[joesmo]

I think you can easily say the same thing about every single amendment in the Bill of Rights. Might does indeed make right and usually might is money. While the article points out that making deposits below 10k is not illegal and while that maybe technically correct, just like many things that were not explicitly illegal in the Communist system could harm one greatly, many things that are not strictly illegal in the US can harm one greatly. I think we need to start looking at things another way.

For lack of better words (though I'm open to suggestions) it is essentially illegal in the US to travel with cash, make deposits under $10k, or really, anything the government authorities deem to be illegal vis a vis money that can be taken via civil forfeiture laws. If one can't run a business or even save for his children's college without fear of losing the money to the government, what then is the difference between our system and that of authoritarian regimes if both systems are not ruled by laws but by the greed of police and government agencies?

[rdtsc]

> what then is the difference between our system and that of authoritarian regimes if both systems are not ruled by laws but by the greed of police and government agencies?

That is not fair. There is a huge difference between the systems, I have lived in both a communist totalitarian country and in US.

And the difference is this:

US government and the culture as a whole has much better handle on PR and brainswashing. In the communist regime I know, very few privately believed or respected any of the ideals about the "party". All those slogans and so on.

In contrast in US many believe in fantasies and have a very distorted view of reality. Either that government is totally useless and evil or that one should obey, listen, be proud of it, and sign up to go fight wars on its behalf when it asks you, because it is the "best country in the world".

In rest, effectively, how much power the "lower classes" have is about the same as in the other regime. With some trade-offs. For example. Here they have the "freedom of speech". So anyone can grab a megaphone and go stand at the corner downtown, and yell about space lizards. That is nice. In the communist country they would be in an mental institution or maybe a work camp. Also here they can buy an iPhone, say, if they save enough and maybe sell enough food stamps. But on the other hand, they don't get free housing and healthcare. Which is what the communist regime had.

[joesmo]

Yes, I agree that the US brand of tyranny is much more clever and doesn't need to suppress things like speech because it realizes that "free speech" is mainly irrelevant and does not threaten its all out rule. Also, having lived under both systems, I agree with the conclusion that most people under Communism, at least the Eastern European kind, did not believe the government B.S. and thus were generally much smarter than the people who believe that B.S. here in the US despite having very few connections to the outside world and unbiased information compared to US citizens.

In the end however, there is no difference and this is more than a fair comparison. Tyranny is tyranny. Being able to buy an iPhone or gab into a megaphone doesn't change a thing.

[emsy]

My parents grew up in the Polish People's Repuplic and they basically come to the same conclusion. I've heard several time that none of their friends believed the propaganda, they just all played by the rules.

[jschwartzi]

More poignantly, what is the difference between our system and the system of English law in effect at the time of the Revolutionary War?

[chaostheory]

I feel that our system is just a lot more subtle. It mainly gives the illusion of freedom and choice.