pick your posion
 

Curiosity question: The answer is probably a reflection of personality.

Given the stark choice, would you rather live in a jackbooted dictatorship with a certain tollerence for dissent (just don't go too far, try the wrong target, try to really change things..) or a self censoring paranoid democracy?

Is there any difference? Which is easier to change?

How much would whether the media is entirely government controlled (either by ownership or by the will or the readers (market forces).

This isn't a sidewards jibe at anyone or any government, I'm genuinely interested in what people think.

i don't know that anyone would choose to live in either. jackboots? dictatorship - no thanks. at the same time i want nothing to do with a society that is so afraid of offending a person that they won't point out that they are a _________ or whatever the case may be. people get offended by honesty, move on.

I don't understand what a "self censoring paranoid democray" is. Can you give an example of what they would be like?

I don't like the first choice, but I can't pick until I understand what the second choice is.

think McCarthy on steriods.

Re: pick your posion
 

Are you saying that media control by the government is equivalent with media controlled by the market force of consumer choice? If so, I have a problem with that. In a consumer driven media environment, market forces only control your profits, and thereby the size of your forum, not your ability to disseminate information. "Mother Jones" may never make millions of dollars, but no one will ever march into their pressroom, rifles and badges in hand, and shut them down for criticizing the government.

Let's not confuse freedom of the press with some non-existent "right to forum". No one can take away your voice, but no one owes you a megaphone.

-sm

Not to the same no but in the right environment the effect can be similar. There are times in many countires histories where, to modify the old phrase 'it can be dangerous to be right when the majority are wrong'.

Democracy

There would always be some namby-pamby, bleeding-heart liberal cause I could exploit to either excuse or bankroll my behavior.

Or, in the most likely scenario, enable it. :rolleyes:

Two liberals were walking down the road when they came upon a man who had been robbed and badly beaten. They looked at each other and exclaimed: "We must find who did this and help them!"

Two conservatives were walking down the road when they came upon a man who had been robbed and badly beaten. They looked at each other and exclaimed, "We must find the man who did this and help him!"


(Its a double edged sword, pal) ;)

Democracy...you can always beat up the candyasses.

The fundamental difference is that a government can be overthrown. Revolution, war. Self-censorship is decentralised, it is the responsibility of each individual, so in order to affect change, everyone would have to want to change. And just as one elephant (however predatory) is easier to destroy than 10 million widely dispersed ants, a dictatorship, however vile, can be felled with more ease than a self-governed self-indoctrinated proletariat.

Ah, finally.

Ah, finally what?

A sick government can be torn down rather efficiently a sick society is tougher, too many targets.

I was waiting for someone to follow that line of thought.

Me an' you eh jag, me an' you. The other's don't get it. Lets go runaway somewhere and develop a secret code eh eh wink wink nudge nudge ;)

I didn't load the question and try and see how many came to that result and there are plenty of counter-arguments, it's all very interesting.

Cat and Jag, your secret's safe with me. Obviously we are all prisoners of the dominent paradigm of our society and our time. It can be extremely difficult to "think outside the box," especially if your particular box is all nice and comfy and lined with down feathers. It takes great imagination and courage to see clearly when your society has brought you up with blinders on from the moment of birth on. Even if you take the blinders off, your eyes may have lost the ability to detect things in their peripheral field of vision.

A democracy of visually impaired people is far worse than a dictatorship of those with clear vision. At least in the latter case, the people can see that there is a problem and act to overthrow the dictatorship. In the former case, the members of the democracy remain imprisoned because they cannot even see the bars of their cage.

If you go looking for trouble you'll find it. Better to live your life and let others do the same.:)

In other words, take the "blue pill" and go to sleep. But what do you do about those damn nightmares that keep intruding upon your dreams? ;)

Perhaps I should outline an argument for the blue pill (not saying I agree with this, just raising it for discussion):

Let us assume that the ultimate goal in life is happiness (however you define this). Look at the people you know who are most happy. Chances are they're living a relatively simple life, don't question things and are happy with what has been ascribed to them (by 'god' or by self). True questioners know what is wrong with this world and it bothers them. I know I'm not the only one to have cried at a news story of death and suffering, and the knowledge that I am powerless against it. If ignorance is bliss, and life is a journey toward fulfilment, then the most happy are by definition the most ignorant.

Ergo the way any society is governed is irrelevant. People can be ignorant in freedom and behind bars. Maybe they know more than we think.

Sure, ignorance is bliss. I cried when 9/11 happened; I cried at the news of the Oklahoma City bombings; I cried when the US sent troops to the Gulf first time around. I tried turning off te news, but reality kept intruding anyhow. I became a close friend of a Gulf War Vet, honored for his heroism, and fighting against a dishonorable discharge from the army because he had developd PTSD. I met a man struggling under the burden of having 5 of his 9 other brothers develope schizophrenia, etc., etc.

It is our very awareness and concern for others which helps to define our humanity. Sure, we can numb out the reality, but I think this also means we only get to lead half lives, and we numb out the joys, as well.

Is not joy defined by our experience of pain? Can we know one without the other? If not, we may as well remain ignorant.

[/devils advocate]