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.