Article Image

IPFS News Link • Philosophy: Fascism

Gonzalo Lira: Is the U.S. a Fascist Police-State?

First of all, what is a “fascist police-state”? A police-state uses the law as a mechanism to control any challenges to its power by the citizenry, rather than as a mechanism to insure a civil society among the individuals. The state decides the laws, is the sole arbiter of the law, and can selectively (and capriciously) decide to enforce the law to the benefit or detriment of one individual or group or another. In a police-state, the citizens are “free” only so long as their actions remain within the confines of the law as dictated by the state. If the individual’s claims of rights or freedoms conflict with the state, or if the individual acts in ways deemed detrimental to the state, then the state will repress the citizenry, by force if necessary. (And in the end, it’s always necessary.) What’s key to the definition of a police-state is the lack of redress: If there is no justice system which can compel the state to cede to the citizenry, then there is a police-state. If there exists apro forma justice system, but which in practice is unavailable to the ordinary citizen because of systemic obstacles (for instance, cost or bureaucratic hindrance), or which against all logic or reason consistently finds in favor of the state – even in the most egregious and obviously contradictory cases – then that pro forma judiciary system is nothing but a sham: A tool of the state’s repression against its citizens. Consider the Soviet court system the classic example. A police-state is not necessarily a dictatorship. On the contrary, it can even take the form of a representative democracy. A police-state is not defined by its leadership structure, but rather, by its self-protection against the individual.

2 Comments in Response to

Comment by Iapetus
Entered on:

I have come to call us a fascist oligarchy, which I believe is most fitting for our current state of the union. And yes, all fascist oligarchies are oppressive police states, as someone must be the lackies for the oligarchs and who better than the police to do their dirty work. Fascism by definition is a dictatorship that uses heavy taxation and regulations to control the means of production which is what we call today "commerce". A dictatorship is a fallacy as all dictators require a significant group to carry out the various functions of government controls. They are generally just the spokesman and often a decoy of the real people in control.  An oligarchy is defined as leadership by the few, a more realistic account of the governing body of most countries today. Sadly both democratic republics and democracies have all failed at providing the required protections of individual rights necessary to foster a civil society. After analysis, it is quite interesting why they fail. Mainly, that people are either undereducated in economics or have a perpensity to vote for what is in their own best interest, both promoting what is in the disinterest of the majority.

I must agree that the Rule of Law has been altered to where it is now; The Law by Those Who Rule. Thinking that government will all of a sudden recognize this problem and provide a remedy is like trying to pursuade one of the great large cats to become a vegan. I submit to all that until we improve the system of justice, increased levels of crime, corruption, war, poverty and opression will continue as they have under all governmental systems where the law is controled by a ruling elite.  

I have proposed a free market judcial system that could prevail over the current system and I have neither been contradicted nor embraced. Do we not understand that the judicary has thwarted all meaningful opposition to their rule and will continue to do so until they are intellectually defeated. We have attempted to overtake them both politically and with the sword, and they come back with even stronger methods of control. Corrupt men will always gravitate towards power, as good men are busy improving the human experience. We know that government is not the answer as it has historically most often turned out to be the problem. The solution to free market problems is not the state. It is free maket solutions that can only cure free market problems and a government run Judicary is our most signifcant adversary. Please go to for a summary of my proposal.


Comment by Ross Wolf
Entered on:

This U.S. Supreme Court Decision 6 to 3 gives  U.S. Government the power to charge for example any Irish American with supporting terrorism simply because he or she spoke to a Irish relative in Ireland alleged to be associated with the IRA which could include most of Northern Ireland.

Senator John McCain attempted on March 4, 2010, to exceed the U.S. Supreme Court’s apparent police state decision introducing S.3081 The “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010.” If passed, the government can use (only suspicion) or less to curtail an individual’s Constitutional Protections against unlawful arrest, detention and interrogation without benefit of legal counsel and trial. According to McCain’s S.3081, Government would not be required to provide (detained individuals) Miranda Warnings or even an attorney. Americans could be interrogated and held indefinitely in military custody on only suspicion of being an Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent suspected of; having engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or purposefully and materially (supported) hostilities against the United States; its coalition partners or civilians. “Materially Supporting Hostilities” against the United States could include any person or group that spoke out or demonstrated disapproval against an agency of U.S. Government; or attended a protest government alleged supported hostilities.

When you read McCain's bill it appears “suspicion” is not necessary for government to detain and interrogate Americans. If the government is allowed warrant-less wiretapping of Citizens’ phones, Internet Activity, e.g. email, requested by Obama, any statement or comment might be taken out of context, used under McCain’s bill to deem someone supported or engaged in hostilities to cause their indefinite detention. Note that Government is already referring to lawful demonstrators as Terrorists, and increasingly spies on lawful Americans and protesters that speak out. See McCain Senate bill S.3081: