In theory
American democracy is a level field in regard to political opinion and free
expression of it. In fact, free expression is on the decline in social media
through a variety of means and that primarily is for the benefit of elite,
wealthy insiders whom may view democracy as messy, sloppy and somewhat
communist rather than serving a nice, neat hierarchical society with the
richest plutocrats at the top of a social pyramid. If governments that are
democratic only do things with mass public support or that benefit plutocrats
and one-percenters, censoring the masses with good ideas will prevent the
popularity of good ideas rising to be used by government and the established
economic practices owned by plutocrats will be unchallenged.
Corporate inhibitions on free expression in
social media are broadly applied. If a writer has used politically incorrect
words at any point in his writing of articles all of his work may be eliminated
or obscured with search engine burials. Elite insider collusion on select
political goals allows sycophantic yes-person expression in social media
obviously. Opinions that benefit ‘uppers’ are almost never repressed.
Democratic free expression is a traditional enemy of ruling elites and a
necessary tool for democracy. Minorities often look toward elites for support
and trade repression of their own political points of view for allegiance to
rich insiders. It is a reinforcing cycle with various social incidents in the
news and political opinions antipathetic to the rich becoming curbed,
diminished and eliminate or confined in solitary to the darkest, most remote
data dungeons. Over time free expression of the demos, or people of democracy;
the electorate, is reduced to a range that permits supports for policies rich
insiders prefer and nothing else. Corporatism is not dissimilar from communism
in that regard; though taking different courses to eliminating free speech each
arrives at the summit of highest political empowerment concentrated for a few.
The
strength of democracy is found in the liberation of free speech and the
generation of new ideas rather than in their suppression. Democracy is strong
when individualism is strong and private property and private interests are expected
of a people rather than permitted. Over-concentration of wealth is inimical to
democracy. Overly concentrated wealth almost inevitably coincides with the
decease of democracy. The masses have more ideas than the few. Concentrated
wealth suppresses those ideas as it has control of the marketplaces of ideas
and business. Positive social change does occur even when a majority have wrong
ideas on domestic and international politics if the infrastructure of free
expression isn’t repressed.
The
majority of people are fundamentally in support of equal protection of the law;
it is elites that direct foreign wars or slavery and etc. Some moral issues can
divide a society. When those issues arise, the elites will exploit them to
serve as opportunity to decrease free expression. Almost any issue that prompts
emotional reactions can be politically exploited to help curb free speech and
concentrate wealth. The hate speech legislation of Congress is a case in point.
Individuals should not be, and are not legally allowed to encourage or
coordinate crimes in speech obviously, yet using politically incorrect language
to political opponents should be protected free speech. It is a threat to
democracy only when that language effectively shuts down social media of free expression.
Suppression of free speech is a 360-degree universal threat a democracy should
have vigilance of. If a writer that is on the repression roster advocates
presently for new government leadership in developing homes during the housing
shortage that are radical in comparison to established stick-frame home
paradigmata, the new housing paradigm will be suppressed. Ecological economic
logic suggests a new paradigm for U.S. human housing such as hollow artificial
mountain ranges with interior condos for hundreds of thousands with
mariculture, agriculture and rivers within and usable surface exteriors without
for example, yet that would require government leadership as individual home
builders haven’t the capacity or venture capital to get started.
There are
some people happy with imperialism and the relation of being subject to what
they regard as benevolent royalty. A similar acquiescence to concentrated
political power exists in the modern political form called corporatism; a
policy first applied by Adolph Hitler developed when his wealthy former
aristocrat supporters saw a way to co-opt the German nationalist social workers
party and bring it to serve rich corporate leaders. Corporatism is a
partnership of corporations and government - invented by the journalist and
dictator of Italy Benito Mussolini.
Life as a kind of amoral fish in a tank
without real concern trusting in benevolent plutocrat guides is for some, what
democracy means today. The elites take care of pet fish in their aquarium and
knowing what’s best for them. Sometimes the interests of elites are more
important to elites than concerns of fish in the tank. The tank may be left
uncleaned or water unchanged, overheat or freeze solid; who knows what the fate
of pets will be. Fish have less than political self-determination prospects at
that point. Perhaps they will be converted medically into being useful
attackers in war against Oceana or sent to the Eastern front.
No comments:
Post a Comment