If you don't see what's objectionable with saying "lets be more like that police state in how they deal with drugs", then the things we're striving for are so fundamentally different that we probably won't have a very productive conversation. I was replying to the other guy. Have a nice day.
I see, so that gives you full credentials to insult me. Either way, there's more than 3 people here.
> "lets be more like that police state in how they deal with drugs", then the things we're striving for are so fundamentally different that we probably won't have a very productive conversation.
If that's how you solve problems then I agree, no discussion should ever be had when you're in the room. Singapore, Portugal, and USA, which two are similar than the other combination?
I also do not think Singapore is a "police state", and their government and people would also firmly disagree with you.
The governments of China, Myanmar, Russia, and Iran would also like to firmly disagree that they are police states. Oh, and North Korea would like to remind you that it's a Democratic Republic. It's in the name, see?
Your "definition" was that there is no such thing. If you're unwilling to concede that any of the above are "police states", let's just call them repressive authoritarian regimes which regularly violate their citizens' human rights as understood by democracies. If you don't see any difference, there's really no point in arguing it with you; you can keep saying 2+2=5, or asking people to explain it like you're a child, but your tiresome line of bad faith argumentation has already been dignified with more responses than it deserved.
He makes vague statements that insinuate an idea in your mind, you assume that's what he meant and respond to that, but then he claims that's not what he meant but doesn't clarify. He's just a bored troll, stop feeding him.
Let's define "police state" then instead of dancing around what it means then.
To me, quite a few qualities, but the most important is all that matter to me, e.g. multiple political parties, the official number of law enforcement is too low to the general population (~10k enforcers to ~6m gen.pop. in Singapore) and technology has not progressed to a level that would lead me to believe numbers don't matter.
From this definition, you might be (un)surprised to see that there are no countries that fall under "police state" to me. That is genuinely my belief. Governments are too weak to exert that much control such that they cannot be overwhelmed by just 10% of the population from wreaking havoc any singular random day.
"Police state bad" just does not mean a whole lot to me. Nor does "liberal democracy", its empty and more indicative of the person making the statement than anything.
With its Internal Security Act, the Singapore government can arrest and detain anyone it deems as a threat, even before any crime was committed. It can ban any political parties, other organizations, ban publications it deems as "subversive" or shut down entertainment venues with the same law.
The more recent Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act allows the government, on the order of its minister, to shut down any publication or online content it deems as "fake news". Or ban the website hosting the content entirely if need be.
A police state is one in which the executive uses the police and other instruments of the state (from the bureaucracy, judiciary and other agencies and tools at its disposal, including a Stasi/secret police) to monitor and control civil and political activities of its citizens and others on its territory and even beyond.
To me the mere existence of a secret police means it's a police state, like east Germany, but I understand it isn't enough for others. I hope with this I've convinced you.
I'm not saying 'this is bad', I'm saying 'this exist'.
> government can arrest and detain anyone it deems as a threat, even before any crime was committed. It can ban any political parties, other organizations, ban publications it deems as "subversive" or shut down entertainment venues with the same law
I would say without the words before "government" being there, you would have been describing quite a few countries in the world.
Detainment, is as defined by the countries that have it, but specifically using US, a temporarily hold on an individual from travel to investigate from reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed, e.g. you can be an unlucky individual who matches a description of a person that has committed a crime and you would be legally detained, up to 48 hours or evidence is produced. I believe this is consistent with even with the definition of detainment in every state in the EU as well, I won't go personally check for the truth in that statement but detainment is specifically a thing I am almost very positively sure in saying that everyone disambiguate from arrest.
> The more recent Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act allows the government, on the order of its minister, to shut down any publication or online content it deems as "fake news". Or ban the website hosting the content entirely if need be.
Also, see above list, these are legal declarations with backing + enforcement for decades.
> A police state is one in which the executive uses the police and other instruments of the state (from the bureaucracy, judiciary and other agencies and tools at its disposal, including a Stasi/secret police) to monitor and control civil and political activities of its citizens and others on its territory and even beyond.
Fully consistent with my definition as well, but its too weak of a definition, else we would have to reclassify many things as "police states", including our most favorite "liberal democracies". When its a comparison to, then people cannot cite "police state" as an opposition to my first comment and why I won't accept that as something resembling an "address".
> its too weak of a definition, else we would have to reclassify many things as "police states", including our most favorite "liberal democracies".
No, if the shoe fit...
Basically the US have a bureaucracy and part of its judiciary system that prevents it from matching 100% that definition, but it's a really close thing, and i think that calling it "mostly police state" or "half police state" is fair (and by the way, France, my country, is the same way, with exactly the same defense except the bureaucracy is a bit stronger thanks to internal unions, and the legislative branch a lot weaker than i thought it was 5 years ago).
Singapour match 100% of that definition, there is no branch of the government that work against the state in civil right cases.
Nobody asks to die from a fentanyl overdose, while the risks of drug trafficking in Singapore are told to you the moment you arrive in the country.
I do not feel bad for anyone caught with drugs in Singapore, but I sympathize with the addicts in America who have been constantly lied to by people who pretend to care about them.
> are told to you the moment you arrive in the country.
To be fair, American citizens and its visitors are also told what happens to them should they be caught with drugs and/or distributing them. Exactness notwithstanding about regional/local laws and grams, its the same story from when you're a kid all the way up to your first run in with the enforcement.
Singapore is just explicit about one thing more than anything else, you will die.
Which is the real issue. The US is very much built on the idea that it's fine to lie to people and pretend to care about them while aggressively exploiting them.
It's not a drug problem, it's a sociopathy problem.
The Sacklers were allowed to remain billionaires, CVS and other defendants have had to pay out billions - and all of this is considered cost of business instead of criminal activity, even though it has destroyed millions of lives.
