Once an organic process of debate and citizen input, our government now operates as a mechanized bureaucracy, controlled by a corporate elite. The dangers inherent in such mechanical bureaucracies, as Richard Rubenstein tellingly illustrates in his book The Cunning of History, is that those caught within their snare are totally dehumanized and eventually eliminated and thrown out like so much human trash. Such was the case with the Nazi death camps, administered by corporations as profit-making ventures. In fact, one of "the chief functions of Auschwitz was to support a vast corporate enterprise involved in the manufacture of synthetic rubber" products for Europe.527
A similar approach is taken in the 1973 film Soylent Green. The year is 2022, and the world is suffering from pollution, overpopulation, depleted resources, poverty, dying oceans, and a miserably hot climate due to the greenhouse effect. Policeman Robert Thorn is dispatched to investigate the murder of a wealthy man who is intimately connected to the Soylent Corporation, whose newest product is Soylent Green, a green wafer advertised as "high energy plankton."
Through the twists and turns of trying to solve the murder while resisting the corporate state's attempt to shut down the investigation, Thorn learns the true secret of Soylent Green. It is made from human beings.
The warning, of course, is that the farther we move into a corporate-state vortex where the bottom line is greed, profit-making, and materialism, human beings will increasingly become more disposable commodities. At the same time, we are sold everything from toothpaste to politicians as products for consumption. This is fascism with a smile.
The point is that we are being conditioned to be slaves without knowing it. That way, we are easier to control. "A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude," writes Aldous Huxley. "To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers."528
All of this can come about without much coercion. As Dr. Robert Gellately, author of Backing Hitler: Consent and Coercion in Nazi Germany, 1933-1944, discovered about the German people in Nazi Germany "There were relatively few secret police, and most were just processing the information coming in. I had found a shocking fact. It wasn't the secret police who were doing this wide-scale surveillance and hiding on every street corner. It was the ordinary German people who were informing on their neighbors."529
In fact, Gellately realized that those acting as the Gestapo's unsolicited agents and informing on their neighbors were motivated more by greed, jealousy, and petty differences than by any sense of patriotic duty. He found "cases of partners in business turning in associates to gain full ownership; jealous boyfriends informing on rival suitors; neighbors betraying entire families who chronically left shared bathrooms unclean or who occupied desirable apartments. And then there were those who informed because for the first time in their lives someone in authority would listen to them and value what they said."530
Thus, the key to bringing about an authoritarian regime that is geared to controlling, not governing, the citizenry is by selling it–propagandizing it, really–through the legislators, prisons, and the schools.
CHAPTER 23
Are We All Criminals Now?
"Such laws which enable government zealots to accuse almost anyone of committing three felonies in a day, do not just enable government misconduct, they incite prosecutors to intimidate decent people who never had culpable intentions. And to inflict punishments without crimes."531–Journalist GEORGE WILL
Farm Raid (Anna Vignet/The Daily Californian)
Is it possible that you are a felon? Or at least a criminal of some sort? This is the reality that more and more Americans are grappling with in the face of a government bureaucracy consumed with churning out laws, statutes, codes, and regulations that reinforce its powers and value systems and those of the police state and its corporate allies. All the while, the life is slowly being choked out of our individual freedoms. The aim, of course, is absolute control byway of thousands of regulations that dictate when, where, how, and with whom we live our lives.
Incredibly, Congress has been creating on average 55 new "crimes" per year,532 bringing the total number of federal crimes on the books to more than 5,000, with as many as 300,000 regulatory crimes.533 As journalist Radley Balko reports, "that doesn't include federal regulations, which are increasingly being enforced with criminal, not administrative, penalties. It also doesn't include the increasing leeway with which prosecutors can enforce broadly written federal conspiracy, racketeering, and money laundering laws. And this is before we even get to the states' criminal codes."534
Petty Criminals
In such a society, we are all petty criminals, guilty of violating some minor law. In fact, attorney Harvey Silvergate estimates that the average American now unknowingly commits three felonies a day, thanks to an overabundance of vague laws that render otherwise innocent activity illegal and an inclination on the part of prosecutors to reject the idea that there can't be a crime without criminal intent.535 Consequently, we now find ourselves operating in a strange new world where small farmers who dare to make unpasteurized goat cheese and share it with members of their community are finding their farms raided,536 while home gardeners face jail time for daring to cultivate their own varieties of orchids without having completed sufficient paperwork.537
This frightening state of affairs–where a person can actually be arrested and incarcerated for the most innocent and inane activities, including feeding a whale538 and collecting rainwater on their own property539 (these are actual court cases)–is due to what law scholars refer to as "overcriminalization," or the overt proliferation of criminal laws.
Welcome to the Nanny State
One of the major concerns in America today is the rise of the so-called "Nanny State," a British concept whereby the government legislates policies that attempt to limit or control human behavior. These laws, which we are told are good for us, are at times petty, and at other times bizarre because of the way they may interfere in our lives. For instance, Gary Harrington of Eagle Point, Oregon, was convicted of violating a 1925 state law by having "three illegal reservoirs" on his property. He allegedly diverted tributaries of the Big Butte River, which is considered public water, for his own use. Harrington says he had been using them to collect rainwater and runoff from melted snow on his own property. For this purported "crime," Harrington was sentenced to thirty days in jail.540 Such laws may be well-meaning, or may even have clear value to society. But what often happens is that such laws get stretched beyond the bounds of common sense. Assuming Harrington's claim to be true, his reservoirs would have been designed to make use of water he already had the right to use. But instead, he cannot save rainwater and snow for use in irrigation or drinking water.
Bizarre Laws and Lemonade Stands
These situations are more common than we think. More and more, sidewalk lemonade stands are being shut down for not having some required permit. Run by children, usually in front of their homes, these tiny stands sell lemonade or cookies for about a quarter per cup. In 2011, police in Coralville, Iowa, shut down three such stands set up during a bicycle race, citing a need to protect riders from health risks. The required permit would have cost $400.541
Criminalizing Lemonade Stands
"If the line is drawn to the point where a four-year-old eight blocks away can't sell a couple glasses of lemonade for 25 cents, then I think the line has been drawn at the wrong Criminalizing Lemonade Stands spot," said Dustin Krutsinger, whose daughter Abigail's stand was shut down after just half an hour of operation. She made $4 in sales during that time.542
Other bizarre laws of this nature include:
Minnetonka, Minnesota, has made it illegal for a vehicle to deposit mud or other substances onto streets and highways. It's considered a public nu
isance, and the vehicle's owner is subject to a fine of up to $2,000.
During the summer of 2011, King County, Washington, mandated the use of life jackets for everybody "on or in a major river," regardless of the purpose for being there or the ability to swim. Violators faced an $86 fine.
Tennessee passed a law prohibiting schoolchildren from "exposing underwear or body parts in an 'indecent manner."' Derisively called a "Saggy Pants" law, violators face a $250 fine or up to 160 hours of community service.
Maryland law requires parents to give summer camps consent for their children to use sunscreen, with or without assistance from counselors.
Hilton Head, South Carolina, banned the storage of trash in cars. A violation is punishable by a fine of up to $500 or a jail sentence of up to thirty days. The reason: it attracts rats.
As part of an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and landfill use, San Francisco passed a law requiring residents and businesses to sort discarded materials into three different bins, depending on classification: recyclables, trash, and combustibles. Failure to properly sort results in a fine of $100-$500.
To protect hotel staff from injury, California introduced legislation that would ban the use of "flat sheets," in favor of fitted ones, as the bottom sheet on beds and require the use of "long-handled" tools to clean bathrooms.
Rockville, Maryland, made the use of foul language within earshot of others a crime punishable by a $100 fine and/or up to ninety days behind bars.543
Those are some of the more ridiculous statutes. In other areas, the "nanny state" may act in a coordinated fashion. Writing for Forbes, Dr. Paul Hsieh expressed concern about ongoing efforts to control the way we eat. He focused particular derision on New York City's restrictions on serving size and nutritional content over the past few years as part of a fight against obesity.
The nutrition police, however, are virtually everywhere. For example, in North Carolina, an inspector confiscated a child's homemade lunch, consisting of a "turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice," on the grounds that it lacked nutrition.544 Massachusetts went so far as to ban bake sales, which are a traditional means of fund-raising for school groups.545 The ban was later overturned.
In July 2012, New York City's board of health continued further restrictions on fattening foods. Despite its already having limited the use of salt and trans-fat, America's largest city might continue to tighten the metaphorical belt until it "dictates the caloric content of just about every food item sold outside the vegetable aisle."546
These policies are often described with positive intentions. One could even say they're meant to save the people from themselves. But what if the people don't want to be saved? Or they simply want the freedom to eat as they see fit?
There's always a proverbial "line" for when government goes too far. Sometimes we see it, more often we don't. We haven't reached that point yet, but I suspect it may come sooner than we think.
Criminalizing Free Speech
One of the key ingredients in a democracy is the right to freely speak our minds to those who represent us. In fact, it is one of the few effective tools we have left to combat government corruption and demand accountability. But now, even that right is being chipped away by statutes and court rulings which weaken our ability to speak freely. Activities which were once considered a major component of democratic life in America are now being criminalized.
For example, in a self-serving move aimed more at insulating government officials from discontent voters than protecting their hides, Congress overwhelmingly approved legislation that will keep the public not just at arms' length distance but a football field away by making it a federal crime to protest or assemble in the vicinity of protected government officials. The Trespass Bill (the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011) creates a roving "bubble" zone or perimeter around select government officials and dignitaries (anyone protected by the Secret Service), as well as any building or grounds "restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance."547
The bill's language is so overly broad as to put an end to free speech, political protest, and the right to peaceably assemble in all areas where government officials happen to be present. Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) was one of only three members of the House of Representatives to vote against the legislation. As he explains:
Current law makes it illegal to enter or remain in an area where certain government officials (more particularly, those with Secret Service protection) will be visiting temporarily if and only if the person knows it's illegal to enter the restricted area but does so anyway. The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it's illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it's illegal.
Some government officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their safety. But criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity–even if that activity is annoying to those government officials–violates our rights. I voted "no."548
Specifically, the bill, which was passed by a vote of 388 to 3, was signed into law by President Obama. It levies a fine and up to a year in prison against anyone found in violation, and if the person violating the statute is carrying a "dangerous weapon," the prison sentence is bumped up to no more than ten years. Thus, a person eating in a diner while a presidential candidate is trying to score political points with the locals could be arrested if government agents determine that he is acting "disorderly." And depending on who's making the assessment, anything can be considered disorderly, including someone exercising his right to free speech by muttering to himself about a government official. And if that person happens to have a pocketknife or nail clippers in his possession (or any other innocuous item that could be interpreted by the police as "dangerous"), he could face up to ten years in prison.
Given that the Secret Service not only protects the president but all past sitting presidents, members of Congress, foreign dignitaries, presidential candidates, and anyone whom the president determines needs protection, anywhere these officials happen to be becomes a zone where the First Amendment is effectively off-limits. The Secret Service is also in charge of securing National Special Security Events, which include events such as the G8 and NATO summits, the National Conventions of both major parties, and even the Super Bowl. Simply walking by one of these events places one in a zone of criminal trespass and thus makes him subject to arrest.
It's safe to say that what happened to Steven Howards will, under this law, become a common occurrence. Howards was at a Colorado shopping mall with his son in June 2006 when he learned that then-Vice President Dick Cheney and his Secret Service security detail were at the mall greeting the public. A Secret Service agent overheard Howards telling someone that he was going to approach Cheney, express his opposition to the war in Iraq, and ask him "how many kids he's killed today." Howards eventually approached Cheney and shared his view that Cheney's policies in Iraq "are disgusting." When Cheney turned and began to walk away, Howards brushed the Vice President's shoulder with his hand. The Secret Service subsequently arrested and jailed Howards, charging him with assaulting the Vice President. The assault charges were later dropped.549
Free Speech Zones
Unfettered free speech is vital to a functioning democracy. Unfortunately the tendency on the part of government and law enforcement officials to purge dissent has largely undermined the First Amendment's safeguards for political free speech. The authoritarian mindset undergirding these roving bubble zones is no different from that which gave rise to "free speech zones," which are government-sanctioned areas located far away from government officials, into which activists and citizens are herded at political rallies and events. Both zones, however, have the same end result: dissent is muted or silenced altogether, and the centers of power are shielded from the citizen.
Free speech zones have become commonplace at political r
allies and the national conventions of both major political parties. One of the most infamous free speech zones was erected at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston. Not so much a zone of free expression as a cage, it was a space enclosed by chain link fences, Jersey walls, and razor wire.550 Judge Douglas Woodlock, who toured the free speech cage before the convention, noted, "One cannot conceive of other elements put in place to make a space more of an affront to the idea of free expression than the designated demonstration zone."551
Bubble zones and free speech zones, in essence, destroy the very purpose of the First Amendment, which assures us of the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. In other words, we, as citizens, have a constitutional right to address our government officials in a public manner so that they can hear our grievances or concerns. What these zones do, however, is create insulated barriers around public officials, thus keeping us out of sight and sound's reach of those who are supposed to represent us. Many prominent activists, from Occupiers and the Tea Party to antiwar protesters, and so on, are now herded like animals and cordoned off from the view of public officials. Obviously, these zones also serve a secondary purpose, which is to chill free speech by intimidating citizens into remaining silent.
Corralling Protesters (CS Muncy)
Consider this: if these types of laws had been in effect during the Civil Rights movement, there would have been no March on Washington. Martin Luther King Jr. and his fellow activists would have been rendered criminals. And King's call for "militant nonviolent resistance" would have been silenced by police in riot gear.
What's Next?
A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State Page 17