I would like to point out that the blog you post at is… blocked in China, a real police state. Whereas all the servers and much of the development of WordPress takes place in… the US.

You might enjoy some of the rejoinders I explain in a recent post on why Westerners are probably better off career-wise staying in the developed world. If you want to see real arbitrary and uncertainty in laws, come to China — there is a reason it is ranked very low on the Corruptions Perception Index and Ease of Doing Business. The US has many problems, few of which will be rolled back anytime soon, but nothing on the scale as a real police state across the Pacific.

Let PS=my definition of a police state above
NFS=”No Free Speech”, or “highly monitored and/or regulated speech”
FS=Free Speech

Argument:
“NFS is not a necessary condition for PS.”

Or, alternatively,
FS is not a sufficient condition for NOT PS.

Nonetheless, I would still argue that while the United States will not censor “The US is a Police State,” anyone who makes that Statement publicly could subject themselves to the possibility of surveillance by the massive US Intelligence/Security apparatus. Particularly if one identifies with any group that is deemed to be a threat. If you are under surveillance, you are then subject to any type of arbitrary prosecution.

In the end, I would argue that “free trade” is the much greater threat to Police States than “free speech.” The State can possibly tolerate free speech. It cannot tolerate free trade.

While I might agree with your criteria for a police state, the problem still remains on the arbitrariness of defining it.

Again, there are many problems with creating a binary, black-and-white threshold. However I attempted to do so in this recent post, suggesting that:

Can you publish “We live in a police state” in public and not have it removed/censored and not end up in jail?

The answer to that question is: you can in the US, but you cannot do that in China. Again, this is not to say that my definition is right or wrong, but for you to suggest yours is the right one is begging the question.

(1) undue restrictions on the freedom of mobility, the freedom of transactions, the freedom to work (2) perverse rates of domestic incarceration (3) system-wide domestic surveillance organs engaged in domestic spying in all aspects of the social, economic and political life of its citizens. The makeup of these organs will usually entail some degree of a secret police and an unaccountable intelligence complex (4) the militarization of the borders (5) an arbitrary distinction between law and the exercise of power by the executive or ruling agency (6) a militarization or para-militarization of “law enforcement” (7) a social context where the government actively propagandizes a permanent enemy, a permanent threat, a permanent war (8) a social context that glorifies the organs of authority, “the men and women in uniform.”