Britain: Police State?

[Heckler]

Oh please yourself Heckler

Don't forget I work in IT security , I go to seminars strictly all about this type of monitoring.

If you think I,m nuts thats fair enough.

But you will see how all this turns out in time.

if we all live long enough to see the finished article.

No I didn't forget (how could I when you mentioned it constantly on the RFID thread), but I fail to see how an awareness of IT Security makes you an expert on the worldwide implementation of all emergent technologies that involve security. Are you claiming to also be an expert on Point of Sale or ATMs? Both are applications of IT Security?

 

[monster_magnet]

Crickey!! :shock:

It seems to me that terms such as 'Police State' and 'Totalitarianism' are thrown around this debate like it was a nice game of catch.

The horror, terror, violence and fear that a 'Police State' uses are extreme and a million miles away from anything we are or will experience in this country.

Nazi Germany, North Korea, Cambodia, Iraq are all or have been Police States, to compare the current governments actions to any of these is crass and shows an ignorrance of what these regimes stand/stood for.

As has been pointed out several times in this thread, the very core of this 'conspiracy' is at odds with the concept of a 'police state'.

Besides that, in three (?) years time Tony/Gordon will have to fight a general election which will reflect the mood and opinions of us, the 'sheeple' and are likely to be out of No.10 on their arses if they don't pull their socks up.

Now, technological creep is not all bad. It will provide products and services that save lives, make our days more interesting, safer and easier and I for one welcome it with open arms. Technological advancement is something that cannot and should not be stopped, it is the backbone of world economy. Inevitably those people who could use it negatively are likely to have those positions because of us. We can always take their power back

And then there's social apathy...

:cry:

 

[barfing_pumpkin]

How can you create a totalitarian state from short-termism? Short-termism, by it's very definition, is incapable of setting up anything as involved as a totalitarian state.

No - I said that it's complacency which seems to be providing the means by which a potential totalitarian power could take advantage. Different kettle of fish altogether.

As has been explained, a true police state would mean an end to capitalism in this country

So what's the deal with China then? Is that not an example of a totalitarian state which also permits a degree of capitalist enterprise?

 

[monster_magnet]

BBC Story

The above story illustrates quite conveniently what happens when you introduce 'capitalism' to a Police State.

 

[Jerry_B]

So what's the deal with China then? Is that not an example of a totalitarian state which also permits a degree of capitalist enterprise?

It's having a hard time really trying to get the two to gel together. What may happen there is that the state controls will rein back as the country's economy becomes more like any other liberal capitalist economy - otherwise there are too many restrictions on the mechanism of capitalism and the economy will collapse. The country will also suffer if it's workforce has less access to information than is the case in capitalist countries, as the lack of parity will also act against the economy's competitiveness. So state control over information and the population in general will have to diminish. If not, China's economic system will reach a definite cut-off point and will stagnate.

 

[techybloke666]

No I didn't forget (how could I when you mentioned it constantly on the RFID thread), but I fail to see how an awareness of IT Security makes you an expert on the worldwide implementation of all emergent technologies that involve security. Are you claiming to also be an expert on Point of Sale or ATMs? Both are applications of IT Security?
_________________

Funilly enough my job does encompass EPOS too.
but mainly IT security including Building manangement systems, and RFID warehouse tracking and supply control.

also I have access to programs that track our employers via GPS to their mobile phones that make sure they are working where they say they are and wandering aound the shops day to day.


But yes I suppose on the grand scale of things i know very little.

But the lttle I do know scares the shit out of me mate.

I,m off to the worlds biggest IT security show in few weeks I,ll see whats new.

What I am basically saying is from my experience and discussions with suppliers and the Police funnily enough the move is towards control using technology.

hey but sleep well and don't have nightmares

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

As for statements like: Its all about security Its all about Taxing Its all about Money and Control - you haven't qualified why this is at all necessary. As has been explained, a true police state would mean an end to capitalism in this country - are you suggesting that the big plan behind all of this is to that end? ...

Capitalism and a police state can co-exist perfectly happily. When capitalists talk about 'Freedom' they almost invariably mean the freedom of their business to make profit, unecumbered by restrictions, or political, or civil unrest. No health and safety legislation, no trades union interference, etc.

Governments which cater to the needs of the Freedom of Capital usually seem to do it at the cost of the Freedom of the Citizens. The form of Capitalist society that we live in is that of a Consumer Society.

Consumers are to Capitalists what geese are to paté de fois gras producers. That's why the Corporate/Capitalist State tends to bind its Citizens in a similiar way to those geese, although the technology may be different. So that they can continue to force feed them crap an continue to harvest bloated profits.

 

[Jerry_B]

Governments which cater to the needs of the Freedom of Capital usually seem to do it at the cost of the Freedom of the Citizens. The form of Capitalist society that we live in is that of a Consumer Society.

But not a police state. And we're hardly living in some capitalist free-for-all state either. Workers still have rights and protections, for a start.

It's pretty easy to peg things down as being 'nasty capitalists', but we're nowhere near anything like a police state, let alone some sort of fantastical capitalist controlled one. Going by what some people seem to think here, anyone would think that we're living in some sort of magical mix of an Industrial Revolution society that's run by the KGB

 

[barfing_pumpkin]

I'm curious, Jerry_B - you seems to be saying that there is an essential difference between a police state and a totalitarian one. So what is it?

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

As The Veneer of Democracy Starts to Fade

...

But not a police state. And we're hardly living in some capitalist free-for-all state either. Workers still have rights and protections, for a start.

It's pretty easy to peg things down as being 'nasty capitalists', but we're nowhere near anything like a police state, let alone some sort of fantastical capitalist controlled one. Going by what some people seem to think here, anyone would think that we're living in some sort of magical mix of an Industrial Revolution society that's run by the KGB

Simply pointing out that Capitalism and a police state are not mutually exclusive, as you seem to believe, Jerry. Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany were both Capitalist and police states, whatever the revisionists might now be trying to say.

As to the West, there was a long time theory that the illusion of Western Democracy was only necessary, as long as there was an alternative in the form of Marxist Communism. To all intents and purposes that is no longer the case. It is still to early to say whether the theory was correct.

 

[Jerry_B]

I'm curious, Jerry_B - you seems to be saying that there is an essential difference between a police state and a totalitarian one. So what is it?

If that's how I come across, I can only apologise. The two concepts are, of course, intertwined. Totalitarianism needs a functioning police state in order to make sure that social forces are controlled and monitored.

 

[Jerry_B]

Re: As The Veneer of Democracy Starts to Fade

Simply pointing out that Capitalism and a police state are not mutually exclusive, as you seem to believe, Jerry. Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany were both Capitalist and police states, whatever the revisionists might now be trying to say.

Neither Nazi Germany nor Fascist Italy are good examples of capitalism running alongside a police state. In Germany in particular, the state controlled the means of capital, despite the presence of large coperate bodies that weren't in state ownership. The economy was monopolistic and the state had absolute control over prices, foreign trade, profits, etc. - and the capitalist forces within the country had to bow to that. So essentially it wasn't a form of free capitalism, any more than was the case in Soviet Russia. The market was internal and steered by state controls, and as such only had the outlying structure of capitalism.

 

[barfing_pumpkin]

Neither Nazi Germany nor Fascist Italy are good examples of capitalism running alongside a police state. In Germany in particular, the state controlled the means of capital, despite the presence of large coperate bodies that weren't in state ownership. The economy was monopolistic and the state had absolute control over prices, foreign trade, profits, etc. - and the capitalist forces within the country had to bow to that. So essentially it wasn't a form of free capitalism, any more than was the case in Soviet Russia.

But couldn't it be argued that we in the democratic West don't really have a true free-market economy anyway? Look at the de-facto protectionist measures seen in Europe (e.g the common agricultural policy, state-bolstered French industries) and the US (think they'd have been so worried about Concorde if it had been built there?). Surely this also is not really free-market capitalism as it should be practised.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

But couldn't it be argued that we in the democratic West don't really have a true free-market economy anyway? Look at the de-facto protectionist measures seen in Europe (e.g the common agricultural policy, state-bolstered French industries) and the US (think they'd have been so worried about Concorde if it had been built there?). Surely this also is not really free-market capitalism as it should be practised.

Free-market Capitalism is an oxymoron. The USA in this century understands what Britain did in the 19th century. A free market only works if you can control it and back your control up with gunboats.

There is no such thing as Free-market Capitalism, there never will be. Capitalism simply doesn't work like that. That's why the Military/Industrial Complex runs the US and EXXON rules the Whitehouse.

 

[Jerry_B]

That's why the Military/Industrial Complex runs the US and EXXON rules the Whitehouse.

Have you any proof for such a statement?

 

[Jerry_B]

But couldn't it be argued that we in the democratic West don't really have a true free-market economy anyway? Look at the de-facto protectionist measures seen in Europe (e.g the common agricultural policy, state-bolstered French industries) and the US (think they'd have been so worried about Concorde if it had been built there?). Surely this also is not really free-market capitalism as it should be practised.

Whilst it's true that this isn't free-market capitalism, to all intents and purposes it still is in some form because various economies have signed-up to work by those rules. However, too much of it is still considered protectionism and monopolising - but it depends on whether any state can show this is happening and whether an agreement can be reached to curb it.

That said, capitalism as it currently exists is still relatively free but there are certain boundary areas.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

That's why the Military/Industrial Complex runs the US and EXXON rules the Whitehouse.

Have you any proof for such a statement?

Iraq and Afghanistan, oh disingenuous one. :lol:

 

[Jerry_B]

So, no actual proof then.

 

[lupinwick]

Find out who the biggest lobbyist groups in the US and UK are funded by - that'll give some indication as to where the bulk of power lies.

A big corporation is unlikely to pay out cash to any political party without some perceived benefit.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

So, no actual proof then.

You've probably read most of my posts over the last few years, Jerry_B, so you know exactly where I stand as regards to such proof.

I refer the honourable member to my previous statements on the matter.

It does get slightly annoying when someone's main mode of attack is to continually demand that other FTMB members go over and over the same old ground. Quick to question and repetitous with it, yet who offers very little in the way of real and substantive counter argument.

That's not debate, that's interrogation.

Edit: Added a 'where'.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

As an example, to what I've said above, Jerry_B:

...

Whilst it's true that this isn't free-market capitalism, to all intents and purposes it still is in some form because various economies have signed-up to work by those rules. However, too much of it is still considered protectionism and monopolising - but it depends on whether any state can show this is happening and whether an agreement can be reached to curb it.

That said, capitalism as it currently exists is still relatively free but there are certain boundary areas.

Do you have any proof for these highly contentious statements?

 

[Jerry_B]

It does get slightly annoying when someone's main mode of attack is to continually demand that other FTMB members go over and over the same old ground. Quick to question and repetitous with it, yet who offers very little in the way of real and substantive counter argument.

All I'm asking is whether you had any proof that the Military/Industrial Complex and EXXON held the reins of power in the way you seemed to be asserting. After all, if we're discussing the idea of a police/totalitarian state it may be useful to provide illustrations of situations where they may be occuring. One would've thought that if the Military/Industrial Complex and EXXON were indeed in charge of things in the US, it would be useful for the sake of discussion to show how this is so.

It only gets repitious when people make claims about extremes (i.e. Military/Industrial Complex and EXXON in charge of the US) but don't actually qualify it with evidence of such. The same goes for any subject here - I'd ask the same question about proof if someone made similar outright claims on this board (i.e. 'Aliens have landed', etc.)

 

[Jerry_B]

Do you have any proof for these highly contentious statements?

Contentious? How so? Have you not heard of the Common Agricultural Policy? AFAIK that's not a conspiracy

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Do you have any proof for these highly contentious statements?

Contentious? How so? Have you not heard of the Common Agricultural Policy? AFAIK that's not a conspiracy

How does that support your argument?

 

[barfing_pumpkin]

Contentious? How so? Have you not heard of the Common Agricultural Policy? AFAIK that's not a conspiracy

Ho ho. Try telling that to an Australian agricultural minister!

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

It does get slightly annoying when someone's main mode of attack is to continually demand that other FTMB members go over and over the same old ground. Quick to question and repetitous with it, yet who offers very little in the way of real and substantive counter argument.

All I'm asking is whether you had any proof that the Military/Industrial Complex and EXXON held the reins of power in the way you seemed to be asserting. After all, if we're discussing the idea of a police/totalitarian state it may be useful to provide illustrations of situations where they may be occuring. One would've thought that if the Military/Industrial Complex and EXXON were indeed in charge of things in the US, it would be useful for the sake of discussion to show how this is so.

It only gets repitious when people make claims about extremes (i.e. Military/Industrial Complex and EXXON in charge of the US) but don't actually qualify it with evidence of such. The same goes for any subject here - I'd ask the same question about proof if someone made similar outright claims on this board (i.e. 'Aliens have landed', etc.)

Unlike your strawman argument about aliens landing, there's plenty of evidence that the 'Military-Industrial' Complex really does have a huge, overbearing, influence on the US Government.

As you're probably well aware, from Eisenhower's famous, 'Farewell Address', warning of the rise of the power of the 'Military-Industrial Complex', back in 1961: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm, to serious articles and papers, available on the internet from fairly reputable sources: fpif.org,
http://www.fpif.org/papers/micr/companies_body.html;
SourceWatch.org, http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Military-industrial_complex; etc. The truth about the corrosive power of super-capitalism, really is out there.

There's more out there, about how how oil companies control US policy, through their highest of the highly placed ex-excutive contacts and big-scale lobbying, http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1501646,00.html, but I'm not going to waste my time spending the rest of the afternoon searching it all up for skeptics, too lazy to formulate a proper counter argument about something much more concrete and substantial than alien contact.

 

[Jerry_B]

That's all well and good perhaps, but an 'overbearing influence' is not quite the same as 'running the country' And as we're really discussing the idea here that there are/will be police states in various Western democracies, influence is not the same as outright control. IMHO it's fine to point out the whys and wherefores of influences, but to seemingly assert that they actually run the US is another thing entirely

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

That's all well and good perhaps, but an 'overbearing influence' is not quite the same as 'running the country' And as we're really discussing the idea here that there are/will be police states in various Western democracies, influence is not the same as outright control. IMHO it's fine to point out the whys and wherefores of influences, but to seemingly assert that they actually run the US is another thing entirely

Splitting hairs, there, I'd say. And somewhat far from my original, slightly flippant comments, about the real nature of Capitalism in its relation to Goverment. Which you are not really addressing, but sidestepping by setting up another strawman argument.

 

[Jerry_B]

No, not really. I get your idea that corporations have influence over policy in the US. I was just pointing out that this is alot different to the idea that they are actually running the US

 

[techybloke666]

bin Laden fuels the fear, paves the way for banishing our Civil Liberties
By JWinston70
01/24/2006 05:51:03 AM EST
Keywords: terrorism, bin Laden, Bush, G.O.P., Republicans, Kerry, White House, Chris Matthews

So, Osama made another speech and stated the obvious: He's still alive and still a threat because Bush got us all involved with this distraction in Iraq which has done more for Al Qaeda than it's done for us. And the GOP reaction, of course, is to show how serious they are about terrorism by attacking Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean and other Democrats or liberals.

The official White House response from Scott McClellan was:
We do not negotiate with terrorists. We put them out of business.

Yeah, when are you going to start doing that? John Kerry reminds us that they had their chance:

You'd think the only focus tonight would be on destroying Osama Bin Laden, not comparing him to an American who opposes the war whether you like him or not. You want a real debate that America needs? Here goes: If the administration had done the job right in Tora Bora we might not be having discussions on Hardball about a new Bin Laden tape. How dare Scott McClellan tell America that this Administration puts terrorists out of business when had they put Osama Bin Laden out of business in Afghanistan when our troops wanted to, we wouldn't have to hear this barbarian's voice on tape. That's what we should be talking about in America.

It's pretty obvious that the G.O.P. worked fast to make sure everyone knew the talking point in response to bin Laden's tape: Tie him to Democrats, liberals, and anti-war supporters. How about so called democrat, Chris Matthews comparing bin Laden to Michael Moore to Joe Biden. Yeah... that's responsible journalism. I predict that Chris Matthews goes to work for FoxNews in the near future... he's polishing up his resume with O'Reillyesque zingers.

Republicans rolled out all of their favorite fear mongers as soon as the tape hit the news. Here we have direct threat from the man responsible for 9/11 (hint: It's not Sadaam), yet the US doesn't believe that the threat is credible enough to raise our multi-colored threat level. Apparently it is only proper for this administration to act on bad intelligence as opposed to intelligence from the horse's mouth.

My theory is that the US could go after bin Laden, right now... and succeed in his capture. However, it would take forces out of Iraq. We all know that Iraq is the priority here. Who would guard the oil wells if we went off to Tora Bora, or perhaps Saudi Arabia to find bin Laden's spider hole.

In what appears to be a very coordinated campaign- "the boogie man is going to get us so you must surrender your civil liberties!" Some news outlets across the world are predicting that this latest message from bin Laden is actually a boon for the Bush Administration, underlining the War on Terror. (Bush's favorite subject. Believe me, he would much rather be on his throne spewing his dribble about evil-doers as opposed to the scandals.) And yet, another bin Laden tape comes out and no one questions why he is still alive and free. The Bushies use the release of this tape as an, "I told you so" argument to why they should be allowed to continue their degradation of our civil liberties with their illegal wiretaps. More ammo in the fear dept. Phew, we've been getting low lately. Keep us scared, and we'll just hand you the Civil Liberties.

Our Freedoms and Civil Liberties, and of course our arrogance are what al Qaida hate the most. By letting the Bush Administration scare those freedoms and liberties from us, it is allowing the Terrorists to win. Sadly, this is the trend which I am seeing in America today. We will never stop terrorism on the planet. When our own government does the work for the terrorists, by taking away our rights, what work does that leave the terrorists to do. It gives them more free-tim to plot and plan physical attacks against us.

http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/20 ... 21957/2718