A few years ago, I pointed to an old Simpsons “Treehouse of Horror” episode to give a hint concerning where I believed society was headed. The episode was titled, Nightmare Cafeteria, and was a parody of the film, Soylent Green.

In the episode, the elementary school staff decided to punish students by processing them into food, which the faculty then developed a taste for. This led up to a scene that I focused on, which depicted the few students who were left being monitored intently for even the slightest infraction, over which they would be sent off to satisfy the appetites of the demented faculty.

As things are, it can be said that society has reached a similar point, by reason of the surveillance state.

When discussing the surveillance state, there are people who frequently express the sentiment that if someone doesn’t do something wrong, they have no reason to worry. The point that needs to be impressed upon them is that a person who is monitored at all times can be accused at any time.

Suppose you came to a complete stop at an intersection, just as a squad car was approaching. Then, you advance. A completely legal and lawful advance. But, unbeknownst to you, the approaching officer was power-tripping and bitter about whatever, so he decided to use footage of your lawful driving to accuse you of a rolling stop. And you don’t find out until you get a citation in the mail, days later.

What would you do? Or, perhaps the better question is, what can you do?

The fine amount was low enough that you’d probably just pay it to avoid further trouble, even though the footage you can view online plainly shows your innocence, but substantial in value to the point of being considered the theft that it is, perhaps roughly equivalent to two days of work by a man who actually produces value.

The state has found a new way to extract value, and this can be accomplished by the surveillance apparatus. And even someone who is innocent can be victimized by it. Thus the point: a person who is monitored at all times can be accused at any time.

And while the accusation may be refuted, the accusation itself can have consequences. If you got a fine that was the equivalent to a day’s work by a skilled tradesman, would you contest it if it meant losing a day’s work to attend a hearing? Or would you just pay, knowing that you’d end up losing value, either way?

For a long time, it was taxation. Now, it seems the state has found yet another way to steal. Theft has evolved.