Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ARTelevision
Either our government increases its authority to govern or it will be simply replaced - almost invisibly - by mediarchy.
|
I'm not in favor of either of those two options - however, if I had to choose, I would choose this mediarchy. It seems this concept of mediarchy has been presented in a bad light by defining it as some sort of anti-socialization, with the converse, authoritarianism, being the supposed glue which saves "us" from undesirable chaos.
But I'm not buying it.
The mediarchy, if we are to agree that it is some form of powerful control, is vastly different than the authoritarianism inherent to control via the threat of violence exhibited by all forms of government. The mediarchy does not imprison an individual for failing to turn on the television, buy the newspaper or surf the web. The mediarchy contains choice - you have the choice to partake in any aspect of it. Authoritarianism eliminates choice - you cannot control your own fate.
Art, you have suggested or stated that authoritarianism is of benefit to society, perhaps even the underlying mechanism that allows society to exist. I don't believe you. Authoritarianism is the underlying mechanism to anti-change, the desire to maintain. I can see how this maintenance of existing society could be perceived as origin of society, or at the least, some form of fundamental requirement for the continued existence of society. This perception presumes that society, as we know it, is both better off unchangeable and presently beneficial. I have yet to see anything in this thread that validates those presumptions.
What's so good about society as we know it, anyway?