realisation in Northern Ireland in the mid-1970s was that Army
operations had to be brought back under the umbrella of civilian authority.

From 1969 to 1977 the Army in NI basically operated independently of the
constabulary, with only informal liaison and co-ordination, whilst pursuing
their primary mission.

But from then onwards the Army was seconded to Security Co-ordinating
Commission and was re-orientated towards support of the policeman on the beat.

The UK Government had realised that soldiers having unregulated police-like
powers over people was counter-productive, and the response was to re-
establish the 'primacy of the constabulary' to give some faith in the justice
system. If you were arrested, it was by a police officer with his number
visible on his lapel.

------
tedks
This article is not about police tanks. (Even though it's horrifying that if
the tanks were about to roll into America's equivalent of Tianeman Square, our
American Tank Man would just be tasered, at best.)

This article is about the prison/police system becoming the fundamental axis
of civil society. Schools are run like prisons, and increasingly with police
presence. Minority groups are, as always, increasingly targeted for harassment
and neutralization. If you get on the radar of the police state, you and your
family will be hounded forever. If you are imprisoned, it's more likely than
not that you'll be held in solitary confinement.

The article doesn't seem to answer the question I wish I knew the answer to --
how did we get here? What happened that made the United States this way? Was
it always like this, behind the curtains, just a nest of HUAACs and J Edgar
Hoovers?

Well, now the J Edgar Hoover of 2013 knows everything about everyone, he can
arrest anyone for any reason at any time, and he can't be opposed by any means
I'm aware of. That iconic picture of a hippy putting a flower in the barrel of
a riot cop's gun could never happen today -- as soon as the hippy reached for
the gun I'm sure his head would be blown off.

------
ctdonath
Used to be military surplus stores would acquire military surplus and sell
them to an amused and subsequently harmless citizenry. All that old equipment
has to go _somewhere_ ; now such civilian possession is prohibited (even used
Humvees (basically just off-road cars) cannot, by law, be sold to the public),
it ends up routed to the only group legally allowed to have it and wants it:
police. In the meantime, stores that sold military surplus have adapted by
selling military-like knockoff gear, and would-be buyers are pumping money
into the fast-growing "tactical gear" market.

Fact is, if all this military equipment were sold on open market, no harm
would come of it. Used to be available and wasn't a problem then, and the
rather large paramilitary equipment market isn't a problem now. Question is:
why is the government so afraid of its own citizens possessing such gear?

~~~
redblacktree
> Question is: why is the government so afraid of its own citizens possessing
> such gear?

Is that the right question, considering that the tactical gear market is
allowed to exist? I'm apparently too lazy to do it, but it would probably be
instructive to look at the history of that ban on military-to-citizen sales.

~~~
ctdonath
Short version:

In 1934, machineguns & "destructive devices" were hit with a $200 "transfer
tax" and subject to tight paperwork regulations and severe penalties for
violations. Given the products in question cost around $50, and the tax
equaled some $3000 in today's US$, it was practically a ban. Inflation brought
the tax down to affordable (cough) levels today.

In 1986, possession/manufacture of new machineguns was banned outright. Old
ones could still be owned & transferred, but between the severely limited
supply and accumulated $200 taxes, prices have increased about 25x over what
they would cost unrestricted, making them desirable for investment and
undesirable for mundane use.

When the US Army transitioned to "Humvees" replacing Jeeps, the contract
included a clause prohibiting resale to civilians. Likewise other equipment
cannot be resold, not so much by law but by contract.

As it is, the tactical gear market is "allowed" to exist mainly because there
isn't much way to legally prohibit it. Most such gear is objectively
indistinguishable from other common products (clothing, camping equipment,
radios, hunting gear); the differences are significant in specialized use but
nowhere near enough to be codified in law. As demonstrated during the now-
expired 10-year "assault weapons ban", the marketplace will come up with all
kinds of creative solutions to bridge any gaps caused by prohibition (10 round
limit? get subcompact pistols or .50-caliber semi-auto rifles. Weight limits?
superlight plastic/carbon-fiber guns.)

~~~
redblacktree
> When the US Army transitioned to "Humvees" replacing Jeeps, the contract
> included a clause prohibiting resale to civilians. Likewise other equipment
> cannot be resold, not so much by law but by contract.

Do you know why this is? It sounds more like economic protectionism than a
desire to keep them out of the hands of civilians.

~~~
ctdonath
Confluence of both? Sometimes disparate goals make for good symbiosis.

BTW: MREs ("meals ready to eat") are likewise restricted, marked with warnings
about resale.

------
coldcode
What a depressing article(s). Our reality is only going to get worse since
there is little we can (or have the will to) do. At least in the Ukraine
people are really contemplating change. Here we watch our football and our
shows and fawn over celebrities and nothing changes.

~~~
anon4
Yeah, but in Ukraine, they're digging themselves out of a much deeper hole. If
they manage to get accepted in the EU, a lot of them would emigrate west. USA
citizens don't have that option. There isn't a "west" for someone from the USA
to emigrate to. USA _is_ the west.

You shouldn't compare your corruption with Ukraine's or other Soviet Bloc
countries'. Those people have a place to run to, as hard as getting there is.
You have nowhere to run.

~~~
afterburner
There's plenty of Western countries that are less screwed up than the US.

~~~
tokenadult
For example? What's involved for a citizen of the United States who would like
to settle in one of those countries permanently?

~~~
afterburner
I know plenty of US citizens that have emigrated to Canada, via school or work
related methods. It's not particularly hard, it just takes time for the
paperwork to clear.

------
300bps
This is a continuation of the military industrial complex. There aren't enough
wars, but companies that supply the military still need to make money. So they
make so much equipment that the DoD needs to give their completely usable
equipment away for free.

This page should make any U.S. taxpayer sick and any non-U.S. citizen worried:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_e...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures)

~~~
tunap
The more things change the more they stay the same.
[https://archive.org/details/WarIsARacket](https://archive.org/details/WarIsARacket)

------
marincounty
I have felt we have too many laws and over zealous cops for some time now. I
guess I'm old--I was born in 1972, but I can assure you; things were not like
it has been in the last twenty years. I started noticing a change in the late
80's and it's(a over regulated society, cops who abuse the system) just gotten
worse. If Jesus Christ reappeared he would most likely be arrested for
indecency. Ticketed for fishing without license. Arrested for loitering.
Arrested for holding an event without a permit. Ticketed for sleeping in
someone manger, without written consent. It's really not funny when you get an
expensive ticket for no reason. I have thought about this and a solution; tie
all fines to income, and require all Cruisers to be wired with 24/7 cams. This
is a good website, but I sometimes wonder if I just blowing smoke, and racking
up clicks for a already Rich Dude? Some of these topics are so important they
deserve their own webpage?

~~~
noonespecial
_If Jesus Christ reappeared he would most likely be..._

All those crimes?! Jeeze, its sounds like they'd friggin' crucify him...

------
CurtMonash
"If you didn't do anything wrong, you have nothing to fear (at least from the
cops)" is looking stupider every day.

~~~
rjd
Not being from the states I've only seen this through documentaries and expose
shows... but to me its just seems to be the police are starting to treat
everybody the way minorities have said they have been treated for decades.

------
snake_plissken
I just find it so incredible that a hospital can bill you for a rectal cavity
search ordered by police/judge. Honestly I think my mind is experiencing some
sort of race condition as I try to pick a word that accurately describes my
incredulity about this. Ughhhhhh

~~~
userulluipeste
I share your sentiment, but trying to analyze objectively the entire scenario
from different angles I find acceptable for the subject being searched to pay
the bill if he is found guilty (which is hiding illegal stuff in his body). I
don't agree with the shaky grounds used by the law enforcement to bring up the
body search though.

------
CalRobert
Surprised this didn't get any comments. It's a good reason to leave (or not
move to) the US, or increasingly, the UK.

~~~
venomsnake
Do you think it is better anywhere?

~~~
mkaziz
Canada?

~~~
mhurron
Satan's Little Helper?

The country that seems to simply enacts laws and legislation that just mirror
the US so they look like good little friends?

The country that assists the NSA as needed?

That Canada?

~~~
afterburner
The general attitude, and the implications of everyone having health care, are
far better. The police in general have a far friendlier disposition. It's not
all about authority and the "listen to me I'm the coach/sergeant" sports-
talk/military-talk mentality. There is also no real race issue the way African
Americans experience in the US (a systematic, paranoid, aggressive
marginalization of a large section of society).

And there certainly isn't anything like the militarization of the police like
there is in the US, which is the focus of this article.

~~~
r-s
We have major race issues with Natives, nobody wants to talk about it though.

~~~
afterburner
Please see my reply to mhurron above (I can't copy paste it because HN deletes
it as spam)

------
VonGuard
Appropriate, seeing as how Kent State is in Ohio, too. Clearly, they learned
their lessons in Ohio: shoot students first, ask questions later.

~~~
microtherion
I was reminded of this, too, and took it as a reminder that the late 60s were
not always as peaceful as the article’s author would have it.

------
whiddershins
What's striking is the correlation between excessive police tactics and
enforcement of victimless crimes.

From a right libertarian point of view, it is the government's responsibility
to protect your rights, not to protect you.

From a left libertarian point of view, it is the government's responsibility
to demonstrate that the good of enforcing a law outweighs the loss of
individual freedom and other harm of enforcing it.

Drugs, immigration, fail those tests. Many sex crimes fail those tests.
Seatbelt laws probably fail.

The police have to be so aggressive about these things because they never lent
themselves to enforcement in the first place.

------
DanielBMarkham
One of the underpinnings of the U.S. Constitution is the Bill Of Rights, one
of which states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of
a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."

People go bouncing off the wall around this issue as if it were one having
solely to do with owning guns, but the real purpose is arranging the real
power in the government. The people reserve and are ultimately responsible for
the use of lethal force in the United States. They can delegate that power to
the government for certain things, like a defense department or law
enforcement, but at the end of the day, it's everybody carrying guns that are
responsible for social order. At least that's the way it was set up.

As we've drifted away from that principle, by assigning more and more powers
to the defense department and police agencies, (gun control is part of this
but not the only part), those folks have quite naturally started viewing
themselves as the privileged few to hold the power to make things go boom.
Then we got rid of the volunteer military, further separating the mass of the
population from the things carrying lethal force.

So nowadays, if you want to become a specialist in the application of power
tools to destroy people and things, you pick one of a few different career
paths and become one of the chosen few. This is a VERY recent development. Not
50 years ago it was commonplace to know people who could operate machine guns,
explosives, and drive tanks around. To those folks, cops were just another
working Joe like them except they wore a badge. On the other side, cops viewed
the population as a trained asset to have and use in time of crisis. It was
not unusual to consider gathering up as many armed men as necessary from an
area to conduct police operations.

But the professionals got involved, and having that kind of power was viewed
as a terribly complicated responsibility that the average guy couldn't handle.
This created a wall in society. On both sides now, it's us against them. We
need MRAPS because, hell, _anything_ can happen, and there's just a few of us
cops in this county. We are no longer all in it together. It's not like if AQ
comes knocking we can knock on doors and ask for help.

This is a self-fulfilling feedback loop: as the police arm themselves more and
more with special gear, the average person really can't operate it. So even
more specialized training is required. Same goes for military gear, where this
divide originated.

I would suggest that what we need is some sort of ready reserve system where
everybody is trained at reaching 18 on how to safely use most all common forms
of police and military gear. I'd further suggest that local police departments
be required to have a certain percentage of their patrols as civilian ride-
alongs.

There are a lot of things that can be done here, and we don't have to argue
gun control to make progress. But I think we _do_ need an understanding of how
we got here in the first place. This is a trend that has been a long time
coming. The War On Terror just exacerbated it.

~~~
diydsp
Thank you for the patient post.

People will probably despise me for this, but why don't we have compulsory
military duty in the U.S. like other countries?

It would give people some discipline. It would discourage us from acting
arrogant, "lol! we should bomb them!" It would give people some skills. If it
was equally applied, no one would have any disadvantage. It would make people
feel much more secure, without delegating their security to others.

The real scourge is that in order to be economically competitive, we must all
hyper-specialize and become experts in a single, narrow area. We can no longer
lucidly judge others b/c we have less in common with one another.

A work buddy said in the 1950s in the U.S., teenagers would hang out with the
police. He distinctly remembers hanging out in a police car, smoking
marijuana, while the cops chided him because he said he couldn't afford real
tobacco to smoke. I want to get back to that world. I want to provoke other
nations less, so we're no longer a target of terrorism. I want us to get back
to the business of making our lives leisurely through technology, rather than
more awesome. "More awesome" means were doing more with the same energy as we
exerted in the industrial revolution. I'd much rather see us getting less done
with less energy.

~~~
jotm
Jesus, no it would not!

It would lead to the US military becoming way too large, and given the prowess
in media propaganda, you'll get tens of millions of people with a highly
militaristic mindset with nothing to do - think current soldier worshipping
x10.

~~~
Tossrock
I disagree. The current volunteer-only military service means that only people
with that mindset join in the first place. If there were compulsory military
service, that would mean everyone else, regular people with no desire for
glory/etc would be in there too. Look at what happened during Vietnam. There
was such drastic anti-war sentiment specifically because anyone could be
drafted.

------
memracom
Americans really should learn more about the Soviet KGB and its predecessor,
the NKVD, and how they ran a campaign of terror against citizens who did
little more than have a different opinion of how the country should be run.
Because now that America no longer compares itself to the Soviet Union, this
is the kind of police state that is being constructed in the USA.

Meanwhile, in Russia, the place where the Soviet system used to be, they have
moved in the opposite direction and dismantled most of the police state. In
Russia people have more personal freedoms with respect to the state than they
do in the USA. Of course one unfortunate side effect of so much freedom is
that there was a great increase in corruption and the growth of the oligarchs
after the fall of the Soviet Union. But Russia is dealing with this step by
step, reducing corruption and reigning in the oligarchs. Their ideal seems to
be the USA of the 1960s or 70s, but not the USA of today.

~~~
bananacurve
>In Russia people have more personal freedoms with respect to the state than
they do in the USA.

How it is possible for someone to reach such a stupendous level of confusion
boggles the mind. Even if the Russian propaganda minister were to make such a
declaration he surely isn't deluded enough to believe it to be true.

~~~
memracom
Well, I speak Russian fluently (and therefore can follow the Russian
media/Internet) and I have visited the country 3 times. In addition I have
visited another ex-Soviet country, Ukraine, over a dozen times. You really
have to go to these places to understand them, and preferably have some level
of competence in the language so that you can speak to a variety of people,
not just some egotistic activist that gets his jollies out of manipulating
foreign media.

~~~
bananacurve
I have spoken to Ukrainians and Russians, students and programmers, and they
would be offended at your assessment of the situation. The most telling part
of my conversations with them was when I suggested that things are getting at
least a little better. They were adamant that things were not getting better.
Anyway they were glad to be in the states.

~~~
memracom
Immigrants have gone through incredible emotional struggle to adapt to a new
culture. They are not a reliable source to assess how things are in their
country of origin, especially not how things are currently. And to lump
together Russia and Ukraine and say that things are not getting better, is
gross oversimplification. Ukraine has had weak leaders and strong oligarchs
since the fall of the Soviet Union. However Russia has had strong leaders
(Yeltsin and then Putin) who have consistently pushed back on their oligarchs.
In particular Putin has spent most of his leadership period fighting
corruption, reigning in oligarchs, and undertaking the perestroika
(redevelopment) that Gorbachev was never able to achieve. Things in Russia are
getting better while things in Ukraine are getting worse. They are heading in
opposite directions and many Ukrainians are aware of this which is why public
dissent has been growing there.

Being offended at someone's assessment of a situation is a political
statement. We should not be surprised to hear people making political
statements about a political situation. None of this makes one person more
right or another one more wrong.

Politics is very hard to figure out, and we should all be careful of making
oversimplified statements. It's not as simple as Ukraine signs an agreement
with the EU and then everything is rosy. Neither is it as simple Putin
twisting Yanukovitch's arm. This is a bloody complex geopolitical problem and
Ukraine is getting no support in solving it from anyone outside Ukraine. They
have to work through it, accept the hard knocks, and ultimately reap whatever
benefits that their decision brings. Cheerleaders on the sidelines have no
skin in the game.

------
rglover
Here's what I don't understand: what is the ultimate goal of this newfound
desire to police everything? The obvious answer is control over people en
mass, but say that happens...then what?

Articles like this (which I'm glad are being written) point out the flaws and
injustice in the system, but don't discuss the presumed results "those in
control" are looking to achieve by manipulating it.

From what I understand, the desired result is to minimize the autonomy of the
general public and funnel the bulk of money, control, and power into the hands
of a national elite. What happens next (an honest question, as I have some
semi-paranoid theories but am curious to hear from someone who is a bit more
educated on the topic)?

~~~
richardjordan
We live in an era of delicate balance between global overpopulation and
resource depletion. We have exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet, we
are at peak supply rates for oil and other essential resources. We're
rendering things less habitable and global climate change - coupled with water
table depletion and topsoil burnout - threatens to crash food crops in some
key regions.

It's not a conspiracy. People who know things - and when you have wealth you
have the ability to know things - tend to see that we have a period of
incredibly instability coming involving a lot of dying and misery. In such a
situation having a tight control of the masses and a control of resources in
the hands of a tiny elite benefits that elite in ways that times of abundance
make seem unnecessary.

~~~
rglover
Thanks for the response. Fairly inline with what I thought. Next question, how
to prepare? Is it futile to make an effort to protect myself and those around
me, or is such a thing feasible (I imagine this would require a huge edit to
lifestyle)?

I don't want to be "that guy" but I also don't want to be caught in the
headlights if shit hits the fan (which it seems is inevitable). Anything to
study to guide my thinking without going full-on bomb shelter?

~~~
userulluipeste
You may plan your life to get a minimal exposure to future problematic
development. Moving to a quiet place overseas might be a wise decision. This
being noted though, you may also chose to gird up your belt, lift up your
boots, and stay put enjoying what's coming - it'll be a helluva show
(definitely worth witnessing)!

~~~
richardjordan
I have two kids. One with special needs. I see no joy in a world of increasing
instability, rising violence and significant economic shocks.

------
acuozzo
This is _AMAZING_! We're getting closer and closer to a cyberpunk society
(unfortunately, authoritarianism is necessary, but not sufficient for this).
Soon it'll be like _Escape From L.A._ or _Snow Crash_ or _Neuromancer_!

I can't wait to stroll down the streets of Chiba like Case.

I can't wait to hack around in the Metaverse like Hiro.

I can't wait to explore the underbelly of prison-islands like Snake.

We just need a bit more authoritarianism, some advanced cybernetic implants,
and _just enough_ unrest for a _Modern Wild West_ to be born.

Does anyone else plan on coming along for the ride?

 _HACK THE GIBSON! HACK THE PLANET!_

~~~
ilaksh
LOL. I like Gibson, technology, and stuff too, but that's not a reason to be
stoked about authoritarianism.

Anyway you are probably kidding.

~~~
acuozzo
> Anyway you are probably kidding.

Yep! Well, mostly. I'd say 95%.

------
afterburner
I generally agree with the article, but I object to this section:

 _" And the mood is spreading. Take the asset bubble collapse of 2008 and the
rising cries of progressives for the criminal prosecution of Wall Street
perpetrators, as if a fundamentally sound financial system had been abused by
a small number of criminals who were running free after the debacle. Instead
of pushing a debate about how to restructure our predatory financial system,
liberals in their focus on individual prosecution are aping the punitive zeal
of the authoritarians. A few high-profile prosecutions for insider trading
(which had nothing to do with the last crash) have, of course, not changed
Wall Street one bit."_

I think that the self-serving, damaging actions of those with a lot of power
that affected the entire world's economy is worth looking into at least some
prosecution, it's hardly in the same league as what happened to three innocent
teenagers waiting for a bus. And if insider trading isn't related to the last
crash, then of course prosecuting it isn't going to change anything.

~~~
JackFr
The idea that there is a small cabal of powerful people who brought the
economy to its knees while enriching themselves through their knowing and
active malfeasance is a fairy tale.

To ethically prosecute people you have to competently and in good faith
believe they have broken specific laws. And you need to know the actions, and
how specifically they violated the law. An unfortunate outcome is not
sufficient.

~~~
afterburner
I made no claim that there is a small cabal of powerful people controlling
everything brought down the system.

There are, however, Goldman Sachs people that lied to their own customers in
order to make money, for example. That is the kind of behaviour that can be
persecuted, mostly along the conflict of interest or fraud lines. Those are
specific laws.

Oh, by the way, heard of the Libor scandal? Not specifically related to the
crash, but interesting reading:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor_scandal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor_scandal)

~~~
JackFr
Fair enough -- 'cabal' was my loaded word.

I have no problem with Fabulous Fab going to jail, although I don't thick it's
quite as cut-and-dried as you imagine.

I'm familiar with the Libor scandal.

But in both those cases particular people did specific things which were
actionable.

~~~
afterburner
How many have gone to jail over these actionable items?

~~~
JackFr
AFAIK Fab has yet to be sentenced, and note that as a foreign national, he's
not eligible for the country club prisons.

At the same time, the you don't see prosecutors going after the hundreds of
thousands who lied to obtain mortgages they would otherwise not have qualified
for. That is the real irony of the comprehensive settlement of the investment
banks -- the banks are paying billions in fines because of borrowers
misrepresenting themselves.

~~~
afterburner
One guy? Wow, justice at work. We are clearly over-targeting bankers.

Oh I see, you're of the "blame the borrowers" mentality. All those slick
willies/poor bums scamming the naive banks out of money. Not at all the banks
packaging bad debt with full knowledge of the bullshit they were participating
in, due to perverse personal incentives on their own staff trading off huge
institutional risk for guaranteed short term personal gain. Nor them taking
side bets on the whole system crashing so seeing a win-win either way (those
of the GS variety). Not to mention the banks are supposed to know what they're
getting into, they are after all the experts.

Last I checked the ones suffering after the crash are most definitely not the
banks, but rather the middle and lower class who have not seen effective wage
increases in 30 years and now have even more trouble finding a job. Wow they
really pulled a fast one on the banks.

------
ilaksh
Please see historical and global context related to 'police-state' and
despotism in order to understand the significance of these issues. You will
need to set aside your American exceptionalism.

I do have an issue with the article though. My middle school did have quite a
few young criminals in it, and a zero-tolerance policy would have been
beneficial for everyone. Instead, quite a lot of physical violence and theft
was dismissed as 'bullying' which resulted in escalation. I know for a fact
that many of the students who misbehaved in less extreme criminal ways (and
were allowed to get away with it) did enter into a life of crime before they
were halfway through high school.

So there is a difference between militarization and despotic control and
disciplining students enough to prevent them from becoming criminals.

I think that rather than worrying about harsh penalties for vandalism etc.,
take issue with the propaganda being fed to students and the lack of focus on
problem solving outside of narrow domains.

------
hobb0001
The largest problem that I see with the militarization of the local police is
that they will increasingly start to view themselves as soldiers. (See
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment))

------
0xdeadbeefbabe
At least the 113th congress didn't create many new laws. No SOPA, PIPA, or
COICA yet either.

~~~
viggity
one of the few beauties of our government is that it is near impossible to
pass laws with a divided congress. I'm a pretty passionate
libertarian/conservative but having the dems control one house of congress
isn't all that bad of a thing (from my viewpoint)

~~~
srl
Seconded. It's very popular these days to bash congress for not getting
anything done, but it has its upsides. I'm pretty far left, and I wish the
far-right wasn't quite so powerful, but I am glad the republican party is
there, still powerful, waiting to pounce on any and every mistake made on the
left. It helps keep us honest (c.f. obamacare - which I like, but the rollout,
eh...). And when the roles are switched, say, 50 years, we'll do you the same
"favor" :)

------
mcantelon
The post-911 federal gov has been directing resources towards building a
domestic counter-insurgency apparatus and promoting a culture in law
enforcement conducive to their inclusion in it. You don't spend over a decade
building something without a reason. So what's the reason? Needless to say, if
the founding fathers were around today they'd be pondering a strategy to
resist it.

------
vfclists
The usual internet twaddle. How many commenters on this thread have bothered
to look up incidents of this nature in their districts, neighbourhoods or
whatever, and called their councilman or congressman?

I guarantee none. Spend less time online and more complaining to your
representatives. You will achieve a lot more in turning things around, ie if
you really want to, cowards.

------
Digit-Al
To me, as an English person looking at America through the prism of the news,
and articles such as this, it looks more and more like the American state is a
rogue element beset by paranoia, increasingly lacking trust not only in the
world at large, but also in its own citizens.

Do any of you American citizens out there have the same opinion of your
government?

------
andy_ppp
We are living in an extreme, high tech, highly theatrical version of The Wire;
one in which you can't trust your government, the law, the police and you can
guarantee they are watching you.

Turns out that any laws that have loop holes will be abused and everyone is
guilty. This is the definition of tyranny.

------
squozzer
I would say this is a symptom that could be explained by Turchin's structural-
demographic theory -- that is, increasing competition for resources (including
political power) produces measures that even in earlier, more violent periods
might have been considered too drastic.

------
analog31
I'd love to study how long it takes the tanks to fall into disuse, to the
point of being inoperable, simply because police departments will lose
interest in them, neglect maintenance, forget where all of the pieces are,
fail to find suppliers for spares, etc.

------
foxhop
My small town is gearing up as well ...

[http://waterford.patch.com/groups/police-and-
fire/p/waterfor...](http://waterford.patch.com/groups/police-and-
fire/p/waterford-police-department-humveeing-along)

~~~
logn
My town of 2,000+ people now has a humvee... for a police department that has
3 officers.

------
brooklynjam
My family came on boat number 2 after the Mayflower. For the first time in my
life, it may be time to checkout of the USA for awhile. Maybe it is time? Can
always visit, but maybe this is it. This is just insane at this point.

------
csours
This can only stop when the epithet "Weak on Crime" no longer has power in
politics.

------
applecore
The _re-criminalization_ of everyday life—“privacy may be an anomaly”.

------
jsiarto
l9.

------
timbro
> Sheriff Bud York suggested, according to the Post-Star, the local newspaper,
> that “in an era of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and mass killings in
> schools, police agencies need to be ready for whatever comes their way...

And in reality, they're just preparing for social unrest that seem more likely
by the day.

~~~
steauengeglase
In reality the sheriff saw an opportunity for positive press and went for it.
You don't turn down free PR.

------
mortyseinfeld
This story reminded me of the Boston bombing and it's "lockdown" (read martial
law). Didn't Boston have one of these APCs roaming the streets during its
martial law. In that case it's really a show of force against the "civilian"
population than to catch terrorists.

Why the hell does Ohio State need an MRAP. Are they going to actually tell us
that the terrorists might roll in with tanks or APCs. Or maybe the terrorists
will be running around with APCs in full combat? No.

Geez, is anybody even questioning these clowns about these acquisitions.

------
mortyseinfeld
This is probably more of "If we scare people by throwing around the terrorist
word then we get to spend money, have cool new toys, and look badass".

It's pathetic, but it seems to work.

~~~
tunap
Pathetic & self serving. There would be a cessation of federal/State/Muni
funds if any agency's focal issue(s) were eradicated, hence the popularity of
"War On..." ideologies with unattainable objectives. What starts as a
legitimate(sic) cause all too often morphs into a personal job security issue.
Imagine all the ICE, DHS, NSA, FBI, CIA, state, county and local LEOs that
would have to look elsewhere for jobs if the "War on..."s didn't raise their
budgets every fiscal quarter.

------
JoeAltmaier
The 'good old days' had drug dealers and violence, don't kid yourself. It got
covered up and ignored.

What is a police dept to do, when the crimes are escalating? Its simple to
chide Warren County (or whoever); but who are you to say the next bombing or
public rage will not occur there? The others were in similar places; no place
is safe.

~~~
spiritplumber
They are not. See stats.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Didn't see stats in the article; just lots of strawmen and irresponsible
summaries of crimes.

~~~
DanBC
Crime, especially violent crime, is dropping in most of US.

~~~
djdj123
This generalization gets bandied about too much. Crime trends and patterns are
highly local. I'm sure violent crime is dropping in many places, but in other
places it's spiraling out of control, for example, South Chicago, East
Oakland, Detroit. I think it's a mistake to throw those places in the same
basket as a small city in Ohio (unless it really has similar crime stats).

~~~
DanBC
Do you have crime stats for those areas please?

