Is it fascism yet?

[truebrit71]

I can't help but think that what alot of us fear, a quasi-police state, already exists....

These two articles spell it out pretty clearly that this country and it's citizen's rights and freedoms have been effectively eliminated...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10456738/

And of course those DU'ers that support a National ID card would see nothing wrong with this....

What's next "Papieren Bitte?"

[Loonman]

1. Facism?

I know what fascism is......

;)

[TahitiNut]

3. Fascists have propagandists; facists have cosmetologists.

Facists believe that some faces are inherently superior to other faces.

[uppityperson]

2. Still

In high school in mid 70's, got a questionaire about our gvt/country's characteristics. After choosing which ones were most apt, the result said facism. Here we are again and still.

[OneBlueSky]

4. why, yes it is! . . . so nice of you to notice . . . :) n/t

.

[Gemini Cat]

5. Let's see here:

Do corporations control the government?

[dusmcj]

6. the hierarchy behind the man asking for papers makes it fascist or not

ID cards are just a tool. The question is not whether the tool should be allowed, but what precepts the man wielding it operates according to. Making the tools go away would just drive those wanting to use them to reach for others; the question of intent cannot be avoided.

There is nothing wrong with a state which is competent enough to address security threats without making its law-abiding populace think that it is under suspicion, in fact this is one aspect of the definition of a civil society - the public which operates within a legislated ethical code is not troubled by the activities of their representatives directed against those who do not.

If we want to do away with the state entirely, we are practicing denial and pretending that it will all be OK if we just feel nice enough. It won't. America's current situation demands uncompromising relating to physical reality, not wishing. The problem arises when those in government conclude that if the public cannot be relied on to live according to a system based on a distinction, a differentiation, between de jure acceptable vs. unacceptable behavior, then they don't need to be worried about the distinction either. This is what makes us queasy about the proposals for restricting civil rights they are floating, and we will not resolve the issue until we conclude that both parties must agree to exclude certain behaviors from the set of what is acceptable in a civil society; our legal foundations provide a useful framework for defining that. If we're capable of everything and therefore it shouldn't be excluded, then those who are so inclined will conclude that the rules are not in force and that they can do whatever they want to prevent harm from coming to the nation and the public.