The Relentless March of the U.S. Police State
By Robert Higgs • Monday February 4, 2013 11:31 AM PDT • 42 Comments
Jonathan Turley, a professor of law at George Washington University, wrote recently:
An authoritarian nation is defined not just by the use of authoritarian powers, but by the ability to use them. If a president can take away your freedom or your life on his own authority, all rights become little more than a discretionary grant subject to executive will. . . . Since 9/11, we have created the very government the framers feared: a government with sweeping and largely unchecked powers resting on the hope that they will be used wisely.
Turley does not say much in this article about the other rail of the Police State Railway that Americans are riding to hell: the drug war, with its massive arrests, prosecution, and imprisonment of people charged only with victimless crimes and its militarization of the state and local police all over the country. (On the militarization of the police, see especially this research paper, a revised version of which will appear in the spring issue of The Independent Review.) This massive bloating of police power and legalized oppression and the corresponding suppression of individual rights have brought down to the lowest level the threats to life, liberty, and happiness that the war on terrorism has created in what most people view as a more remote and less threatening venue—”out there” somewhere, in drone-istan.
Each day, the U.S. police state grows larger, more powerful, more pervasive, and more menacing. When will the majority awaken to the realization that this threat has nothing to do with party politics, that it makes no difference whether a Republican or a Democrat occupies the presidency while our freedoms are demolished?
This country was never a paradise of liberty; it always countenanced the oppression of plenty of people, especially Indians, blacks, and socially marginalized people who did not behave as the “respectable” white elites wanted them to behave. Yet, for the majority of Americans, freedom was a reality in most spheres of life, if only because the governments of the day were too weak to crush the people’s freedoms more thoroughly.
For many decades, however, these freedoms have been smashed one after another under the pretense of protecting people from foreign enemies, criminals, and terrorists. Thus have Americans marched with little more than a whimper toward a destination that combines elements of the dystopias imagined by novelists such as Huxley, Orwell, and Bradbury with ever more high-tech innovations used to monitor our every move, whether it be financial or personal.
The question is: how much farther must we travel down this road before people will be compelled to admit that “the land of the free” is more a reassuring myth than a description of the land in which we actually live—to recognize that the freedoms to go shopping and browse the Web are not enough to make a society genuinely free?
Tags: American History, Bill of Rights, Civil Liberties, Constitution, crime, Law, Liberty, Personal Liberty, Police, Surveillance, Terrorism, The State, Totalitarianism 
“... “the land of the free” is more a reassuring myth than a description of the land in which we actually live...”
I recognized that years ago, and soon thereafter I realized that there was nothing I could do about it. This was confirmed when Obama was reelected despite reducing our freedoms and our privacy, increasing the war on drugs, ignoring federal court orders and the Constitution itself, getting involved in wars without formal declarations and congressional approvals, and illegally using drones to murder people in countries we aren’t at war with. If the voters can reelect such a man, then there’s little hope that they will fight to regain our freedoms.
My hope is emigration. I heard that New Zealand’s government, despite government-run health care, is much less intrusive than ours.
MingoV | Feb 4, 2013 | Reply
MingoV, Thumbs up for your ideas. I hear NZ has very verdant country with fantastic weather. Much of it is rural, with working farms and ranches. A taste for mutton helps, too.
I have heard Uruguay mentioned in the same conversation.
Asmyguitargentlyweeps | Feb 4, 2013 | Reply
The problem is that a majority of the American people have become more concerned with getting their government benefits than with keeping their liberty.
Stefan Schreier | Feb 4, 2013 | Reply
i am amazed how few seem to recognize the connection between Saul Alinsky and Barack Obama. Obama’s playbook and Alinsky’s RULES for RADICALS. Unless state legislators use nullification to stop federal government unconstitutional laws from being forced on their citizens there isn’t much hope in preventing a complete police and welfare state as dreamed by Karl Marx. A Socialist United States of America.Thomas Jefferson said when the federal government exercise undelegated powers, nullification is the rightful remedy. We have allowed 9 men and women wearing black robes to decide our fate.They bases a law not on weather it is constitutional or not but on their own interpretation of that law. I believe the supreme court judges need to have term set limits. Obama may be able to appoint three new supreme court judges before this term is over. He already has control and the backing of five of the nine judges and the Department of Injustice as well as the senate. Amazingly millions still believe we have a two party system.There is little most of our politicians won’t do to stay in office. Many after leaving office become lobbyist. Often for the very corporations who lobbyist they introduced bills for that corporation in return for campaign contributions. Usually at a much higher salary than they were receiving.
bob Marshall | Feb 4, 2013 | Reply
Australia, also has Government run Health care (noting that of all the OECD countries I think only America doesnt) We also have beef as well as Lamb.
We welcome in the most emigration as well, and a higher standard of living.
America was founded because there was a King who claimed powers that no man should have, todays Presidents claim those self same powers!
the Lion | Feb 5, 2013 | Reply
Government run health-care is a FAR superior system as it’s a non-profit system that is there to help people, not enrich the Big Pharma interests. Same as we have a fully functioning private health-care system that is designed to once again help people, not jip them out of their cover because of a ‘yeast’ complex that they had years ago. Or that employ a veritable army of investigators designed to cheat someone out of their cover....That’s why politicians in the US don’t want to change the system as they make so much money from these lobby groups in having no cap on campaign contributions...
Oxymoron | Feb 5, 2013 | Reply
@ Bob Marshall
With the greatest of respect, most Americans do not understand socialism, and think that it is the model adopted by the USSR. Why do so many people think that because a country called itself “Socialist”, that this is what socialism is all about? I never hear people equating democracy with the German Democratic Republic (East Germany as was).
There is very simple definition of Socialism, which is “From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs”. Socialism does not deny property ownership rights. It is about providing minimum standards in healthcare, education, welfare etc.
It is not necessarily done for bleeding heart liberal reasons. Some people regard Socialism as a pragmatic decision. Starving people will revolt. Sick people will become a burden, and uneducated people can only be used for manual labour at best.
So the wealthier among us pay a greater share, but if you think about it, the wealthier are likely to own the means of production, which will seek to employ healthy educated people. The wealthy have a vested interest in the well being of the work force.
Imagine a scenario where 95% of the population are sick, uneducated or starving. Every time you leave your home, you will be probably be traveling on dirt roads, risking catching some disease, or taxed at an ad hoc toll gate set up by a local warlord.
SpurrdoninDublin | Feb 5, 2013 | Reply
“Our” government-run healthcare was designed by Big Pharma, the insurance industry and the IRS, to enrich their interests, force dangerous vaccinations on all, and deny critical care on an age basis (death panels).
Doug Wagner | Feb 5, 2013 | Reply
Joseph Stalin took their guns away, and then was able to murder millions of his countrymen.
He also said “Those in power will never willingly give up power,, but will do what ever they have to in order to maintain power, regardless of what happens to their countrymen.”
Bob | Feb 5, 2013 | Reply
This situation didn’t originate with Obama–he’s simply amplified it. The “Patriot” Act was Bush’s baby, and Clinton before him laid the groundwork, helped especially after the destruction of the Murrah building in Ok. City. The “war on drugs” goes back considerably farther, and was used to make great inroads on our protections under the Fourth Amendment and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Speaking of emigrating to Commonwealth nations–New Zealand seems to have a fairly “hands-off” approach regarding letting people alone, and has the most lenient gun laws of all Commonwealth nations, while Australia’s laws are nearly as draconian as England’s. Me? I have trouble with the idea of abandoning my country.
John W. | Feb 5, 2013 | Reply
It is about providing “minimum standards” in healthcare, education, welfare etc.
Ah those are the thorny questions–who decides minimum standards and who does the providing? This can be defined any number of ways. If you think the “wealthy” will pay for this, they will leave or they will become un-wealthy. They are not dumb. They will act and this will shrink their numbers.
What then? Who pays then? Psst–the next class below or at least the class that doesn’t act when their property is confiscated. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
In the traditional welfare systems, producers through threat of violence must hand their dollars to the gendarmes (the administrators, politicians, the jailers, etc.) who then take their cut of the money before eventually throwing some nickels and pennies to the beneficiaries.
You are arguing that “we” need institutional robbery to make a more “just” society. The nature of this robbery and the way this “just” society will be defined will be at the exclusive pleasure of some strongman or a committee of self selected oligarchs.
This doesn’t sound just nor likely will it lead to minimum standards of health care, education etc. It is a tiresome mantra: Rob Peter to pay Paul and all our problems are solved just like that!
Steve | Feb 5, 2013 | Reply
“With the greatest of respect, most Americans do not understand socialism....”
Yes they confuse it with the misguided ministrations of the Communists, not realizing it’s all about fairness, equity and lots of free stuff paid for by someone else.
Wealth is there for the taking. And I want me some now! I need it bad.
jack | Feb 5, 2013 | Reply
No government with compulsory taxation respects property rights. If I earn property from my labour and am compelled, by force, to pay taxes then there is no respect of my right to own property. Whether that government is socialist, democratic or a monarchy, it doesn’t matter.
KWJ | Feb 5, 2013 | Reply
America is now a negative role model. What happened?
dave | Feb 5, 2013 | Reply
Now we know who the terrorists were, the ones George Bush II said, “They hate us for our freedoms.” We’ve watched as the U.S. Government has taken away our freedoms in an almost dizzying fashion. Then it must have been the U.S. government that hated us for our freedoms and that means that the U.S. government did 9/11...!!!
aaheart | Feb 5, 2013 | Reply
For fun and education, watch the reaction in the two states where the citizens had the nerve to try to tell the police not to lock up citizens for marijuana. It’s very instructive to the point that the police want the authority to lock up pretty much anyone at anytime. You can see the police and media react to this act of democracy, and its not pretty.
PanamaRed | Feb 6, 2013 | Reply
The people who go out of their way to tell you there is nothing that you can do about it, that the only hope is emigration, are on the side of the police state.
Our founding fathers, the citizens of the USSR, the Egyptians all faced the same or worse, and yet prevailed.
Joe | Feb 6, 2013 | Reply
Unfortunately, all governments oppress. It’s just a matter of degree and timing. I don’t think the NWO will overlook NZ. It really comes down to a banking function. When the jig is up, all will feel the heavy boot on their neck.
robertsgt40 | Feb 6, 2013 | Reply
Your country abandoned you and your freedoms long ago.
David | Feb 6, 2013 | Reply
Central planning in healthcare is no more successful than in any other of the economy or the society. It has been a disaster in Cuba, Britain, Russia, Canada and every place else. The problem is that our medical system is now 60% or more government controlled. Big Pharma is in bed with coercive, statist psychiatry which has been socialist from the beginning. We need to abolish licensing and all forms of government regulation of medicine and NOT go for the ultimate rat poison, full socialized medicine. The HMOs were set up as a halfway house to socialist medicine. There is no right to medical care or anything else produced by human effort and doctors are not your slaves.
Marcy Fleming | Feb 6, 2013 | Reply
Actually Australia is the same sort of Police State–witness its treatment of Christine Hansen and the party (forget its exact name–One Nation?). She started, which had significant public support. Also, I read about some Australian chap doing time for initiating public debates with Jewish Zionists and pissing them off. Pathetic.
Observer | Feb 6, 2013 | Reply
If you want to understand the full importance of Obama’s history with Saul Alinsky’s methods, please go here.
We are on the edge of the abyss.
Frank Brady | Feb 6, 2013 | Reply
“The question is: how much farther must we travel down this road before people will be compelled to admit that “the land of the free” is more a reassuring myth than a description of the land in which we actually live—to recognize that the freedoms to go shopping and browse the Web are not enough to make a society genuinely free?”
I posit that the better question is, when will media outlets be unafraid to offer concrete solutions? We all know and feel in our hearts what should be done, what eventually must be done. The problem is that we, as a population, are too scattered. Too many like minds separated by too much geography and very little in the way of support from perceived iconic figures to blunt the sharp edge of the State. In my opinion, nothing, absolutely nothing, will be done until the State finally begins to solidify its position by imprisoning or killing large amounts of citizens. Only then will the people fully fear and act in the manner described by the Founding Fathers. Tasering grandmothers, children, and paraplegics apparently wasn’t the line in the sand that one would think but sooner or later your line will be crossed. Will you be ready?
Strawman | Feb 6, 2013 | Reply
That sounds all well and good until you realize one thing: Wealth Distribution is not Voluntary, and thus must be maintained by force. Force does not equal freedom. Only in a truly free-market system can the Producers and the laborers and the consumers all equally gain. No force can be used as all come to the table voluntarily.
Reality Check | Feb 7, 2013 | Reply
“When will the majority awaken...” yada, yada...
Doesn’t matter “when”. Never did. No point in even discussing it or wondering about it. The notion that it would make a difference is what lies behind this question. It would not make any difference at all if 100% of the people “awakened”. This is a completely false assumption.
You also err greatly at the conclusion of your article: “how much farther must we travel down this road before people will be compelled to admit that “the land of the free” is more a reassuring myth ...
What DIFFERENCE could it possibly make if we admit to the myth? It won’t change anything.
You’re promoting your own myth. The myth that “numbers” are “needed” to effect “change”.
Not true. You cannot get all of the people “on board” and need not. Nor would they all agree. It is a complete waste of time, effort and energy to try to do this.
The few control the many. Isn’t that how it is today? It will always be this way. And this is also how the few will “make change”.
It will never be the many controlling the few, the world does not work that way.
Asking the “many to change” is pointless. Better to make the “few change” that control the many. This is the only path to results.
Tired | Feb 7, 2013 | Reply
They did not start this yesterday....they have been deceiving us ever since the first depression in 1929??? JFK was one of them but he decided to print money that went back in the U.S. Treasury...the Federal Reserve does not belong to the U.S. See what happened to him...the rich bankers own it ...u can see what happens to any body that tries to change the system...and understand that both parties are guilty...why is the richest nation in the world BANKRUPT????
peter crawford | Feb 8, 2013 | Reply
Federally funded discrimination against nonviolent, tax-paying, pot-smoking voters is legalized treason supported by legalized terrorism based on nothing more then greed for profit and fraud.
local hero | Feb 9, 2013 | Reply
WIth all due respect to you as well, Bob, I understand socialism well enough to know that it’s one of the most pernicious ideas ever hatched by the mind of man. This practice of making people dependent on government is not compassionate or practical, it is evil. Most people who are poor enough to get “benefits” are that way because of socialism’s drain on the productive sector of seciety, making jobs scarcer. It’s a cure that creates the disease it’s supposed to help.
P. Scott Williams | Feb 9, 2013 | Reply
In the discussion about redistribution, it should be noticed that wealth (“the Wealthy should be taxed more”) and income are not the same things (and with the shifting change in the value of money, also a government-contrived effect, real income is hard to measure, always rising faster than laws are amended to reflect the rate of change, etc and open to redefinition). And incomes do not register as a way to build wealth in all places in the same way. So maybe a consumption tax, modified for the poor? I will never never never come to terms with having to report to a central authority the details of my financial life, never mind their confiscating it.
The personal exemption amount in 1894 was $4,000 ($80,000 in 2005 dollars). That tax was declared unconstitutional in 1895. The tax in its present form which began around 1913 had a personal exemption amount of $3,000 ($57,000 in 2005 dollars). Despite the intent of the exemption, the amounts are also less than half of the poverty line. Federal Individual Income Tax: Exemptions and Treatment of Dividends, 1913-2006 at http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-individual-income-tax-exemptions-and-treatment-dividends-1913-2006 makes interesting reading.
For me the question is: Who decides how and where to spend (or NOT spend, as under Obama’s schemes, that right is denied) money? Do I own my own human energy, which is a limited, or not? Do you own my energy? If not directly, as in chattel slavery, then indirectly through the proxy of a supposedly free electorate majority and a state apparatus? Still slavery by any definition if the results of my thinking, study, and work are not mine to decide to do with, and mine alone. No excuses.
The Founders just weren’t brave enough to push far enough for individual human liberty. Or perhaps economic conditions had not advanced far enough for them to imagine it.
New Zealand might sink if we all went there. Australia? The wusses gave up their arms. Now what do they do if the State turns on ‘em?
Oh, and for those sanguine about centralized, non-market medicine? Why should some bureaucrat determine the salary level of a doctor, nurse, or inevitably, the wages of all those who produce services and goods for the medical services industry? Just which principle are ya’ll basing that on? Loving kindness? Really? Do you not recognize what all this means for now and the future?
Blind blind blind.
Anna | Feb 9, 2013 | Reply
@ Observer
Don’t forget David Hicks — he was so important that Dick Cheney had to fly all the way to see John Howard to throw the bloke under the bus.
And now there’s Julian Assange ...
@ tired
It does take numbers — but not the many. The American Revolution began with only 10% of the populace in favor — and only 1% fought the king and his minions.
Joseph L. Elkhorne | Feb 9, 2013 | Reply
I suggest that everyone recognize and learn about the frontline provision in the U.S. Constitution by which individual Americans–acting individually–are equipped to restrain a rogue state. Just as our system is designed to allow one single juror to entirely thwart the will of the state, so, too, each individual American is empowered to starve the beast of the fuel it needs to be big and dangerous.
A lot of conditioning to the contrary has been done, so understanding this marvelous mechanism requires some mental and spiritual discipline at first, but the fact is that the tax structure in this country is actually designed to let each of us have a lot more control than most people understand. Many Americans have been standing up and putting the brakes on over the last nine years now–you should, too. Visit losthorizons.com to learn all about this peaceful, effective solution to a state gone bad.
Pete Hendrickson | Feb 10, 2013 | Reply
I agree that doctors are not the people’s slaves, but the people are not their slaves either. End medicare / medicaid – paid for by debt and money taken directly out of our pay – and then see how much the average doctor could earn.
The problem is debt – a government that borrows and spends so much that the true cost of things, from healthcare to food, is so astronomical that they have to constantly use tricks and games to cover it up. Without medicare and medicaid, doctors would earn little more than the average worker because – here’s the big catch – they’d actually be paid by the people they provide a service to. Do you really think that someone who broke their leg seventy years ago paid out 7,000 (or the inflation adjusted equivalent) to have it set?
jjjjjj | Mar 11, 2013 | Reply
Doctors should be paid only by their patients and patient’s family’s. They’d have less of a hassle and probably earn about the same.
Some of the fault of this situation lies on their backs. They took medicare / medicaid and didn’t realize that anytime you take money from the government, they’ll eventually make a slave out of you.
jjjjjj | Mar 11, 2013 | Reply