[starman2003]

But capitalists impose their own hierarchy, in the workplace. In fact, the workplace hierarchy is the one which most directly affects most working people, not the state (except in times of war). This is why almost all anarchists were anti-capitalist....

How were people supposed to make a living? The alternative to capitalism was socialism implying an expanded State. Was everyone supposed to be self sufficient?

[Potemkin]

How were people supposed to make a living? The alternative to capitalism was socialism implying an expanded State. Was everyone supposed to be self sufficient?

...which is why I am not an anarchist.

[annatar1914]

...which is why I am not an anarchist.

''Anarchy + _________'' at all does not seem to be very likely at first glance. But given human nature, ''Anarcho-Capitalism'' seems to be the most likely in the downward slide into disintegration that I believe Capitalism will experience.

[Rich]

Guys come on.

How in God's name is Saturn nearby Jupiter?

[annatar1914]

How in God's name is Saturn nearby Jupiter?

Really? How about something more substantial of a contribution? I remember that you used to say some interesting things about Islam and Modernity a while back, still do. I assure you that it does have a relevance.

[ccdan]

I would put to you this observation; rarely has there ever been in modern times a ''Totalitarian'' state in the sense of the term originally coined by Mussolini;

This was in reality never the case. Maybe today in some place like North Korea (and even then I can think of an exception), but beyond that country's peculiar circumstances I can't think of any time or place in which genuine ''Totalitarian'' States existed.

The United States today is quite totalitarian. There are way too many laws that criminalize or regulate way too many things including many aspects of private life, and the police, prosecutors and judges have too much power and can act with a lot of impunity, some of them having near complete immunity.

If you want a more obvious version of totalitarianism, just look at Saudi Arabia - you probably have fewer liberties than in North Korea(esp. if you are a woman)

[annatar1914]

@ccdan

ccdan, you said;

The United States today is quite totalitarian.

No, sorry, to say so is an abuse of the real meaning of the word. The United States Federal Government does not dominate and regulate every single aspect of a US Citizen's life from Womb to Tomb.

There are way too many laws that criminalize or regulate way too many things including many aspects of private life, and the police, prosecutors and judges have too much power and can act with a lot of impunity, some of them having near complete immunity.

Again, that is simply untrue. So untrue it's almost laughable. The United States cannot even seem to prevent people from illegally entering the country and availing themselves of goods and of services that by right belong to US Citizens alone, including it seems to vote in elections...

Totalitarian societies I would think would have better border controls.

If you want a more obvious version of totalitarianism

I'm still looking for a single version of Totalitarianism at all, obvious or not. Maybe North Korea. A Totalitarian society, once more by definition, is one in which the modern nation state controls every part of a person's existence.

''Totalitarian'' is a word that has come to mean; ''any attempt by the State to enforce laws'', in the minds of many people, much as the word ''Fascist'' has come to mean; ''anybody I don't like that I think is a meanie''.

, just look at Saudi Arabia - you probably have fewer liberties than in North Korea(esp. if you are a woman)

Saudi Arabia is Authoritarian but not Totalitarian, and even women have rights there. There's much talk of societal ''rights'' it seems, but little talk of societal duties or responsibilities...

[starman2003]

The United States today is quite totalitarian.

This is what you often hear from liberals or the far left. IMO a regime does not have to control literally every aspect of a person's life to be totalitarian. But it must encourage only one party and ideology, while discouraging (if not totally suppressing) others. The US is not at all like that.

[annatar1914]

This is what you often hear from liberals or the far left. IMO a regime does not have to control literally every aspect of a person's life to be totalitarian. But it must encourage only one party and ideology, while discouraging (if not totally suppressing) others. The US is not at all like that.

@starman2003 , @ccdan ;

Here's the thing, and I admit I might be an asshole about this, but to me ''Total'' in ''Totalitarianism'' means... Total.

And again, I might be an asshole about this, but every example I have ever seen of what people say is or was a ''Totalitarian State'' is a Country ruled by a Party... That is, a private organization that has control over the State and indeed has it's own organizations that do not fall under the purview of State organs.

I'm not quite sure where I'm going with this line of thought, and it's probably something that I should direct @Victoribus Spolia , but I am inclined to believe that ''Totalitarianism'' doesn't even really exist and is a useless term to describe a regime. And, that ''Statism'' too is an inexact term as well.

If even the ultimate ''statists'' are not really such in relation to the modern nation, then Anarcho-Capitalism would no longer appear so strange if we did away with these political terminologies that no longer make sense, if they ever did.

[SolarCross]

I'm not quite sure where I'm going with this line of thought, and it's probably something that I should direct @Victoribus Spolia , but I am inclined to believe that ''Totalitarianism'' doesn't even really exist and is a useless term to describe a regime. And, that ''Statism'' too is an inexact term as well.

If even the ultimate ''statists'' are not really such in relation to the modern nation, then Anarcho-Capitalism would no longer appear so strange if we did away with these political terminologies that no longer make sense, if they ever did.

My take for what it is worth is that a "statist" is someone that worships the state, someone who literally sees the state as a Christian might view jesus as a conscious being in its own right and a saviour. It's a kind of idolatry I suppose.

Totalitarianism by wiki's defo is this:

Totalitarianism is a political concept that defines a mode of government, which prohibits opposition parties, restricts individual opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high degree of control over public and private life. It is regarded as the most extreme and complete form of authoritarianism.

I think that is pretty much spot on. It isn't just government without opposition nor is it an extremely high degree of control over public and private life, it is both. Most modern democracies are fairly close the latter but that is mitigated by the freedom to have opposition parties. Most pre-modern regimes (think political absolutism) were fairly close to the former but they restricted their interests to war and peace and didn't give even the slightest interest in how Joe Ordinary lived his life. Democracies are tolerable because although you are controlled to a high degree you at least get a say in how you are controlled. Autocracies are tolerable because although you don't get a say you aren't controlled very much at all. Totalitarian regimes are simply insufferable because you get neither voice nor freedom, there is no wriggle room at all.

[annatar1914]

@SolarCross

You said in regards to ''Statism'' that;

My take for what it is worth is that a "statist" is someone that worships the state, someone who literally sees the state as a Christian might view jesus as a conscious being in its own right and a saviour. It's a kind of idolatry I suppose.

Sure, there are plenty of idolaters out there, but who really worships the State, enough that it would ever get to the point of Totalitarianism? Even North Korea is in effect privately ruled by the family of it's original Ruler, Kim Il Sung.

And about the definition of Totalitarianism;

It isn't just government without opposition nor is it an extremely high degree of control over public and private life, it is both. Most modern democracies are fairly close the latter but that is mitigated by the freedom to have opposition parties. Most pre-modern regimes (think political absolutism) were fairly close to the former but they restricted their interests to war and peace and didn't give even the slightest interest in how Joe Ordinary lived his life. Democracies are tolerable because although you are controlled to a high degree you at least get a say in how you are controlled. Autocracies are tolerable because although you don't get a say you aren't controlled very much at all. Totalitarian regimes are simply insufferable because you get neither voice nor freedom, there is no wriggle room at all.

But again, even under that definition of Totalitarianism, it's either impossible or cannot exist indefinitely with no breakdown at all. Even in so-called ''Totalitarian'' societies, one has freedom relatively speaking to have a voice, within the context of the Party and to the degree one has authority in any kind of hierarchical system, chain of command.

I think it best then to describe these sorts of regimes not as something that doesn't exactly fit reality anywhere or anytime, but as ''Illiberal'', or ''Authoritarian'' in nature.

[ccdan]

No, sorry, to say so is an abuse of the real meaning of the word. The United States Federal Government does not dominate and regulate every single aspect of a US Citizen's life from Womb to Tomb.

It's the totality of laws enacted at all levels of government(not just federal) that make the US a totalitarian state. Sure, federal legislation alone might do "the trick" as well, as there's to much of it.

Now, if you don't think the US controls too much of its citizens' lives, you are likely in one of the following 3 categories:

1. you don't realize the amount and extent of US legislation that affects ordinary people, you don't understand the extent of power that various us state/government institutions have

2. you got so accustomed to excessive legislation and the associated restrictions, that you find it "normal"; you don't understand that there are other civilized countries that have much more freedom than people in the US

3. you actually like totalitarianism! there's this category of people who are afraid of liberty.. they believe that the state should regulate nearly everything, otherwise there's chaos/anarchy! obviously, they're aware of the the negative connotations of the term "totalitarianism" and will try to contradict anyone who suggests such a thing, often suggesting that "totalitarianism" is something else (like dictatorship, one-party-state or something along these lines)

Mind you, there's no such thing as "every single aspect of life" as there's no finite list of such aspects. Totalitarianism, like other ideologies and political systems, comes in degrees.

Totalitarianism is the point past which, while living your normal life - without any intent of harmful behavior, you make yourself vulnerable to state action against you - on a relatively constant basis(whether you can get caught easily or not, respectively how aggressive is the state in enforcing its laws is a separate matter - the key thing here is that you get exposed to legal action against you, ridiculously easy and for trivial/absurd things)

US(or western) style totalitarianism is the result of an excess of "malum prohibitum" type of legislation, as opposed to "malum in se" legislation(which by its very nature is limited) and ironically is the product of current-style democracy(when you have idiots voting, when you have idiots running for office, when you have no control of over mediatic propaganda, when you have no limits on the quantity and nature of legislation that can be enacted and in effect at any single point in time this is what you get: democratic totalitarianism - an excess of legislation that cripples individual freedom)

Again, that is simply untrue. So untrue it's almost laughable. The United States cannot even seem to prevent people from illegally entering the country and availing themselves of goods and of services that by right belong to US Citizens alone, including it seems to vote in elections...

The Nazis couldn't kill all the jews either.

The efficiency of various state institutions has no bearing on whether a state is totalitarian or not.

The US has pretty good control of its borders. But the main part of the totalitarian apparatus is not used for that purpose, but rather for arresting, convicting and imprisoning its own citizens en masse - mostly for victimless and trivial deeds (which have been wrongly classified as "crimes") - the US has the second largest rate of incarceration per capita in the world; also nearly a third of the population has some sort of criminal history (are americans really that evil - objectively speaking? I don't think so)

Saudi Arabia is Authoritarian but not Totalitarian, and even women have rights there. There's much talk of societal ''rights'' it seems, but little talk of societal duties or responsibilities...

You're probably trolling. Women have rights? Like the right to breathe or what?

No, Saudi Arabia is a fully-fledged TOTALITARIAN STATE with all the "bells and whistles."

There's not much you can do that's not regulated or restricted somehow. And we talk about very ordinary and mundane things: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/11/midd ... index.html

And don't get me started with "it's a different culture" - no, legislation, especially criminal legislation should not be based on cultural "values" or other subjective things.

[SolarCross]

@ccdan

^ you make some very good points but do you not think that the high levels (relatively speaking) of democracy in the US including the wide acceptance of freedom of speech, freedom of association and separation of church and state mitigates the "totalitarianism" of the US? It is one thing to be highly regulated and quite another to also be prevented from thinking, speaking independently and from participating in the decision making. Democracies suffer from feature creep but ultimately from the point of view of joe in the street and his vote the creeping regs are self-inflicted rather than imposed.

Would you prefer a hands off authoritarianism? A high king who just runs the army and lets joe on the street live however he likes?

[Victoribus Spolia]

Would you prefer a hands off authoritarianism? A high king who just runs the army and lets joe on the street live however he likes?

Count me in. I would take that over what I have now any day.

[annatar1914]

@ccdan

ccdan, you replied that;

It's the totality of laws enacted at all levels of government(not just federal) that make the US a totalitarian state. Sure, federal legislation alone might do "the trick" as well, as there's to much of it.

Give examples of this alleged Draconian legislation if you please.

Now, if you don't think the US controls too much of its citizens' lives, you are likely in one of the following 3 categories:

1. you don't realize the amount and extent of US legislation that affects ordinary people, you don't understand the extent of power that various us state/government institutions have

If people don't realize these things, chances are they don't care, and it doesn't effect them to a significant degree.

2. you got so accustomed to excessive legislation and the associated restrictions, that you find it "normal"; you don't understand that there are other civilized countries that have much more freedom than people in the US

Totalitarian societies would by definition have no freedom whatsoever; that's why I suggest to others to not use such non-realistic, non-descriptive labels as ''totalitarian''.

3. you actually like totalitarianism! there's this category of people who are afraid of liberty.. they believe that the state should regulate nearly everything, otherwise there's chaos/anarchy! obviously, they're aware of the the negative connotations of the term "totalitarianism" and will try to contradict anyone who suggests such a thing, often suggesting that "totalitarianism" is something else (like dictatorship, one-party-state or something along these lines)

Hmm, something tells me that this is a passive-aggressive barb in my direction

I am a ''Statist'', an unapologetic one. Man would exterminate himself in short order without the State, for he is wicked and most of all to his fellow man; ''Homo homini Lupus est''.

Mind you, there's no such thing as "every single aspect of life" as there's no finite list of such aspects. Totalitarianism, like other ideologies and political systems, comes in degrees.

What part of ''Total'' in ''Totalitarian'' is so hard for people to understand? Are you an American? An Anarchist or Libertarian?

Totalitarianism is the point past which, while living your normal life - without any intent of harmful behavior, you make yourself vulnerable to state action against you - on a relatively constant basis(whether you can get caught easily or not, respectively how aggressive is the state in enforcing its laws is a separate matter - the key thing here is that you get exposed to legal action against you, ridiculously easy and for trivial/absurd things)

And what exactly is this ''normal'' behavior or things that you think allegedly opens up Western citizens to be vulnerable to ''State action"? That is yet to you ''trivial/absurd''?

US(or western) style totalitarianism is the result of an excess of "malum prohibitum" type of legislation, as opposed to "malum in se" legislation(which by its very nature is limited) and ironically is the product of current-style democracy(when you have idiots voting, when you have idiots running for office, when you have no control of over mediatic propaganda, when you have no limits on the quantity and nature of legislation that can be enacted and in effect at any single point in time this is what you get: democratic totalitarianism - an excess of legislation that cripples individual freedom)

You're going to have to be more clear on what these sorts of prohibited things/acts are.

The Nazis couldn't kill all the jews either.

That's one of the lamest evocations of Godwin's Law i've seen in a while. And totally unnecessary I might add. Modernity makes people easier to kill, singularly or collectively, but that's another discussion.

The efficiency of various state institutions has no bearing on whether a state is totalitarian or not.

Actually they do, the efficiency or lack thereof of state institutions because it shows that this hypothetical ''totalitarianism'' is quite unworkable. Can't have it both ways, ccdan.

The US has pretty good control of its borders.

But the main part of the totalitarian apparatus is not used for that purpose, but rather for arresting, convicting and imprisoning its own citizens en masse - mostly for victimless and trivial deeds (which have been wrongly classified as "crimes")

I see where you're coming from now.

- the US has the second largest rate of incarceration per capita in the world; also nearly a third of the population has some sort of criminal history (are americans really that evil - objectively speaking? I don't think so)

It is evil to disobey, those who resist the Authority resist God.

You're probably trolling. Women have rights? Like the right to breathe or what?

Name the ''rights'' that women do not have, in your opinion, in Saudi Arabia.

No, Saudi Arabia is a fully-fledged TOTALITARIAN STATE with all the "bells and whistles."

How so?

There's not much you can do that's not regulated or restricted somehow. And we talk about very ordinary and mundane things: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/11/midd ... index.html

And don't get me started with "it's a different culture" - no, legislation, especially criminal legislation should not be based on cultural "values" or other subjective things.

But the point that you are missing is whether or not any policing is being done by the State in the modern sense, or by some other formal or informal institution.

I have a feeling your idea of things that are ''subjective'' is broader than mine.

[annatar1914]

Count me in. I would take that over what I have now any day.

I know, it's tempting. Which is part of the reason for this very thread....

Getting into that ''Pre-Modern'' frame of mind, because I'm increasingly of the opinion, by everything I'm seeing, that that era of human history will be returning. I know I'm taking a lot of shots for going down this road, incredulity, doubts about my sanity or intelligence. I don't care. When they are old, they will remember and know I was right.

[ccdan]

you make some very good points but do you not think that the high levels (relatively speaking) of democracy in the US including the wide acceptance of freedom of speech, freedom of association and separation of church and state mitigates the "totalitarianism" of the US?

No, on the contrary, democracy(in its current form) together with the freedom of speech and especially the freedom of the media are the main drivers of totalitarianism in the western world!

The average individual is way too stupid, uneducated and uninformed to have any say in most matters.

Besides, democracy doesn't even work "as advertised" in most cases(people don't know who are voting for - especially in parliamentary/legislative elections, those who get elected don't understand what laws are voting and what effects those laws will have on society/individuals, there's not even the smallest guarantee that those who you vote will protect or advance your interests, actually there's no guarantee that they will fulfill their election promises etc. - and the last but not least: most people don't even know what's good for them)

The "freedom of speech" is an enormous mistake that gets unwarranted praise. Media debates get monopolized by those who know how to lie and manipulate better. People get brainwashed and indoctrinated with lots of wrong ideas - in some ways it's a lot worse than in genuine dictatorships.

It is one thing to be highly regulated and quite another to also be prevented from thinking, speaking independently and from participating in the decision making.

You're not just "highly regulated" (that sounds very innocuous - as if there's just too much bureaucracy and that's all), your life is highly restricted by criminal legislation and the threat of imprisonment at every step.

Yeah, they're two very different things: one can ruin your life completely for the smallest "mistake" (which you might not even identify it as such), the other can give you the illusion that your voice "matters"

Oh, and you can't be prevented from thinking. It's impossible.

Would you prefer a hands off authoritarianism? A high king who just runs the army and lets joe on the street live however he likes?

I would definitely prefer an "enlightened dictatorship" over democracy. I believe the west desperately needs its own version of "Mustafa Kemal Ataturk" - of course, adapted west's current issues

and lets joe on the street live however he likes?

I don't know why many of you tend to believe that there are only two extremes: either the current state of excessive legislation, or anarchy(lets joe on the street live however he likes) - no, you can have strictly necessary criminal legislation based on rational and objective principles - which is fair, well justified and unambiguous, you can have a well functioning judicial system with well prepared professionals that make decisions based on evidence and logic and which can also be held accountable if they make mistakes, you can have law enforcement that acts strictly within a well defined framework of unmaligious rules, whose members will be held accountable for abuses, etc.

[SolarCross]

No, on the contrary, democracy(in its current form) together with the freedom of speech and especially the freedom of the media are the main drivers of totalitarianism in the western world!

The average individual is way too stupid, uneducated and uninformed to have any say in most matters.

Besides, democracy doesn't even work "as advertised" in most cases(people don't know who are voting for - especially in parliamentary/legislative elections, those who get elected don't understand what laws are voting and what effects those laws will have on society/individuals, there's not even the smallest guarantee that those who you vote will protect or advance your interests, actually there's no guarantee that they will fulfill their election promises etc. - and the last but not least: most people don't even know what's good for them)

The "freedom of speech" is an enormous mistake that gets unwarranted praise. Media debates get monopolized by those who know how to lie and manipulate better. People get brainwashed and indoctrinated with lots of wrong ideas - in some ways it's a lot worse than in genuine dictatorships.

I wouldn't disagree that democracy is a bit of a mess but my point wasn't that it was efficient or rational only that people seem to find it pretty tolerable even though it may produce highly restrictive legal regimes. My point is that people tolerate it because they believe it is has options for them to participate in it and change anything that they find disagreeable and this makes for a comfortable straight-jacket.

You're not just "highly regulated" (that sounds very innocuous - as if there's just too much bureaucracy and that's all), your life is highly restricted by criminal legislation and the threat of imprisonment at every step.

Yeah, they're two very different things: one can ruin your life completely for the smallest "mistake" (which you might not even identify it as such), the other can give you the illusion that your voice "matters"

It isn't a matter of two different things. Highly regulated naturally implies the punishment of the irregular. The pot-smoker and the business man who invests in a project which overlooks some small detail of regulatory whimsy who thus ends up being looted of all his resources through rapacious official fines are in the same boat really as far a being highly regulated goes. We are either free to act on our own initiative or we are punished for being disobedient. There can in no sense be a regulatory regime without the punishment of those who don't conform to it.

Oh, and you can't be prevented from thinking. It's impossible.

It isn't impossible, the commies know how to do it, just shoot people who think in the head. Thoughts need operational brains, "no man, no problematic thoughts" to paraphrase Stalin. Moreover thinking isn't just a thing which occurs onanistically in the privacy of one's own mind or else Winston Smith was a free thinker. Thinking is a collaborative process.... An excessive control of speech is as good as as thought control because you prevent meaningful collaboration. Also if you can induce a certain amount of terror in a person you can prevent them thinking in a meaningful way. Torture works too.

I would definitely prefer an "enlightened dictatorship" over democracy. I believe the west desperately needs its own version of "Mustafa Kemal Ataturk" - of course, adapted west's current issues

Ataturk was a democrat though and a liberal. His whole shtick was to imitate the west in every particular. It's pretty ironical to hold him up as the way forward from the state of the west now when all he was doing was imitating what the west was...

I don't know why many of you tend to believe that there are only two extremes: either the current state of excessive legislation, or anarchy(lets joe on the street live however he likes) - no, you can have strictly necessary criminal legislation based on rational and objective principles - which is fair, well justified and unambiguous, you can have a well functioning judicial system with well prepared professionals that make decisions based on evidence and logic and which can also be held accountable if they make mistakes, you can have law enforcement that acts strictly within a well defined framework of unmaligious rules, whose members will be held accountable for abuses, etc.

I think that civilian matters should be devolved down to individually variable civilian requirements and military matters should be resolved by military people. I wouldn't say civilians shouldn't live by any rules but there is no need for that to be a one-size fits all straight-jacket, let that be locally, even individually variable.

[ccdan]

If people don't realize these things, chances are they don't care, and it doesn't effect them to a significant degree..

It does affect them greatly, but most people are simply too stupid to understand what's going on.

65 MILLION “NEED NOT APPLY”

[...] At the same time that the background check industry has expanded, the share of the U.S. population with criminal records has soared to over one in four adults.

https://nelp.org/wp-content/uploads/201 ... Apply1.pdf

"over 1 in 4 four adults" (more like 1 in 3) have criminal records. That's the INSANE result of overcriminalization!

The average individual however is naturally paranoid - a consequence of insufficient intelligence. Paranoia is simply irrational fear of things or people that either don't exist, or are not dangerous. In other words paranoid people are not able to correctly identify dangers, misidentifying non-dangers as dangers. And since they can't identify dangers, there's also the other side of the same coin: they also misplace trust - in other words they trust the wrong people.

In today's America, the state has become the main threat to people's happiness, freedom and life. Criminals are a much, much smaller issue. For the most part, unless you get involved with organized crime, the danger posed by criminals is pretty small and a passing issue.

Normally, your things can get stolen, you can get robbed, beaten up and the like. You'll get over such things quite easily. Sure, there are some other more serious crimes that can happen to you, but they're too rare to matter too much for the average individual.

The state on the other hand, can easily inflict enormous distress and pain on you, it can also quite easily ruin your life completely.

In the western world(and especially the US), the state is by far the biggest and most dangerous enemy to the average individual.

Totalitarian societies would by definition have no freedom whatsoever; that's why I suggest to others to not use such non-realistic, non-descriptive labels as ''totalitarian''.

A society that has "no freedom whatsoever" - that's a nonsensical concept. How could a society have no freedom whatsoever?

Give examples of this alleged Draconian legislation if you please.

And what exactly is this ''normal'' behavior or things that you think allegedly opens up Western citizens to be vulnerable to ''State action"? That is yet to you ''trivial/absurd''?

You're going to have to be more clear on what these sorts of prohibited things/acts are.

This is how it all begins... indoctrination and exposure to the abuses of the totalitarian police state from a very early age:



In most sane countries on this planet, the only contact schoolers would have with police would be related to traffic regulations so that the children can safely cross the street. In totalitarian America on the other hand, PRE-schoolers may get to see what it's like to be in handcuffs - something that's very likely to happen to them for real sooner or later.

And for good reason: real handcuffing may come to them extremely soon:

KINDERGARTEN PERP: SCHOOL BACKS OFF HANDCUFFED 4-YEAR-OLD
'It's no wonder our young people are being treated like criminals'

Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2015/01/kindergarte ... YFkkhTK.99

Then you have another type of insanity that's completely out of control in the US:

6 year old Florida child taken from her parents by police and forcibly held in psych ward.
[...]
This is not an isolated incident in Florida. Last year more than 11,000 Florida children were Baker Acted from school.

http://ontariomove.blogspot.com/search/ ... 20pipeline
If you think it's "just a blog" here's the official data: https://www.usf.edu/cbcs/baker-act/docu ... report.pdf

This is the end result of democracy where the stupid and the ignorant have a say: pseudoscientific psychiatry and its charlatans are manufacturing imaginary "mental illnesses" at a crazy rate and the uneducated populace falls into their trap allowing unspeakable abuses to happen.

This one seems old enough already:

But only in Yankeeland.

The following ones are already hardened criminals and arresting/jailing them is proper way of dealing with skipping class:

Also, only in Yankeeland.

Now, I'm not going to show absurd cases of ordinary people of average age being arrested/convicted/imprisoned, as I'd have to create the longest post on this forum... so I'll just jump to the other end of the spectrum.. errr, I mean age:

90-Year-Old Arrested For Feeding Homeless Will Continue ‘As Long As There Is Breath In My Body’

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/ ... 47274.html

This is what "Land of the Free" looks like!

And now, a "real crime":

95-year-old woman arrested after hitting granddaughter with slipper, police say

https://www.wftv.com/news/local/95-year ... /746444126

Calling the cops because your 95 year old grandmother threw a slipper at you. So we don't have just insanely abusive legislation but also insanely stupid people who will use and abuse the system for the most trivial things imaginable. There's this insane american culture of calling the cops for ridiculously trivial reasons. Lots of people regretted calling the cops as the consequences can be dire for the various actors involved. Sometimes even those who call the cops can pay the ultimate price: with their lives.

This is just a teeny-tiny part of US-style totalitarianism...

[ccdan]

people tolerate it because they believe it is has options for them to participate in it and change anything that they find disagreeable and this makes for a comfortable straight-jacket.

As if it's more important what people believe than the actual situation. People believe many stupid things and I don't see how their beliefs would change the reality: that the US is extremely illiberal and lots and lots of people are being abused by the system.

It isn't a matter of two different things. Highly regulated naturally implies the punishment of the irregular.

You are wrong. While regulation implies sanctioning(as you can see, I won't use the word "punishment") the "irregular" we have two very different things: civil law and criminal law. The former will typically "signal" to you that you're doing something wrong, while the latter can ruin your life in an instant. One should never mix up the two as if it's one and the same. In saner countries civil matters can't possibly turn into criminal ones(for example not paying fines won't result in imprisonment.) But that's probably alien "territory" for americans and a few other westerners.

It isn't impossible, the commies know how to do it, just shoot people who think in the head.

Sorry, this is propaganda territory already. No one can possibly know what you think, therefore no one can shoot you for what you think. You're(intentionally) mistaking "thinking" for "spreading propaganda"

Ataturk was a democrat though and a liberal. His whole shtick was to imitate the west in every particular. It's pretty ironical to hold him up as the way forward from the state of the west now when all he was doing was imitating what the west was...

You're completely clueless.

Ataturk was a military dictator who abolished the Ottoman empire, founded modern Turkey and ruled it for more than 20 years under a single-party system. He forced secularism and various liberties on a very conservative muslim population - no one asked "democratically" for them. Well, if you want to call that "democracy", fine, but many would disagree I suspect...

Oh, and even if what you're suggesting were true, there's no irony: the west is no longer what it once was. From about the late 70s - early 80s onwards the US is on totalitarian path:



Western Europe(and now the EU) is a bit late to the party, but it's catching up.