According to the Washington Post: "D.C. police are now watching live images from dozens of surveillance cameras posted in high-crime parts of the city, hoping to respond faster to shootings, robberies and other offenses and catch suspects before they get away.

"Since August 2006, the city has installed 73 cameras across the city, mostly on utility poles, at a cost of about $4 million. But until recently, officers were using them mainly as an investigative tool -- checking the recordings after crimes were committed in hopes of turning up leads and evidence."

Now, however, under a new policy, police watch live feeds from a dozen or so cameras. And they want to greatly expand that.

Live police surveillance of citizens via camera is already standard policy in U.S. cities including Baltimore, Chicago, New York and Philadelphia.

U.S. cities are following the model of London, where 500,000 surveillance cameras allow government agents of Big Brother to peer at citizens around the clock. The average Londoner is caught on camera several hundred times a day.

Many U.S. politicians and enforcers are eager to follow London's example. New York mayor Michael Bloomberg toured London last year and virtually salivated at the widespread surveillance there. He dismissed critics of government surveillance as "ridiculous," and, observing that London has a camera in every bus and subway car, declared, "We are way behind and we really do have to catch up."

Similarly, D.C Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier told the Washington Post: "I'd love to have the whole city wired like London."

According to the Washington Post: "The District's cameras have quite a range ... Officers can rotate angles for different views. They can zoom in on faces of potential suspects and pick up license plate numbers from cars several blocks away."

Around-the-clock government surveillance of streets and public spaces fits in nicely with other developing government trends, like the REAL ID national ID scheme (discussed last issue), the continuing erosion of Fourth Amendment protections, plans for the creation of massive government databases on U.S. citizens, and reports of new levels of federal electronic eavesdropping.

Does anybody see a trend here?

Last night I took my oldest to the Strawberry Festival in Plant City, Fl. It’s your standard carnival - rides, $8 hot dogs, and loads of extremely overweight & slovenly people eating deep fried funnel cakes.

And police. Lots of police. In bullet proof vests and riot gear.

Now, most of the police walking around were your basic white shirt Sheriffs. Of course, their utility belts would make Batman jealous, but I can understand cops being around. Of course, the reason people behave better around a cop is because he or she is armed. The same principle applies to us normal citizens, but that’s a different gripe altogether.

What bothered me was that as the Mrs. and I were leaving, a squad of officers practically dressed in riot gear were gathering. They didn’t have helmets or shields, but they donned thick boots, BPV’s, batons, etc. They were all just sitting around shooting the breeze, so I don’t think there was any immediate reason for them to be there.

Is this what we require now from our basic police force? Near military level gear just to keep the peace? We’ve given our basic police force automatic weapons, permanent SWAT teams, military style training, and have continually allowed the police to violate our basic rights all in the name of perceived security (we’re no safer today than we were 50 years ago).

My old man is a cop. I respect the job and understand that cops will do what they’re allowed to do just like any human will take advantage of their situation. The problem is that we’re slowly (and that’s arguable) devolving into a police state where those who are hired to protect and serve are instead becoming soldiers where the people themselves are the enemy to be conquered.

Part of the reasoning for the Second Amendment is dead. There is no external army that is going to step in and take over the U.S. ala Red Dawn where the average citizen being armed is going to help. But the ever increasing threat of a tyranny is valid and it starts with the local constabulary.

I believe in providing our peace officers with the training and equipment they need. Unfortunately, a lot of people believe that if the bad guys have AK-47 clones then that means the cops have to have something more powerful, and this isn’t the case. If someone pulls a Desert Eagle .50AE on me, my 10mm isn’t going to not work because of the disparity. The same goes for our police. Give them the right tools, but nothing more.

What I fear the most though right now isn’t the police I saw in riot gear, it was the hundreds of domesticated sheep [people] walking by them that didn’t see anything wrong at all. When you become used to the police walking around like military, you forget that it’s a bad thing.

In 2000, I traveled with Harry Browne during his Libertarian Party presidential campaign. One time, I saw something that hooked my curiosity. After one of Harry Browne's speeches, an audience member criticized Harry for his position on the War on Drugs.

Harry Browne made a brief, strong, and impassioned case for repealing all drug laws and ending the Drug War. The challenger was unfazed. He responded, "I don't care what you say. You can't make me change my mind. I hate drugs. I want to keep them illegal. I want to punish people who sell them, buy them, and use them."

What's going on here? I thought. I considered several possibilities, but nothing really clicked. So I filed it away.

I recently watched a TV broadcast of a free market economist giving a speech and then answering questions from members of the audience. One of the questioners vigorously argued for raising minimum wages.

The free market economist quickly offered statistics, evidence, and argument in favor of repealing minimum wage laws. He ended his remarks by saying, "Minimum wage laws increase minority unemployment. They make things worse for the very people you're trying to help."

"I don't care what your facts and figures and research show," said the questioner. "Anyone can prove anything. Raising the minimum wage sends a message. I want higher minimum wages."

I flashed on my earlier experience with Harry Browne -- and realized what was going on.

Liberty anorexia.

Anorexia is a condition where a person has little or no appetite -- and an aversion to food. If some human beings can have a condition that causes them to not want food, to be revulsed and repelled by food, and to avoid eating -- then mightn't it be possible that there are people who do not want freedom, who are revulsed and repelled by it, and who avoid and reject freedom?

Liberty anorexics.

What if there are people who do not want liberty? What if they don't want freedom -- even if it makes almost everyone much better off? What if -- no matter what benefits liberty creates -- they still do not want it, are repelled by it, and avoid it?

If you're like me, your first reaction to the idea of liberty anorexia is to reject it. To think it impossible. But is it any more impossible than food anorexia?

Maybe your second reaction will be to think: "They ought to want liberty." Or: "They ought to be receptive and responsive to evidence and argument and reason." Or: "They ought to be teachable or persuadable about freedom."

Please remember: "Ought to be" ain't "is." Things are what they are. Water's wet. Wind blows. Gravity doesn't play favorites. Maybe you've been in a few conversations with liberty anorexics. Maybe you did *not* fail to convince them. Maybe they were impervious to persuasion.

Depending on how tightly you define food anorexia, it afflicts somewhere between 1 in 30 1 and 1 in 1,000 people. I suspect that liberty anorexia afflicts and affects a larger percentage of the population. Often, we can identify liberty anorexics by using "The Magic 'If'" technique that I teach in my book Secrets of Libertarian Persuasion.

A few examples.

"If you looked at the evidence on the Drug War, and concluded that it didn't work and made things worse, would that change your mind on ending drug prohibition?"

"What if you carefully examined the facts and figures on the War on Drugs, and you personally saw that it was a dismal failure -- if that happened, would you consider ending it?"

Or:

"If you looked over the strongest arguments and evidence for minimum wage laws, and you saw -- with your own eyes -- that it destroyed jobs for minorities, and increased minority unemployment, would that change you mind about minimum wage laws?"

"You tell me that all your friends support minimum wage laws. I accept that. But if they were mistaken, if they were in error, if minimum wage laws made things worse for low income Americans, would you want to know? If there were evidence available, would you be willing to read it with an open mind?"

If they answer "Yes," then get them the information they need. If they answer "Maybe," ask them what else they need to know to turn their maybe into a "Yes."

But if they answer "No," they may well be liberty anorexics. If they answer "No," move on to another topic or another person.

Please don't try to feed the liberty anorexics.