Authoritarian State Yet?

[Warren Stupidity]

41 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	No. We are still a functional representative democracy respecting the rule of law.
	7 (17%)
	Yes. We are no longer a functional representative democracy. We are an authoritarian state.
	34 (83%)
	2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Hydra]

1. I think they're trying to sell us on accepting it willingly

They're doing it, mind you, but it's all secret.

They'd love it all to be codified and in the open. "Legal."

[dkf]

53. It won't be legal unless they amend the constitution.

That's why they need to hide it.

[Hydra]

62. I think long term they will remove the Constitution

They're chopping it up into useless strips as it is. "Free Speech Zones," DiFi's thing about licensing journalists, 4th amendment not applicable, etc.

One day, we may wake up and we'll say, "That violates the Constitution!" and they'll say, "...What constitution?"

[dkf]

63. They will cite precedence instead of the constitution.

[Hydra]

66. Quite possible

But however it works, whether by bad SCOTUS rulings, suspending the Constitution(indefinitely) or by TPP, they've signaled that's what they want to do.

The funny thing is, that's Treason with a capital "T"...but I'm not seeing the concern about that.

[Lawlbringer]

2. Not to say everything's squeaky clean...

(Sheez, why am I replying? I'm fully prepared to bear the brunt of the flaming by people who are saying it's either 100% one way or 100% another, or I've got my head in the ground or in the clouds. But at least READ before flaming me)

in fact it's VERY far from squeaky clean. But if we were in that situation now, this thread wouldn't exist anymore and we'd all be rounded up for even looking at it.

It looks like we're on the highway in the passing lane headed there, but I still think there are still a few ticks to midnight.

[Egalitarian Thug]

50. It's been tried and failed, so it's better to allow this as long as it doesn't interfere

with what the authorities care about. Get a DU together and focus them on costing those authorities money and/or stopping them from doing what they wish, and you will discover just how authoritarian this state really is.

[dawg]

103. No. They'd still let us have our little internet threads.

A bunch of "losers" vainly howling at the electronic moon effects the powers that be not one whit. If anything, it keeps the rabble busy and lets them blow off some steam without, you know, actually doing anything.

[geek tragedy]

3. I guess I'll be the crazy guy who points out we still have elections and that virtually every

person voting for "authoritarian state" would be in jail if we were an actual authoritarian state.

[drhobo]

4. we can choose between the authoritarian in red or the one in blue

Not much of a choice

[geek tragedy]

8. "authoritarian" has been so overused and abused as a matter of hyperbole around here

that it means nothing.

[dkf]

61. It comes from a 2008 paper “The Constitution in the National Surveillance State,”

A surveillance state is one that uses bulk information and data techniques to monitor its citizens and draw inferences about their potential behavior in the service of carrying out the responsibilities that it sets out for itself. Like other parts of the state (welfare, national security), the surveillance state provides a type of security for its citizens through the manipulation of knowledge and resources. And like other parts of the state, the surveillance state fights against democratic efforts to provide accountability and transparency.

This name comes from a 2008 paper, “The Constitution in the National Surveillance State,” by Yale law professor Jack Balkin. He provocatively argues that “[t]he question is not whether we will have a surveillance state in the years to come, but what sort of state we will have.”

If that’s true, how can we distinguish between better and worse surveillance states? Balkin identifies and contrasts two. The first is an authoritarian surveillance state, while the second is a democratic surveillance state. And the recent scandals clearly reveal that we live in an authoritarian one.

What do authoritarian surveillance states do? They act as “information gluttons and information misers.” As gluttons, they take in as much information as possible. More is always better, indiscriminate access is better than targeted responses, and there’s a general presumption that they’ll have access to whatever they want, at any time.

But authoritarian surveillance states also act as misers, preventing any information about themselves from being released. Their actions and the information they gather are kept secret from both the public and the rest of government.

Even though the paper is from 2008, this description of an authoritarian surveillance state fits perfectly with recent revelations about the Obama administration. The information that the National Security Agency has been seeking, from phone metadata to server access, is about as expansive as one could imagine. Meanwhile, the administration’s war on whistleblowers, which received public attention after revelations about the surveillance of AP reporters, shows a lack of interest in measures of transparency and accountability.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/08/is-a-democratic-surveillance-state-possible/

[limpyhobbler]

5. You do realize authoritarian states sometimes hold elections?

Sometimes people are allowed to decide some things in elections. But if elections begin to threaten the real interests of the authorities, then the elections just won't matter.

[geek tragedy]

7. Has a US president ever refused to surrender power once in office? nt

[limpyhobbler]

10. No. Why do you ask?

[geek tragedy]

14. Hard to argue that the US is an authoritarian regime when there are intensely

contested elections that lead to frequent changes into who controls the government, and furthermore when people are free to criticize the government and organize to lobby it or even vote it out of power.

[limpyhobbler]

28. Seems like theater, a pretense of democracy to keep people busy and distracted.

It probably would not be possible to repeal the patriot act through the electoral process, even if 80% of the people wanted to. There's a real democracy deficit. The next President will be somebody who supports Goldman Sachs and Bank of America, Raytheon and Boeing. It's impossible to conceive of someone being elected who is not pre-approved by the powerful corporate interests.

[TBF]

32. Yup ... dog and pony show. nt

[geek tragedy]

34. Certainly our system is flawed, as has been every system in every place on earth

for all of human history.

The rich have always been more powerful than the poor, etc etc. But, to call our system authoritarian is to admit defeat and foreswear any attempts to defeat poweful interests.

If we believed that the system is authoritarian, why did the Koch brothers have such a bad night last November?

The term "authoritarianism" when applied so broadly, begins to lose any meaning.

[limpyhobbler]

76. Whether Democrats or Republicans win, every day is a good day for the Koch bros.

How did they have a bad night?

They fund a lunatic extremist party just to influence the terms of the political debate.

Whether they win or lose, they win.

[Egalitarian Thug]

80. Long before they funded the teahaddists, they were also among the who's who of

funding sources for Al From's Democratic Leadership Counsel. Kochs, Coors, Chevron, Merk, the list goes on and on, created the DLC to do just what it's done, remake the Democratic Party in the image of the republican Party. Could that be why the DLC has tried so hard for so long to keep its financial sources "private"? Of course it is.

But a bunch of reporters (remember what those were), after digging for over a decade began to unearth some of the names. For anyone interested in verifying it, it's not going to be easy, because, quite coincidentally I'm sure, the stories listed in your web searches have frequently been "removed, renamed, or deleted" from site after site. The most recent one that I'm aware of was written by Bill Berkowitz.

[GoneFishin]

44. Yep. Bread and circus. Or in our case, Big Macs and World of Warcraft.

And for those few who actually pay attention and vote, we have unverifiable, paper trail free touch screen voting.

[joeybee12]

15. Nixon...

Although not for authoritarian reasons...that was back when we prosecuted crooks, crooks who were in power.

[geek tragedy]

16. Hrrmmm. Nixon resigned. After a massive electoral victory nt

[joeybee12]

21. I mis-read, I saw it as whether anyone has given up the power...

Not refused to...

[geek tragedy]

24. They all have given up the power. Peaceful, orderly transition of one head of state to another

regardless of party since George Washington to John Adams.

[LordGlenconner]

25. Nixon was never prosecuted for Watergate.

[MattSh]

56. Has the 1% ever refused to surrender power once they bought every officeholder?

The 1% doesn't care who the president is as long as the president understands who he works for.

HINT: The president does not work for those who elect him.

[geek tragedy]

58. So, why did the Koch brothers spend so much money on losing

candidates last fall?

[hobbit709]

78. They still came out way ahead at the state level.

[geek tragedy]

82. But, they didn't get their way at the national level nt

[hobbit709]

85. Who does redistricting, voter ID, etc.?

[Egalitarian Thug]

91. They didn't, they own nearly all the winning candidates on both sides. Learn your history.

The Kochs were among the primary sources of capital, along with a veritable who's who of Big Money Reich-wingers and corporate parasites, for Al From's Democratic Leadership Counsel.

They don't care what color jersey the players are wearing so long as they have the players under contract.

[geek tragedy]

94. You are lying, and blatantly so.

The Koch Brothers are partisan Republicans and movement rightwingers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers#Mitt_Romney

Mitt Romney[edit source | editbeta]In July 2012, David H. Koch hosted a $50,000-a-person ($75,000 a couple) fundraising dinner for 2012 Republican Party Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, which was the subject of protests.[11][49][50][51][52]

William Koch, the younger brother of Charles and David, gave $1 million to Restore Our Future, a super-PAC backing Romney.[11] During the 2008 presidential race, David Koch donated $2,300 to Romney.[11]

The Koch Brothers run Americans for Prosperity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_for_Prosperity#Events

Since 2007, the AFP Foundation has hosted the "Defending the American Dream Summit," which is now the second largest annual gathering of conservatives in Washington, DC (the first is the Conservative Political Action Conference). Topics have included government spending and taxation, health care reform legislation, economic policy, and proposed energy legislation. Presidential candidates who attended the inaugural event included Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Ron Paul, Sam Brownback, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson. 2,000 people attended the 2011 summit.[17]

To "send a message to the bureaucrats that energy rationing will kill jobs, raise taxes, and crush our freedoms,"[18] AFP created the Cost of Hot Air Tour, a nationwide tour that included webcasts from the United Nations meetings COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009[19] and COP16 in Cancun in 2010.

In 2008, in the same city (Austin, Texas) and at the same time (July) as the liberal Netroots Nation conference, AFP hosted RightOnline, a conference of conservative bloggers and activists that aimed to develop conservative social media strategies.[20][21] RightOnline has since become an annual event, with 1,500 attendees in 2011.[22]

In 2011, in conjunction with Sarah Palin,[23] AFP helped lead a counterprotest in Madison, Wisconsin, where Governor Scott Walker's budget and labor-law initiatives had drawn considerable opposition in the streets. President Phillips said Walker's proposed cuts were necessary and "represented the start of a much-needed nationwide move to slash public-sector union benefits."[24] After the budget reforms in Wisconsin passed, the AFP Foundation initiated an advertising and town-hall effort called "It's Working!" to promote them.[25]

Also in 2011, AFP sponsored the first debate among the Republican presidential candidates in New Hampshire. Candidates who participated included Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and Herman Cain.[26]

AFP announced plans to participate in a rally protesting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act during the Supreme Court's oral arguments regarding the constitutionality of the law.[27]

...


In August 2010, the Democratic Party and the Obama White House argued that AFP and the AFP Foundation are a de facto political action group, thus violating their tax-exempt status.[50] President Obama said: "Right now all around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads against Democratic candidates all across the country. And they don't have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don't know if it's a foreign-controlled corporation. You don't know if it's a big oil company, or a big bank."[51] The administration later called AFP a "special-interest front group run by the oil billionaire Koch brothers," who it said are "obsessed with making Barack Obama a one-term president."[27] In response, Phillips called the idea that AFP is taking money from foreign sources "ludicrous."[52] He also noted that following the President's statement, AFP saw an increase in financial contributions, explaining that "they know if the president of the United States is attacking you because you're opposing his agenda, you're probably doing something that's effective."[52]

Also in August 2010, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) filed a complaint against AFP for running political advertisements that allegedly constitute intervention in political campaigns. A spokesman for the AFP Foundation said the DCCC complaint was a "nuisance complaint to intimidate" and was without merit.[53] On May 6, 2011, the Federal Election Commission dismissed the complaint.[54]

A May 2012 ad criticizing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was rated by the nonpartisan fact checking organization PolitiFact.com as one of "the sneakiest" of the election cycle to that point. Claims from the ad were judged to be "Mostly False",[55] "False",[56] and "Pants on Fire",[57] the organization's lowest rating of truth. A separate analysis of the entire ad showed problems with the truth of every one of the ad's

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/07/08/2262831/koch-brothers-obamacare-misinformation/

Americans for Prosperity — a conservative group funded by the Koch brothers — is spending millions on ads that aim to turn Americans against the Affordable Care Act, just as government officials prepare to enroll the uninsured in the law’s new health care exchanges beginning on October 1. The campaign will eschew attacks on President Obama in favor of a new non-ideological tone that could appeal “young women” who watch the Food Network, “Law & Order,” and “Good Morning America.”

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/obama-team-fires-back-at-koch-brothers/2012/02/29/gIQA3UXbiR_blog.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2012/05/02/koch-fight-obama-ramps-up-attack-vs-billionaire-brothers/

[Egalitarian Thug]

98. You're as wrong and as gullible as ever. I'd hope your masters would show you

some gratitude for making it so easy for them, but they won't. The simple minded acceptance of anything put forth with a veneer of authority and repetition is a hallmark of the willingly subservient.

Nobody I know of, and certainly not I, ever said that they weren't enthusiastically supporting the republican party and the organizations they've formed to influence it, now or then. That doesn't change the fact that they were among the lengthy list of major funding sources, that has taken intrepid journalists like Bill Berkowitz years to pries from Al From's DLC, in the late '80s. The goal they sought then was accomplished, thanks in no small part to many people like you, and they moved on to the next step.

You seem to operate under some illusion that these people are stupid, one dimensional characters like the characters on a TV show. Most/many of them are not. The fact that hardly any of the people that matter even watch TV, including those that make TV, should be telling you something.

The goal of a good con is for the mark to be so enthralled that they will deny that they've been conned even as they seek some rationalization for their empty accounts. You don't have to continue to be a mark, it's up to you.

[geek tragedy]

99. The DLC is defunct like ACORN and dead as Andrew Breitbart.

You lied when you said the Koch brothers were indifferent as to who won in the elections, and that they owned the Democrats as much as they owned the Republicans.

That is a load of horseshit as anyone who knows anything will attest--they did everything they could to defeat Democrats in 2012.

They are Democrats' enemies, not benefactors.

[Egalitarian Thug]

101. I never said either or those things, you like to argue against points you wish were made.

They did, and are going to continue to, solidify the thoroughly indoctrinated, and the move is about stealing the republican party from those that currently own it. Beating up on the Democrats is a surest-fire way to do that. The teahaddists, are still in the getting riled up mode and boner, mcturtle and their ilk are in deep shit. They crazies can't decide whether exodus or revolt is the answer, and I suspect they will told which way to go based on the deals the Koch's can get from the ilk. You're confusing your assumptions with their goals.

The DLC is defunct, so is PNAC, still not a TV show, moving on. The people are still out there and calling the shots wherever they can. Keeping the wheels turning. The republicans are going to maximize their influence in the mid-terms where they already have a built-in advantage, more statehouses, more governors, etc. This will conveniently also provide all the excuses required for the Democratic Party continue to fail for the last two years.

[sarisataka]

9. Having seen authoritarian states first hand

we are not one, not close.

That does not mean we are automatically a Free state with "Liberty and Justice for All". There is a range and we have been creeping towards authoritarian for the last decade plus.

[geek tragedy]

11. There's no truly free society. It's always a matter of striking the appropriate balance

between having society governable and having too much intrusion on personal freedom.

The NSA thing has pushed too far in one direction, and it's time to reel it back.

[sarisataka]

18. The NSA thing has pushed too far in one direction, and it's time to reel it back

it has pushed way to far. The entire Patriot Act needs to be undone; I'll take my chances with the terrorists.

[geek tragedy]

22. Certainly parts of it, esp stuff like section 215 need to go.

I generally disfavor the idea of repealing an entire body of legislation, since there's almost certainly some common sense and useful things in there.

[sarisataka]

26. There are a couple good ideas

but the whole thing is so poisoned and self-perpetuating I would rather it be undone. Re-install the parts that are effective for counter terrorism and within the Constitutional limits. We can even keep the secret court for sensitive warrants, but it needs to fully report activities to Congressional oversight at least quarterly to insure such warrants are used only when necessary and are not abused.

Although the way D.C. is (not) working these days, I might as well wish for a pot of gold and a rainbow pony....

[geek tragedy]

30. there will never be consensus for full scale repeal-only chipping away. nt

[Egalitarian Thug]

23. You have confused illusions with reality for as long as I've been reading your writing here.

Each iteration of authoritarianism is different from those that preceded it. They're Communist, Theocratic, Socialist, Fascist, Democratic, Republican, Monarchist, or Corporatist. The label they display and the specific methods they employ are irrelevant, the only thing that matters is the use of force, in all its varieties, to keep and maintain power or control over others.

Wherever coercion is acceptable, you have authoritarianism.

[geek tragedy]

29. You've just defined authoritarianism down as "functioning government" or "absence of anarchy"

A government without the power to coerce is not a government, but a figurehead.

That's what government is--the body that makes the rules and enforces them.

When the government threatens polluters with fines, that's coersion.

[Egalitarian Thug]

41. There ya go. What confuses you about the idea of consent of the governed? Government without the

power to coerce is, must be, organized around cooperation.

Cooperation is much more difficult than coercion, but that doesn't mean it is impossible. When the people agree that pollution is bad and ought not to be allowed, or if it is necessary then the polluter must bear the cost , that is governance. Lack of coercion doesn't mean lawlessness, it doesn't preclude punishment, it just means that "Because I say so, and I'll beat you if you don't do what I tell you" is not a valid reason for anything.

Cooperation also means things like, "I'm just as valuable cleaning up the place as you are doing books". Egalitarianism is hard and most people don't want to do hard even when hard is the right thing, but that is still not a reason for doing bad because it is easy.

[geek tragedy]

42. Good luck finding Utopia. nt

[Egalitarian Thug]

54. No answers as usual. This nation was founded on exactly the principles outlined above.

Those guys had no power to compel the others to revolt against the crown, they had to gain their cooperation and they imposed unanimity on themselves, to boot.

But of course, in your world your own lack of creativity and imagination define the possible. Pretty sad, when you think about it.

[geek tragedy]

57. Did they ask their slaves to cooperate? nt

[Egalitarian Thug]

72. Non sequitur. Still no answer. n/t

[geek tragedy]

73. You're arguing that people who owned slaves didn't believe in coersion. nt

[Egalitarian Thug]

75. No. I'm arguing that coercion is not necessary and leads to bad results.

But as long as you've brought it up, how did that whole slavery thing work out? Are you now saying that that was a good idea? I mean after all, how were those men supposed to make money without forcing others to do their bidding?

Please feel free to keep on making my point as often as you like.

[Egalitarian Thug]

89. What? Tired of playing already?

Afraid that your poorly thought out justifications for subjugating others isn't doing too well when actually examined?

(This is where you come back with a dismissive personal attack, declare victory, and run away to congratulate and support others that share your defective logic.)

[TBF]

31. Emma Goldman said -

If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.

[geek tragedy]

36. So you think the SCOTUS gutting of the Voting Rights Act is no big deal then, right? nt

[TBF]

40. ...

[warrprayer]

81. guess I'll be the crazy guy who puts you on ignore

after the news with Manning, enough is enough.

[Katashi_itto]

90. Ok, go run for office. Let us know how many "Patrons" you become beholden to, in order to afford to

Buy the office. It's democracy alright. Democracy By Subtraction.

[geek tragedy]

92. Let me know how much people complaining on the Internet have accomplished. nt

[Katashi_itto]

93. Wow. Such a comeback. So Profound.

[geek tragedy]

96. That's the truth. People who participate in our political system are the only

ones who can bring about change.

The rest is just whining.

[WillyT]

6. Yep... K & R !!!

[Rex]

12. Plutocracy since the 1980s.

It accelerated after 2000 to an alarming rate that even Uncle Fester noticed.

[phleshdef]

13. Anyone answering "yes" either has no idea what authoritarian means...

Last edited Wed Aug 21, 2013, 01:59 PM - Edit history (1)

...or they are being intentionally dishonest to feed the hyperbole machine.

[hfojvt]

20. sure, blame the victim

maybe we just didn't have a choice (see below)

Did you ever think of that?

[phleshdef]

27. huh?

[hfojvt]

49. you could not find

post #17 even after I said "see below"?

[phleshdef]

51. Yea I see it and I don't see how it fits in as a response to what I said.

[hfojvt]

65. you don't?

Because I was joking that all these people were saying "yes" on the poll because the "authoritarian state" was torturing them until they said yes.

See there, I was attempting to mock the notion that we live in an authoritarian state by describing a real authoritarian state.

Swing and a miss though, swing and a miss.

[phleshdef]

67. Oh ok.

Sorry, I totally missed it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. I love "not as bad" arguments. A little aresenic is not as bad as lot of arsenic.

[phleshdef]

43. It isn't a "not as bad" argument" Its a "entirely fucking inaccurate" argument.

If this were an authoritarian government, we wouldn't even be able to have this discussion, which many people are having, widely and openly, on the Internet and on television and everywhere else.

The people of the United States have the power to elect people to all 3 branches of government that could hypothetically do away with any program or surveillance activity that we don't want them engaging in. Yet the general knowledge of these programs has been around for 7 years and we still have many of the same people who voted for the Patriot Act in office.

Its not authoritarian when the people continually elect and re-elect a majority of the governing body that isn't trying to do away with activities that some of us believe oversteps what the limits of government authority should be.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. When the people are given a choice between 2 candidates that support the programs..

they are left with a "not as bad" non choice if they are against such things as the surveillance state, torture, a crackdown on whistleblowers, and war.

[phleshdef]

47. The majority of people choose to participate in the 2 party system.

No one is forcing anyone to do that. Everyone in America had the chance to vote for the Green Party candidate or the Libertarian candidate in 2012. Those folks were on my ballot the same as yours.

If enough people wanted to change the partisan dynamic in this country, then it could happen. You just don't have enough people willing to make that choice.

And national security/war issues aren't the only issues people care about.

[hfojvt]

46. well even when it comes to arsenic

in fact, 1 ppb is NOT as bad as 9 ppb which is also not as bad as 90 ppb which is also not as bad as 1,000 ppb.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. And, it's a convenient excuse for authoritarianism.

[hfojvt]

60. is that anything like absolutism?

You know, where people are gonna rage about 3 ppb like it is the same as 3,000 ppb?

Because there never will be a society with 0 ppb.

And I would not want one anyway, since I am not an anarchist. I want the police to have enough power to stop people from breaking into my house or stealing my car, and I like it when other people follow certain rules like speed limits and such.

I suppose that makes me an authoritarian.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. What if they only stole your canary?

Or, only stole your can opener?

Would that make it OK?

Would you vote in favor of it, because it's "not as bad" as stealing your cat or toaster?

[phleshdef]

68. I wouldn't want anyone to go to jail for stealing my can opener.

If they stole my car though, yea.

[hfojvt]

70. you have the argument backwards

I accept a certain amount of the "police state" because I happen to hate crime and criminals.

But there need to be limits to the police state.

Yet to some, any hint of a police state means they start screaming "fascism, authoritarianism, and Big Brother" (oh my). Yet I would claim that a nation where somebody goes to jail for stealing a car really is not as bad as a nation where they get stoned to death for stealing a can opener.

Somebody did steal a hat that I hardly ever use, and I was upset about it, but not as upset as I was when my bicycle got stolen or my washing machines got vandalized.

[Warren Stupidity]

88. I'd say a state with the highest incarceration rate in the world is, in fact, a police state.

But it could still be a functional democratic republic. Unfortunately this state we live in is not a functional democratic republic. It is a plutocracy, or actually a kleptocracy, being methodically pillaged by the clowns running the show, and since 2001 has discarded international and constitutional law in favor of brute force. It is an authoritarian kleptocracy.

[hfojvt]

17. TANJ

I started to answer "no"

Then there was a knock on my door and Big Brother tazed me until I promised to answer "yes".

I hate when that happens.

edit

But it is ODD. Because right this very now, I am working on "Warren Loomis" in the 1860 census.

And that made me think. I have not seen "warren stupidity" in a while. Does he still post on DU?

And now here you are.

Coincidence?

[bunnies]

19. Im not sure exactly what we are at this point...

but an authoritarian state? No. Not as I understand it.

[liberal_at_heart]

33. oligarchy or plutocracy may be more accurate but it sucks either way.

I still voted yes because whatever it is it does not represent the people and we need to acknowledge it so we can fight to fix it.

[Jesus Malverde]

35. Is that new to see the usernames on polls? cool...nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. Let's see: Secret government, secret courts, secret prisons, secret wars, secret kill lists.....

stifling and imprisonment of whistle blowers, stifling of dissent, one party (two wings) rule......

[last1standing]

38. Authoritarian or facist. Take your pick.

n/t

[kenny blankenship]

52. Bushler: "There ought to be limits to freedom!"

Obama: "I am implementing those limits faster, better, and more efficiently than any Republican could ever do. Vote for us, we do unfreedom right!"

[CakeGrrl]

55. Would you rather be here or in Russia? China? Cuba? -nt

[Blue_Tires]

59. I'd say the truth is somewhere in the middle...

[PD Turk]

69. Yeah, I'd say so

And it's been that way for a while. But then again I may be biased, getting the hell beat out of me by the cops when I'd done nothing wrong and having my civil rights violated and the cops suffering zero consequences for doing it, yeah, that might slant my opinion just a wee bit.

[JoeyT]

71. I'd say not quite.

Plutocracy rapidly plummeting toward a feudal system is probably more like it.

Only instead of being part of the estate of Lord Nutsack Fickenwizzle it'll be the estate of Coca Cola or KBR.

[sarisataka]

79. I am all for being a serf...

if it is under Lord Nutsack Fickenwizzle.

[rrneck]

74. Larva stage. nt

[limpyhobbler]

77. DU is not a representative sample of opinion, but wow, 80% think the USA is not a democracy.

That's pretty messed up.

Gallup or somebody should ask this question on a real national poll.

The results could be telling.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

83. We have become more authoritarian. We are on the leading edge of what may become an authoritarian

...state. And it may not. But something must be done, or we're headed in that direction.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

84. well, that's a nice bullshit poll. You have visually demonstrated a false choice fallacy

bravo

[Warren Stupidity]

86. I'd have to interpret that response as "wow I didn't realize the authoritarian booster league

was such a small minority here".

The poll is a pretty straight forward yes, no, other to a pretty clear question. You are just very uncomfortable with where the vast majority opinion here is.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

87. in a non scientific poll with sample size of 130 thus far and people self select to participate?

uh no. not too worried. I hadn't even looked at the percentages when I posted. I just looked at the question choices and thought it laughable.

[sakabatou]

95. Somewhere inbetween

[GalaxyHunter]

97. yes.

[Douglas Carpenter]

100. I am probably one of the most vehement in denouncing the surveillance state but I voted pass

I would have voted no because we certainly are not an authoritarian state the way real authoritarian state really are. In a real authoritarian states I would be in jail and so would most of the posters on this forum. As to whether or not we are still a functioning representative democracy observing the rule of law - Well, not exactly but we still manage to have many basic democratic forms and a fair degree of rule of law however corrupted the representative democracy may be and however corrupted the rule of law actually cashes out in the real world. Visit a real authoritarian state where the police and the intelligence networks really do act with impunity all the time and the courts really are a joke and you will see what I mean.

My concern and condemnation of the ever increasing surveillance industrial complex is not so much a concern that some agent X is observing my funny little ways so they can blackmail me into only nice things about the power structure - I am really not losing a whole lot of sleep about that. My concerns is the realization that this amount of total full spectrum information gathering combined with almost limitless possibilities of technological enhancements operating in secrecy with very little accountability is creating a very centralized institution that will inevitably became a dangerous power in its own right. Although we are still a long way from life in a real authoritarian state - I cannot imagine any scenario in which we can continue down this road of ever expanding surveillance capabilities operating with the most advanced technology the world has ever known in an atmosphere of unaccountable secrecy and not create an institution that is a dangerous power in its own right - perhaps separate from the official state and most likely operating outside of the control of the official state. This is what will happen if the situation is not brought under control soon.

[TheKentuckian]

102. Closer to yes than to no. Power does not flow from the people, power is used to herd the people

There is no existing term for an all pervasive extraction and control scam of this scope, depth, and magnitude with buy in of the controlled baked into the cake rather than icing to cover up the turd loaf.

Still, it may be fair to say we have never tested our system to see if we make collectively bad decisions or if the ability to decide is substantially an illusion. Different faces, rhetoric, coalitions to carefully arrive at predetermined outcomes for the benefit of unelected but always influential "stakeholders".

When you consider the state and ownership of major media, the money required for elections, ownership of proprietary voting machines, the disgusting degree of corporate capture and more open influences, the distribution of resources, and the revolving door factor that whatever we call it, it stinks to high heaven.