Reading books with ads in them? No thanks. I'll be off to the pirate ba... shit.

I think you've missed the point on what makes a police state a police state and maybe that's the fault of it being referred to as a police state instead of say a totalitarian state.

A. I live in a city of 750,000 - Just to give you an idea of scope, the glow of the city is very prominent when outside the city. In fact, from a couple of vantage points at least about 50 KM away you can still make out the lit towers in the city center.

B. When is a plant a weed? When you don't want it where it is. Light pollution is light which is not serving a purpose. That city glow I mention above is not doing anything to benefit anyone, it's light going up into space where it really can't help.

Light pollution is also wasteful from a financial standpoint. Full cut off lighting directs the majority of light from the lighting element to the desired location meaning you can use lower wattage bulbs, or fewer bulbs, to achieve the same level of ground lighting. In addition full cut off lighting reduces road glare which increases driver safety in night driving.

The International Dark Sky Association has some good resources on the subject. Based on the source you may want to keep a grain of salt handy, but I don't see much bias in their statements. http://www.darksky.org/

I can give one example of this exact thing. The network printer in my fairly small office wouldn't send the appropriate drivers to a system running vista. Something about not having a clause for how to handle software version 6.

This is absolutely nothing more than the result of people buying into government as a paternal figure.

People have made it resoundingly clear that they want the government to protect them. Whether it's from alcohol, cigarettes, violent video games, firearms, drugs, sex or any number of other things which have been, or are curently threatened by, the nanny state.

This isn't bad in itself. The job of government is afterall to do the will of the people. If the majority wants smoking banned and it isn't unconstitutional who am I to say it's wrong?

The problem comes in when we the people fail to demand accountability for these measures. We blindly accept, out of ignorance or apathy, the measures the governments are proposing because 'it's from the government, it must be right' and never demand proof that legislation is effective or efficient.

A politician is not an expert on violent video games
A politician is not an expert on the effects of alcohol
A politician is not an expert on second hand smoke
A politician is not unbiased, is not benevolent, and does not know any better than you what is best for you.

The government is an employee of the people, not a father figure. It's damn time we start treating it that way.

1. We need salary caps that ensures politicians are earning no more than the average man they represent
2. Abolish appointed positions and establish term limits for elected positions
3. Build accountability into the constitution - this would be a multifaceted piece that must include civillian involvement, metrics to measure the effectiveness of new legislation, and the power to enact a sunset clause on legislation that is ineffective or detrimental
4. Legislate criminal penalties for violating the constituion and enforce them
5. Provide an easy path for citizens to challenge unjust laws that does not require being arrestsed to do it (see Canada)