Authoritarianism
 

I have come to the conclusion that I am a firm adherent of authoritarian ideas. As I see it, this is antithetical to anarchism and it stands in opposition to libertarianism.

This is based on my conception of human nature. I see us as essentially unable to observe, scrutinize, and comprehend things in a sufficiently self-critical manner and it is also a result of our basal anarchic tendency. Anarchy is a given in the state of nature. It needs no further promotion. The anarchic principle arises as forms of libertatrianism in civilized discourse.

Authoritarian rule has risen to the surface in supposedly different political systems. This is because it is the required parameter of civilized life. Humans are savage, self-serving individuals who require systems of control for optimum social operation. The only way humans are civilized is by fear.

IMO, the question is not what can or should replace the universal authoritarianism of forms of governance. The question is one of control - how much and what manner of control are best.

That is a very provocative assertion Art... and I don't, one the whole disagree with you.

I've always felt that the most successful govenments are a balance of a strong, responsible government and a liberated responsible citizenry. Too much in any direction and you have either dictatorship or anarchy.

The key is balance.

Very key point, yeah. It's a razor's edge though, with disagreement on where the razor is.

Re: Authoritarianism
 

The more I think about it, the more I disagree with this portion of your arguement. Yes systems of control are neccessary BUT I don't think fear is the only way in which humans are "civilized" (Civilized being a highly politicized word on its own).

Fear is but one useful tool for who wish to impose control. However, I feel that the control that is created by the use of fear, while quick to impliment and powerful, is a fleeting one. Those who live in fear can go one of two ways... a)escalate into more fear (which can lead to chaos) or b) turn on those who appear to have manufactured the fear (see Joe McCarthy).

I come to this conclusion finally through self-examination.
I would submit that a thorough inventory of what exactly constitutes a social control inside a human being is always reducible to fear.

Wow, Art...I knew that we disagreed politically, but I don't think we could be further apart, on the political scale.

1. I don't see Libertarianism as anarchistic. I see it more as taking on, and encouraging, personal responsiblity.

2. While anarchy may be a given in the state of nature, I beleive that we, as human beings, have risen above that. Granted, we may not be finished evolving, but I think that, as a whole, we create our own order.

3. I also disagree that the only way humans are civilized is by fear. I think that humans are driven to civilization by a collective need for culture and education. Satisfy those two needs, and you have...civilization.

What you are describing sounds more, to me, like a prison system. There will always be those that cannot, or simply refuse to, follow basic agreed upon rules for civilized life. These are the ones that we lock away, to live their lives under your "systems of control for optimum social operation".

I see a problem in your arugment, Art. If authoritarianism is necessary because we are "essentially unable to observe, scrutinize, and comprehend things in a sufficiently self-critical manner...", then who will the leaders be if they are susceptible to the same faults as other humans?

Authoritarianism requires repressive measures to control a population at the hands of an elite group. This group determines what is appropriate for its subjects. If they are unable to comprehend things in a sufficiently self-critical manner, then doesn't it go that their leadership will be severely flawed?

Also, there are many cases in which an authoritarian form of government has retarded economic growth. Think Franco's Spain, or the Phillipines.

While authoritarian governments will sometimes tend to ignore the actions of individuals, it can also lead to highly repressive actions - Singapore's strict set of public laws. While some may view forced manners and ordered society as ideal and even preferential to what we experience in the United States, it does so at the cost of culture, I believe.

I've drawn up a graph...

http://www.antipartisan.org/fuckme!.gif

Y axis is power of the central government
X axis is the purpose that power is used for

If it confuses you, you're on your own because I got a headache trying to explain it any better last night.

So, to be authoritarian does not necessarily mean it's 1984. A government in complete control can still grant total freedom to it's citizens. The sad part is, some people cannot possibly imagine it this way because today's leaders are pieces of despicable shit.

Hal, fascinating. I'm still thinking on this and will get back.

Bill O'Rights I have no comparable idealistic view of human nature as you express. I just don't see us that way.

JumpinJesus, it's not black or white. The fact that leadership is flawed does not countermand its necessity. So we have the situation that it's a relative degree of "flaw" in relation to what would be optimum. I'm not looking for perfection, I'm looking for practicability and and an understanding that human freedom is an essential component of an enlightrened society.

I'd like to leave it there in an uncontentious state but I further posit that the only freedom available to humans is the illusion of freedom. An enlightened leadership creates conditions where the illusion of freedom is widespread.

Hal, it comes down to the fact that two of your terms are synonyms. Get the concepts straight, and I'll take another look.

So then you would agree that the humans that would be charged with running, tweaking, optimizing and enforcing an authoritarian state also need to be in fear of the consequences of messing about and abusing the power they're given, yes?

What is your opinion on capitalism, by the way? This view of human nature would imply that if the heads of corporate entities are left with nothing to fear, they will exploit to their hearts content. Do they, then, also require systems of control for optimum social operation?

Hm, I'm not so sure you could have Authoritarianism and anarchism at the same time. Don't they contradict each other?

Authoritarianism (much like totalitarianism) is unquestionable authority and suppression of individual freedoms, correct?

In any case, going that direction seems (to me, anyway) to be a big step in the wrong direction of what the world is trying to become.

There needs to be more of a fear element to control unruly citizens that try and take advantage of the freedoms that pretty much everyone else can handle without much of a problem.

Journeyman, yes - the more levels of control the better. Again, this does not obviate the need to answer questions related to their efficacy - in other words, their quality and all of the associated aspects of goodness as variously defined.

no, they are not - they do not mean the same thing. They are two extreme grades of two different things.

Totalitarianism is oppression, assimilation and denial of individualism
Authoritarianism is absolute control of the *government functions*

I'm starting to develop a twitch. Please don't make me explain it again.

It's just that you said the same thing twice which gets me.

I can't explain to someone who doesn't want to listen.

Authoritarianism deals with a group of leaders in control of a government. China is an example of this. Totalitarianism is headed by a single individual. Hussein's Iraq was an example of this. There is a difference between the two, even though both are repressive forms of government.

I am more interested in discussing the many possible points along a spectrum which positions authority and anarchy as opposite human tendencies than I am in discussing the exact definitions of the polarities themselves.

I'd like to add to the previous (so far undiscussed) position that freedom is in actuality the illusion of freedom the corollary that control is in fact the illusion of control. I'm not naive enough to accept anything absolute about the relationship between words and experience. I'd like to discuss experience and not semantics at some point.

Re: Authoritarianism
 

Perhaps Plato's guardian state would be to your liking. Philosopher Kings who are more adept to knowing "the good" in society and therefore more capable of leading us out of the cave.

Be careful when discussing a human nature, as that entails certain constants. Are we to deny social and cultural implications or are we to take a communitarian approach? Are there truly inherent aspects to each and everyone of us? Is it the fear you mention? Is fear not a construction of our own?

Maybe the problem is us trying to be self-critical in the first place. Before Kant and the creation of the social sciences (psych, sociology, biology) humans were the observers. Now we are the subjects of our own observation. Foucault would say this has led to the mass over-complication of things and he would put the blame squarely on Kant.

Maybe sometimes a fish is just a fish. I wonder how our outlook would change if we learned to take a step back, de-problematize history, and just be human.


SLM3

All good points.
I simply prefer a civilized social setting.
In order for that to exist, we require hierarchical chains of authority with the ability to instill fear. I'm suggesting it has always been so.

Okay, that's clearer. Thanks.

It's no clearer because there are many possible definitions of this term, as it derives from the simple descriptive adjective "authoritarian" which can be used in very vague ways.

Here's just one definition that counters the unreferenced one proposed by JumpinJesus. I'm not proposing any of these but offering them as indications that the distinction between an individual and an elite group is not definitive.

from m-w.com

"Main Entry: au·thor·i·tar·i·an
Pronunciation: o-"thär-&-'ter-E-&n, &-, -"thor-
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority <had authoritarian parents>
2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people
- authoritarian noun
- au·thor·i·tar·i·an·ism /-E-&-"ni-z&m/ noun"

I don't think semantics gets us anywhere here. To say that I am authoritarian rings very true to me. I am proposing authoritarianism as a descriptive term for a position I am working on creating - not to describe something that has existed in the past.

I think the problem is that, under any system, humans are the flaw. They all look good on paper, but in practice history has proven that it is only a matter of time before a certain group of people figure out how to take more resources than they deserve.

I agree that freedom has an illusory aspect, but it is also tangible. We have many freedoms that the average chinese person doesn't.

I don't really see how a move towards authoritarianism would have any positive effect on the quality of the average american's life.

Re: Authoritarianism
 

Well, as a closet anarchist, I am totally opposed to all that is authoritarianism. If humans are really the "savage, self-serving individuals" you say, then I certainly wouldn't want one with ultimate power and control over my life...

Anarchism is an often misunderstood political theory as I think it is in this thread. It does not mean chaos or a return to "the laws of the jungle." It is philosophy advocating a society based on voluntary co-operating of free individuals--free from coercion by structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination. I couldn't hope to explain it with the same eloquence that many anarchist thinkers have so I will just leave a link to a great FAQ on the subject.

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html

Yes, in other words, an ideal which has never existed in any nation state ever inhabited by human beings.

Actually, there have been historical examples of societies successfully organized according to anarchist principles.

More here

Yes. I'm aware of the various "communes".
I used the term "nation state" deliberately.

I do hope others read the info you provided.
I don't see too many serious citizens gaining much confidence from the history of a movement such as that which has produced no stable and lasting nation state.

Thanks.

I think the term nation state precludes the lack of a significant governing body by its own definition. In terms of applying anarchism to the real world, I'd have to be in Rousseau's boat in the sense that you can't have it for populations larger than a certain size. Meanwhile, in regards to his continuum wherein the larger the population, the more authoritarian you need the governing body to be, I feel that the US is held in a sort of halfway limbo by the nature of individual states governing their own populations with an amount of sovereignty, being united only on certain levels by a federal government.

The first thing I'll note is that the links provided declare that the problems confronting such societies came from external forces, not due to internal contradictions or insurmountable issues.

You seemed to base your view that anarchy's lack of viability would be due to natural human tendencies--the anarchists' claims on the the linked sites claim otherwise.

Finally, I'll take the opportunity to respectfully point out to you that an anarchist nation-state can not exist by defintion because a nation-state is a political entity.

There are nations without States and States with multiple nations-but no nation-states can exist without political organization and bureaucracy. That is the "State" side of the hyphen that is contradictory to anarchist tenets.

The "nation" side of the hyphen hinges upon shared cultural meaning and history. Anarchists could never heed to a national boundary since that would be adhering to a higher authority than the individual actors in any given social interaction. Thus, the adherence to and belief in nationality is also contradictory to the anarchist belief system.

EDIT: I found this interesting:

Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution (1902) was written by Peter Kropotkin while in exile in England. Partly as a response to Social Darwinism, Kropotkin drew on his experiences in scientific expeditions during his time in Siberia to illustrate the phenomenon of cooperation in animal and human communities.

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_...r_in_Evolution

Considering how much influence Darwin and evolution are said to have exerted on the Enlightenment, I'll have to read this book since it doesn't get much play.

There have been plenty of anarchist communes or societies all over the world at varying times in our history. They however are normally wiped out or forced into submission by others. The problem of this style of society is then, security, which it cannot promise. Other humans would be the reason. Simply put, an anarchist society is not a viable long term solution unless it happens to be the ONLY society left in existence. On that note, it is impossible, in my belief, to have a large populus living under such a system. Anything past a few hundred individuals and things start to deteriorate. Just my thoughts.

Are you at all familiar with Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland, sir?

I'm trying to understand what Hal is talking about, not be more confused. Redefining an established word isn't helpful.

The definition that was proposed by JumpinJesus is a redefinition.

I'll tell you what. Nothing is more important than avoiding semantics. It is important to talk about experience not words. I am willing to change the title of this thread to Authoritarian Principles just to get the hell on with a substantive discussion.

"Authoritarian" is an adjective that carries with it the connotation of a preference for strong authority. Historical -isms are useless terms unless you want to use them as tools of art of professional historians.

This has not a thing to do with Alice in Wonderland.

You're right. I got the wrong book. It's actually Through the Looking-Glass:

If you want to be confusing, feel free to dismiss the given meaning of a word in favor of one that no one but you knows. The purpose of language is to communicate using known symbols we call "words". I was trying to find out what Hal meant by something he said. JumpinJesus helped. You're not.

If you insist on redefining existing symbols, you might as well come up with new ones which mean exactly what you wish, then explain what you mean to others so we'll know what the new word is.

Avoiding semantics in order to prevent others from understanding you is disingenuous. You might as well not say anything, to be more efficient.

Again, JumpinJesus' "definition" which you seem to find so illuminating flies in the face of many professional historians and better statesmen than ourselves who have referred to both China and Russia - as well as Hussein's Iraq as interchangeably Authoritarian and Totalitarian.

I have let go of the term Authoritarianism because it carries with it the baggage of an historical term of art - which professional historians use as a generality to group together the somewhat and inexact aspects of various dissimilar societies and conditions. I have offered to replace it with the concept "Authoritarian Principles" in the interest of promoting substantive discussion.

You have ignored all of this and continue to push toward a semantic cul-de-sac. All of your statements are irrelevant.

I won't be responding here again unless someone is interested in pursuing substantive issues regarding Authoritarian Principles.

one's political view--of the proper form of government----shapes one's construction of the fiction "human nature"---one is derived from the other, and the sequence is analytically political form-view of the subject and not the other way around.... for the most part we consume "political philosophy"--we match existing frameworks to scattered observation and use that framework to codify what we are saying--such arguments as exist about "human nature" and "the state of nature" are functions of forgetting that "political philosophy" consists in a series of fictions elaborated to justify a given political position in the present of the author: hobbes (who is obviously at some level closest to the position outlined at the start of the thread) is no exception.


i do not think that there is a set of stable non-empty predicates that one can all "human nature" in general. maybe something really basic--avoidance of pain--but i would argue that these tendencies are in themselves empty, and that they are given contents only through socialization, as are nearly all other aspects of human being-in-the-world--think about someone like piaget, for example, rather than hobbes in your considerations of how to frame this kind of question.

so when you talk about "human nature" you are using images from the genre of political philosophy to legitimate projections concerning basic subjective orientations toward the world, or toward the self, and to avoid having to take on the ways in which particular social-historical formations produce particular types of subjects. making "human nature" eternal, filling this fiction in with your intellectual or affective investments, is a way of throwing up your hands, nothing to be done.

anther type of circular relation between observations in the present and images that organize those observations is a kind of western religious thinking, which pushes these matters (what is "human nature"?) back onto questions of the soul and original sin---categories like "the soul" have the advantage precisely of evacuating any relation to the present (by shoving the meaningful discussion back into mythical time) and enabling the depoliticization of the world (the limits of which are a function of how interventionist you imagine the god-term to be in the world).

but i do not think that you are operating in this framework, art: i think the problem is the first one.

in short, then: i do not think you can make arguments about"human nature" without running into lots of problems about your own ability to seperate what you see from the ways of bundling information particular to someone like hobbes.


had you argued that in america, today, the long-term tendency politically is toward authoritarian forms of rule--and had you based this argument on an analysis of how you see subjectivities to be shaped by--say--consumer culture or contemporary capitalism (the prompts to reflexive thought are systematically redirected to thought about the world as reflected in objects one accumulates...) then, art, i might have agreed with you.

but even if i did, i would not endorse the tendency.
rather, i would actively fight against it.
no matter how hopeless it might seem to fight against something like that in the states, i would rather exist in a mode of permanent conflict than submit to an american-style fascism.
and the conflict would center on linking a particular socio-economic system to particular outcomes in the world and working out arguments for the intolerable consequences of that system as they exhibit themselves in those outcomes.

the bottom line is that if what you see is accurate about america, then it is a function of discrete, deliberate choices made across the history of this place, instituted and maintained by human beings, that could be otherwise.

any historical project is a gamble--america was and is one, anyplace was and is one.
nothing anywhere ever is worked out in advance.

this is probably already too long, so i'll hold off on saying more for the moment.

Hal, Art says they're the same. I'm going to look elsewhere to get this straight, as it's clearly not going to happen here.

Thanks roachboy, I like that analysis.

How's this?

In america, today, the long-term tendency politically is toward authoritarian forms of rule. I base this argument on an analysis of how I see subjectivities shaped by--say--consumer culture and contemporary capitalism (the prompts to reflexive thought are systematically redirected to thought about the world as reflected in objects one accumulates...).

I observe this and I would propose that we are doing spectacularly in promulgating the illusion of freedom among our relatively well-controlled population.

As a side note, I'd be careful calling certain terms "fictions" while espousing other equally fictitious terms and concepts. As I've stated, my positions on reified conceptualizations, historical paradigms, and language are that they are all quite poor in their ability to refer to actual cicumstances as lived, experienced, and acted upon.

i retract the term "fiction" then, good sir....
it was a polemical move in this case aimed at opening up the conversation....

quote:
I observe this and I would propose that we are doing spectacularly in promulgating the illusion of freedom among our relatively well-controlled population.

yes.
sadly, i agree with this as observation.
not sure that we would derive the same implications for ourselves from this agreement, however.
something in me refuses to accept that this is the best we can do.

the states is a funny place.
you cannot analyze it coherently using much in the way of older frames of reference.
and you cant simply go on observed experience as a guide for thinking politically lest you end up repeating the logic of the space in which we live in your critique of it.

which gets to my central preoccupation: now what?

Well it also gets us over attempting to pinion discussions on presumptive "definitions" of concepts and words. I appreciate that.

Now what? Well, as I stated, substantively, aside from my observations that tend toward generality, I proposed that the question is really not one of control - because it is a requirement from our Primate heritage. The question is what exactly constitutes an "enlightened authority" or what qualities should be considered optimal for governing humans, given that hierarchical authority is a universal condition?

Without reading through the entire thread, did anyone say Hobbes? Did anyone say Rousseau? Cause you're bringing them back from the dead for a 21st century celebrity deathmatch!

Unfortunately (even though I am in agreement with ArTV), how can we strike any sort of balance with millions upon millions of people with differing opinions?

i simply do not see how a more authoritarian form of government would serve anyone's interests--particularly not a variant of fascism, which is i think what you would get in the states---given the virulent nationalism that is so easily mobilized here. the best you could hope for is yet another instance of a period that everyone who lives through it chooses to pretend never happened. that is the *best* you could hope for.

last time around, there were lots of people who thought fascism just swell--it correlated with "common sense," valorized martial "values," talked about a spiritual renewal of the Youth, gave these folk a sense that they were gettingmore "authentic"...and it had nice flags and lovely uniforms......it appealed in particular to lower middle-class folk, who saw in this nationalist ideology a way to avoid a sense of economic precariousness.

what probably disturbs is the word fascism--it would sell better if it was called something else.
but it would not be something else.
not here.

maybe if the time comes, there will be an emphasis on the christian fundamentalist elements, and this will enable you to call it something else. (looking around, this is the most likely combination that i can see at the moment---this could obviously change, and i have no committment to it beyond what seems most likely now....)

such a total mobilization can always get around matters of differing opinion--mobilize the Nation with an adequately dire set of arguments about threats from without being mirrored by real or imagined threats from within, put it on saturation "news" outlets, and presto macho, you would have miliions of very military americans wrapping themselves in a wide range of fascist regalia. good for small business, that would be.
good for the economy.
good for everyone, no?

fascism last time round was dependant on radio.
radio is nothing compared to television.

of course any such attempt would probably engender civil war.
because you might get around questions of opinion, but you will not get around fundamental political rejection of the turn toward this kind of rule.
and i can tell you that i would be amongst those fighting against right-authoritarian forces.
because if they were to gain anything like popular power, they would create neither a country nor a world i would want to live in.

but i see this as a possibility in the states.
it would be a dismal and ridiculous end to a historical project gone terribly terribly wrong.

No I wouldn't change our form of government. I would simply affirm it's strong authoritarian principles - that exist no matter which party is in power. I see a tendency toward increased authoritarian power and I am in favor of that, especially since I consider the major force opposed to our government (besides Radical Muslim murder/suicide-ism) to be media power, which I've referred to elsewhere as "mediarchy".

Either our government increases its authority to govern or it will be simply replaced - almost invisibly - by mediarchy.

I see this year's election as pivotal in this conflict.

We are doing it now.

on this, i do not understand art: on what basis do you oppose dominant media and the state? it seems to me that they march pretty much to the same drummer. both are interested in passive consumers----both prefer nationalism because it sells things---- both are interested in the continued financial well-being of large congomlerates----both only respond to the people when they have to.

for example.

the press is usually the ardent supporter of whichever regime is in power. gradually, factions within become a kind of loyal opposition--the exception of late has been right media, which has opted for a much more corrosive kind of option, one that they still play.


so i am not convinced about the choice you posit above between the authoritarian power and the "mediarchy" either as an opposition or in the assumption that the latter represents a coherent political interest on its own terms.


i also do not see what difference there would be between a fascist regime that retains the existing institutional infrastructure and one that does not? the former would simply have a figleaf of formal legitimacy the latter did not afford itself.....but it would come to the same thing, both ideologically and in practice.

and again, what you are mean practically when you talk about authoritarian politics in the states, given the horizons for thinking about this available to us as we sit here in august 2004, is fascism. unless you have another conception of what this authortarian system would look like. so far, most post have been about an argument that would lead you to argue for such a regime, but you have stayed away from defining that regime in any positive sense.....

I think the key to all of this is the illusions that Art has spoken of... The illusions of freedom and the illusions of authoritatianism...

If I understand Art, he is NOT seeking a facist state rather he is seeking an acknowledgement of the existing structures of authoritarianism that are already in place.

I would argue that the illusion of freedom is what allows the western world to stomach the existing authoritarian trends that are in place... in fact I would go as far to suggest that the mediarchy that Art posits is a tool that governments and corporations use to create this acceptance.

It is the difference between the modernist facist state (like those that rose in the 30s) and the post-modern "facist" states we have today (as seen in most western nations). The difference is that the levers of control in the former are usually military in nature while in the latter they are a product of manufactured consent via the media and other tools in the authoritarian tool box.

I am not sure that acknowleding the authoritatiranism inherent in our systems will do much than to rile those who believe they still have large amounts of free will.

Yes, absolutely. If I could have put most of this as well and as coherently as you just have, Charlatan, I certainly would have done so at the start. (I have a fundamental disagreement, however, which I will get to in a moment.) I suppose part of the reason you were able to arrive at these cogent insights is due to the preceeding discussion - which I think has been illuminative. I also think you've probably made connections between some other well-known positions I've taken around here - especially as regards mind manipulation by media technology.

I do not subscribe to "Wag the Dog" scenarios. I see the requirement that the government wage media information and disinformation campaigns as part of how government must operate in the post-modern world. I also see it as a requirement to increase such campaigns to attempt to reduce the signal-to-noise ratio produced by the wholly separate and anti-governmental, amoral, socio-pathological, and anarchic power wielded by the media as held by private corporations, organizations, and individuals. The conflict between governmental authority and media-induced anarchy is exactly the conflict I address.

charlatan:
acknowledging that freedom is almost purely formal in the states --that there are profound authoritarian tendencies in contemporary political and cultural life--particularly in america--all of this is one thing, a kind of critical analysis.
but it is quite another when you shift from critique to a set of almost normative arguments rooted in an endorsement of these trends.
in other words, it is for me not ok that you would argue on the basis of these trends--which are obvious enough---that things at any level have to or should be this way.

another way: i am comfortable with the critical analysis--i agree with much of it---but not at all, at any level, with the other.

not conceptually.
not politically.
not ethically.
there is not a single register on which i accept this switch in kind of argument.

as for naming the regime that i see as being implicitly endorsed here: if you are going to argue for it, why not name it?
but please note that i included a caveat--this is the logical conclusion from how i see things--maybe there is another conception of what an authoritarian politics would look like--in which case i would be interested to hear it--i probably would not endorse it either, but at least there would be a positive version of what is so far a kind of empty category (authoritarian) that is on the table.

huh--i just stumbled across the mass media thread and am reading through it...may have to retract more things...geez....

You sound like I would expect a Federalist to sound. A Libertarian would have to disagree with you, no?

"illusion of freedom" huh? Freedom is not an all-or-nothing-black-and-white issue as we all know you like to see things ARTele. Freedom is relative, Americans are more free than Chinese, less free than the Dutch. Many of the objections to ARTele's arguement have been elucidated above and I largely agree with these. How do you propose to assert the Authoritarianism of the American government that wouldn't result in a scenario of immediate civil war? How do you intend to choose and maintain leaders who would be free from corruption, the basic and severe flaw of Authoritarianism?

Completely.
I consider Libertarianism to be simply me-ism at worst and don't-tread-on-me-ism at best.

Then I don't feel bad about disagreeing. Not that I did anyway.

Yes, I think most anarchists recognize the problem of security, but at the same time we realize that an anarchist society won't happen over night. It will take many long years of hard fought struggle to make our current system more democratic and free. We can deal with the problem of security as it arises.

Which explains the problem. True security requires people trained in it. When you're being attacked, on-the-job-training is too harsh.

oh, most assuredly.

Libertarianism vs a strong postmodern hierarchical authority paradigm would be an enlightening discussion for this thread, I think. Anarchy has been covered some, so I'd be interested in a Libertarian view here.

Ok...I kinda like the "don't-tread-on-me-ism" euphemism. It seems accurate, to me. In fact, I may use it myself, in the future.

It's the "me-ism" that causes me to scratch my head in ponderment. I've seen you make this reference before. How do you come to view Libertarianism as self-centered, or narcissistic? At least, that's what I'm inferring from it. The most basic tenet of Libertarianism is personal responsibility. I don't see anything egocentric about that. How are you analyzing this?

I agree, BOR. I too am curious as to where this idea of self-centered Libertarianism came from.

I can see libertarianism as self-centered if it's taken as "I only care about that which affects me directly", which is possible. It's fair to allow Art to take this in a negative fashion since I and others took his authoritarianism that way. :)

And I don't necessarily disagree that libertarianism isn't the best possible way to go. The biggest problem is that just about any governing method can be good, with the right people. The "problem" part comes in when the "right people" are succeeded, as they always are, eventually, with the wrong people. Then, no matter what kind of government you've got, it'll suck hard. As I understand it, representative democracy has, historically, always been followed by tyranny. We're certainly headed that way, too.

Coming up with a form of government which doesn't have this weakness could be a good answer, if we had one.

I have many Libertarian friends. I see folks move toward Libertarian positions based on their desire to do some illegal or sometimes regulated things - drugs, for example or porn or any number of things promoted by mass culture. From this position, their cries of "freedom" appear as simply "I want what I want". They seem most attracted to a get-the-government-off-my-back attitude and they are easily converted to Libertarianism as a result.

There's the whole group of people who oppose taxation. As we know, all nations have taxed their citizens since pre-Biblical times. It is a requisite for nationhood. I'm suspicious of anti-tax sentiments that are simply another way of saying "I want all my money".

The idea of personal responsibility sounds good. I see it as a concept most typically applied to others - in the sense they are accused of lacking it. I almost never see anyone using it in any other way than to blame other people for not taking responsibility for their lives, etc. Such defensiveness borders on denial. Personal responsibility is something that is either enforced or it doesn't happen in most people's lives.

Don't get me wrong... I am not endorsing the system I've described. I am simply trying to understand Art's position.

I tend to agree with Art's take on Libertarianism above... Then again I am a Federalist at heart.

That said, while I agree that a certain level of "authoritarianism" is inherent in all systems I stand by my first statement that it is all in the balance between government controls and personal liberties (real or imagined).

Ok...I see where you're coming from, but from my point of view, you're bending the branch a bit. Which, I suppose, is ok...I tend to do the same thing. Let me counter a few points though:

Yes. It is true. I will concede that there are those within the Libertarian Party, whose sole motive is the parties stance on the legalization of marijuana. I would counter, however, that these are not "true" Libertarians. I would also counter that every party has its share of fringe undesirables. These few do not make the parties platform less sound.

Of course some taxation is necessary in order to live in a quality society. I know of very few that would question that. Our (the Libertarian) stance is that there is simply too much unchecked taxation. With better accountability, and less government interference, where it should not be, the tax burden can be reduced exponentially. By all means, we need to pay our fair share. Key there is fair share. What's wrong keeping more of what you have labored to earn in your pocket, to spend as you please?

No doubt. No one likes to have their shortcomings pointed out. However, it's not an issue with Libertarianism. With less government involvement to hold your hand, you are going to be forced to take on personal responsibility...no matter what level you have grown accustomed to taking on in the past. If your entire existence revolves around government assistance...you're going to have trouble. At least until you grow accustomed to doing for yourself. If you are already self reliant...you should have no problem in a Libertarian society.

You want self-centered, I'll give you self-centered. I'm a "me-ist" at heart, but with the understanding that others matter too. My problem is, which others, and how do I keep the rest from getting to me and mine. I dare say that trumps Art's "fear" concept w/o totally invalidating it.

There are things bigger than me which are worth fighting for. I think most people will agree with this relative to their individual "me"s. The disagreements start when you try to determine how much bigger you're willing to get, and how much compimise you can stomach.

I've seen a list of this kind of grouping in, I think, RAH's Starship Troopers. It goes something like

• self
• family
• tribe
• country
• species

where the bigger person manages to care about the larger grouping. I find this too clear-cut for everyday use.

I can care about our species, but less than I care about our country, but less than, etcetera. I doubt this is unusual. OTOH, the thing which horrified me the most in Orwell's 1984 was the idea of trying to breed out orgasm. To lots of people, that may be the only real joy they ever have, and removing it takes out the net keeping the human race alive. Any such breed would tend to die out.

In fact, RAH tended to go on about this quite a bit in the 1960s. Starship Troopers was originally intended to be a Juvenile, in fact. Later that decade, he published The Moon is a Harsh Mistress which is essentially about exploring different forms of government, starting with essential anarchy. Anyone else here read them? And don't bring up that horrible movie.

Yes, of course, guys. But it's just so much dreaming. It takes a lot to convince me that anyone ever takes personal responsibility for anything. To assume so can't just be naivete because you guys are not naive. But I think what you're doing is substituting idealism for practical possibility.

IMO, personal responsibility is either enforced or it doesn't exist in any statistically significant way. The same goes for social responsibility - except it's even more rare than personal responsibility. And you know I don't accept people proclaiming their personal and social responsibilities from the rooftop. Self-serving rhetoric isn't the same as the way things actually are.

The problem is one of proper perspective on idealism and its place in the scheme of things. Wishful thinking doesn't make things so. What makes things so is negogtiating from positions of power in the real world. As far as humans are concerned, power and fear trump everything else - especially idealistic hopes and dreams. We either enforce things that are desirable for optimal societal performance or they do not occur - except among a tiny minority of personally and socially responsible individuals. You can't forge a nation or a government from that group.

But you can start with that group. It's been done.

the extent to which presonal responsibility is an abstraction is directly correlated to the degree of political disempowerment experienced by individuals.

the dominant discourse in the states for 20 years has attempted to reduce politics to a kind of shopping. in the u.s., people are politically constituted as active subjects one day every 4 years. otherwise, they are expected to submit while pretending they are not, consume, be isolated, be powerless.

there are few (and increasingly fewer) meaningful feedback loops that connect the public to the states, fewer and fewer spaces of anything like a democratic practice.

you want to deal with personal responsibility matters? then increase the level of democratic practice---authoritarian regimes substitute repression for responsibility, they engender a kind of total indifference, a kind of wholesale withdrawal on the part the population. a more authoritarian style government will make every element of contemporary society that bothers you, art, expontentially worse.

this does not fall into the curious, constricting binaries that have emerged on the thread: authoritarian vs. "anarchist" (what anarchism? the black block?) or "libertarian" (a repellent pseudo-politics)--the alternatives are not total authority or total atomization. jamming the conversation into this space seems to me a way of trying to structure the outcome in advance.

Postmodern hierarchical authority? How is that possible if postmodernism is *defined* as resistance to hierarchical structures? The authoritarianism championed in this thread is anything but postmodern. In fact it's positively Stalinist.

Actually no one here has even remotely championed anything having to do with Stalinism. Your comments are duly noted however. Thanks.

Postmodernism is a currently existing time and space. As we are no longer living in the modern era, it functions as a delineator of the present.

there have been problems from the 1970s in mapping postmodernism from a (primarily) literary style onto a broader social formation.
the driving assumptions are good old zeitgeist history.
what has been at stake in the debates is the social power that would accrue to academics who found themselves in a position to generate a descriptive category that would bind other analysts to a particular frame of reference.
many folk want to be marx.
generating names is a way to audition for the gig.

it is not at all a foregone conclusion that the term "postmodern" refers to anything particular in the social world----even if you focus on the famous category of "fragmentation"--which turns out to be extraordinarily loose, and that functions (among other things) to posit the previous (modern) period as one of unity--which is empirically not true--and to reduce the astonishing complexity of modes of fragmentation to a single term/feature.

i suspect that the term is revealing in this particular conversation, however, in that authoritarian forms of government involve intimately a dream of a return to some prior, lost unity.
here it seems that it is assumed this would have to be forced onto people.

the most atomized societies have in general been authoritarian.
the kinds of regime that have least fostered individual responsibility have been authoritarian.
look at the history of stalinism, for example: it is a central feature of almost any description of life under that regime.
same applied under fascism.
same obtained under monarchies (which in general were more coherent ideologically than they were politically).
the same unfolded under oligarchy.
if you find these problems in contemporary american society, i would argue it is a direct function of the degree to which the states are already authoritarian in significant aspects--and i still maintain that the way out--if there is one--- is less not more of this.

why bother to cultivate responsibility, say--or more generally an adult relation to the world--if you live under a regime that infantilizes you at every turn? infantilization follows from the reliance on a external authority, which is assumed to be omniscient, a kind of spectral parent who chastizes the wayward child, who enforces "discipline" in the name of abstract higher norms? how on earth can you expect an increase in reponsibility from a population that you would reduce to the status of a child?

i am understanding less and less of this thread as i participate in it.

Sorry to burst your bubble ARTele but Stalin is a textbook example of authoritarianism. Or are you arguing for another form authoritarianism? Nazi Germany? Khmer Rouge Cambodia? Castro's Cuba? Orwell's Oceania? If you're advocating a new yet-unseen form of authoritarianism you haven't given us any details. You complain that this thread is straying off topic and devolving into semantic arguements, yet you don't provide a solid topic and misuse words.

On Libertarian v. Authoritarian: Authoritarians would argue for centralized state control and concentrated power while Libertarians would disperse power among smaller states, provinces, counties etc. Compeletely decentralized Libertarian government runs the risk of dissolving any semblance of a unified nation. Authoritarianism is clearly better for forming a national army capable of defense and especially attack. Strong defense is possible in a Libertarian government through autonomous militia and guerilla warfare but raising an army for attack would be difficult. Authoritarian governments are not as economically strong as democratic ones due to endemic corruption that accompanies that form of leadership. Libertarian governments would almost certainly have to exist as democracies. A flaw of Authoritarianism lies in how new leaders are chosen, typically when a authoritarian leader dies so does his or her government.

Perhaps. But this thread involves political theory to an extent that is not often attained here - or elsewhere.

Your post directly above, roachboy, is insightful - especially in terms of your description of a postmodern authoritarianism. I'll elucidate my thoughts on it if interest continues in the discussion.
Thanks.

Locobot, it seems to me you are discussing perhaps only the first page of the thread. It has since then gotten well on track and your issues have indeed been addressed here.

I don't agree with that, at least not on any substantive societal level. I agree that authoritarianism enforces unity through state control and this may have the infantilization-to-fragmentation/indivdualism/rebellion effect that you're describing on a small scale, but not for the masses. Sure Stalin created Solzhenitsyn (author of "the Gulag Archipelago"--probably the most damning critique of Stalinism) but he also enjoyed the support of the vast majority of his population. For every Solzhenitsyn there were 10 million ardent Communists. If you go to Russia today you will find most older people still support Stalinist Russia even though it no longer exists. I defy you to compare positively the individualism and diversity of any authoritarian government with that of an equally sized non-authoritarian nation. You may argue for the scientific achievements of Nazi Germany, but I would remind you that German science superiority predated the Nazis (e.g. Werner von Braun's Rocket Club). Hitler may have cracked the whip for his war machine, but he was also burning books lets remember.

Well now we're back on historically described "Authoritarian regimes".

We had an extended discussion in the middle of this thread in which I was willing to retract the word and replace it with a concept of authority-oriented governing principles because people were getting stuck on old irrelevant examples.

roachboy added some good points regarding the inadmissability of historical definitions to the contemporary situation of the USA. I stated I appreciated his assistance in getting the discussion away from such "Authoritarian" examples as Soviet Russia, China, Iraq, etc etc.

As I've completely disavowed any interest in old Authoritarian paradigms and as my entire discussion revolves around the observation and description of new authority paradigms, I won't be continuing to comment on this regression of the discussion.

If it is possible to assimilate what has transpired earlier here and if it is possible to get on with the discussion before historical Authoritarian examples were brought up again, I may continue. Otherwise, I'm not going to restate what has already been discussed.

You don't have kids...do ya? :D

on stalinism:
you can look at a long tradition of texts about stalinism, from anton ciliga, through the (problematic in many respects) memoirs of kravchenko, through czeslaw milosz (even) and find abundant evidence for the argument i am advancing about stalinism as a regime (there are many many more elements to this, but my memory is not functioning at 100% this afternoon--i blame the heat). there is also a long tradition of left critiques of the soviet system, tends to confirm the same views of what the system worked like in vivo. this says nothing about the enormous amount of historical literature that floats around out there on the same system.

at nearly every point, you find descriptions of a wholly atomized social reality juxtaposed with the socialist realist vision of that reality, in which the latter is treated as a long, bizarre profoundly not funny joke.

as for the "ardent communists" you speak of---- the "old guard" of social revolutionaries, anarchists, politically committed bolsheviks who opposed stalin----in other words those who actually dreamed of working to establish a kind of socialism that would not result in the corruption of the very idea of socialism----most of them ended up helping to build the gulag itself in their capacities as zek.
as for "right deviationists" like bukharin, his fate is well known.
as is that of trotsky.

as for the other supporters: stalin was all about the systematic elimination of political opponents, real or imagined.
read the short course of the history of the soviet communist party for the justifications of paranoia as doctrine--look at the idea of the hitlero-trotskyite figure, the floating explanation for everything that went wrong in stalinist industry or anywhere else for that matter. think about the view of the polity built into that notion, and what the practical correlates of such a view would mean for any sense of social solidarity. [this is where milosz is particularly good]

further, solzhenitsyn is not the only bit of information you have recourse to--his is a highly problematic political position, which seems to be oriented around a nostalgia for a pre-soviet system in which religion played a central role--this complicates his writing in many ways--and if his work was the only source for information about the gulag, that information would itself be a problem. fact is that you can crosscheck most of the things he says.....

that there would be ex post facto nostalgia for stalin says much more about the situation in the post-soviet states than it does about how stalinism was experienced.

as for your challenge, which i assume is directed at me, i confess that i do not know what you are asking. maybe rephrase it and i'll see if i can respond?

kinda wish i had seen art's post just above before i wrote my thing on stalinism--ah well.....

That's OK roachboy. you're involved in a historical discussion which should play itself out.

I suppose I should have named this thread: "New Authority Paradigms" and been more direct about it. If this one reaches an entropic state then I'll start a new thread. But folks interested in reading all of the preceeding posts, may express an interest in where it was going before the digression of justly failed historical antecedents. In that case, I'll pick it up at the point just before it veered off.

Whether authoritarianism has good points or not and whether people truly are ready for personal responsibility or not, no one will ever willingly want that type of govt control in place, so it seems kinda moot.

Because people these days don't like to be told how to live their lives, I have a hard time believing things will will deteriorate into a backward state of being instead of evolving and changing into a society where people have more responsibility and freedoms.

Okay ARTele, what is the "new authority paradigm?" You haven't yet told us, despite repeated requests, how your new Authoritarianism differs in any way from the historical precedents you're supposedly opposed to. I submit Orwell's Oceania as one possiblility. Oceania is really an amalgamation of various authoritarian controls mixed with (then) future technologies. Control is omnipresent through two-way telescreens. Corruption is checked by terror, torture, brainwashing, and a cult of childhood purity (see: Khmer Rouge). Leadership is disembodied, it doesn't matter if Big Brother actually exists or not. He never needs to be replaced. If this isn't what you had in mind ARTele, then please tell us how you intend to implement your NEW brand of kinder gentler postmodern authoritarianism...

roachboy:
You argued that authoritarian governments engender a more fragmented, diverse, individualistic society and I ask for a comparative historical example. The nations must be relatively equal in size, industry, etc. and have existed at the same time.

Stompy, understood, as regards what people think.

I'm proposing there is just about zero choice in the matter. We are a control paradigm personified. There's nothing about us that doesn't reflect internal and external hierarchical control/feedback systems - except perhaps some of our wishes, dreams and desires. I see the essential discussion being what sort of (governmental/social) control is optimal for us.

Locobot, thanks for the opening.

As I stated, I see humans operating best today under two types of control - governmental control - of which the US and some other socialist/capitalist/democratic governments, similar to the US in fundamental ways, are examples - and mass-media control - which is non-governmental to the extent that it is owned by corporations, organizations, and individuals.

This is the conflict and the crisis of the postmodern age I see eventuating from this dichotomy (both poles of which tend toward total psychological control). If it were simply a choice between governmental control (which I see as a socializing influence) and media control (which I see as an anarchic influence), I would choose to focus on governmental control, as it it more viable in the long run.

Optimal performance is probably not a simple choice between the two forms of absolute control but probably lies somewhere in between.

I have also proposed that both control and freedom are artificial and illusory. So the question becomes: what forces will best focus and drive our illusions toward the betterment of society as a whole and - less important - toward the fulfillment of individual destiny?

I don't know the answer to any of this, nor am I certain of its scope and scale. My opinion is that both are vast and as I'm seeking a theoretical solution, I'm soliciting the opinions of others.

I took a class last year that delt hevaly with touism and anarchism. The more and more I read the more I became absolutly convinced there is not way humanity could ever pull it off. Humans need some form of controll at all times.

locobot: what i said was that authoritarian regimes engender an ***atomized*** population. this does not correlate with any of the substitute terms you proposed: " fragmented, diverse, individualistic" which sound like things you see floating about in benneton adverts. either we are not talking about the same thing, or you have blurred posts together.

What is an "atomized" population?

art: on your post above: i am not sure i see this opposition as functional---government vs. media, both tending toward total psychological control, one socializing, one anarchic....so i have a few questions:

some of this is terminological, for which i sort of apologize, but i am trying to clear the ground a little bit so i can work out what is happening here...so bear with me.

i do not see the clear seperation between state and press. even in my most marxist moments, i would not have gone so far as to posit either a complete identity or a total seperation. could you clarify the basis for the distinction?

does it come down to a matter of ownership?
ownership is not as simple as it was in marx's time as a simple function of the diversification of ownership brought about by public stock offerings.
public vs. private sectors?
this would seem a distinction that moves around quite a bit, is a function of ongoing conflict over the question of the airwaves/cablewaves, whether the space occupied by the major broadcast media is or is not a public sector/good and what obligations follow from so defining it. in other words, if the distinction between entities lay here, i suspect you might be reifying an ongoing political boundary conflict,

i do not see the basis for imputing a discrete or even coherent policital agency to "the media"--it seems (take tv) to be broken up into political factions that snipe at each other and try to frame an audience that agrees with their general viewpoint in terms of content so that audience will be consistent in viewing and thereby in submitting to patterns advertising delivery.

when i looked through the mass media thread last night, i noticed that much of the energy you devote to the matter of "the media" seems to stem from a tendency to see it as being responsible for a certain type of cultural "degeneration" that you support by equating the development and usage of what amounts to a visual rhetoric (intertextual relations across/between adverts for example) and "mind control".... i wonder if this is the central tenent behind your position, that you see as unified this entity called "the media" as a way of explaining a set of effects--and then oppose to this agent a counter to which you attribute a series of counter values. (this is my actual hypothesis)

further, i do not see the distinction between the state as "socializing" and the media as "anarchic" given that both derive their legitimacy (and direct their approaches to maintaining that legitimacy) from a largely atomized public, the normative conception of which is a suburban nuclear family whose sense of community is to a significant extent fashioned through relationship with television. it seems to me that they are both exploiting a particular social-geographical model (fordist, american, whatever you want to call it) that has developed over the history of the us since maybe ww2 (insofar as it is after the war that fully prefabricated housing starts to penetrate the american market)....and that insofar as they are both reacting to a particular geography/socio-geographical model, they would tend to have similar outcomes with reference to actors who frame their lives within them. in other words, i think that the suburban model in its american variant is the prior condition that you react against, and the opposition you pose tends to obscure this assumption and to push thinking about the consequences of it into a place it need not go....

still thinking.....

atomized=wholly fragmented, tending toward negative identities, only able to form alternative social or political networks with great difficulties...incapable of coherent resistance , withdrawn into the smallest possible spheres of social interaction as a defensive posture...

features like that.
the public image of an authoritarian regime, which tends to rule by fragmenting the population and by doing so makes them infinitely more malleable.
not that far from american conservative ideology in its total, implacable hostility to the public as concept.

roachboy, good stuff!

I need to ponder this. I most certainly will and will get back to you here - no matter where the current of the discussion flows in the interim.

Thanks.

Art... I have only one issue with what you suggest above (and I suppose I am restating something from earlier in the thread) and that is that I don't feel it is so much media vs. government as it is The Corporation (private) vs. Governement (public). The media is the powerful tool used by both sides.

There are many Corporations that will work hand and glove with Government (see: Halliburton, etc.) but that is really only in so much as it suits their current needs.

Corporations are entities that, in the course of "doing business", have used the media to shape our dreams, attitudes, spending patterns... essentially who we are... or think we are.

At the same time, the Government uses the media to speak to the citizenry... when successful they can build support (Chomsky calls this Manufacturing Consent).


I see the forces of Corporatism as dangerous for the main reason that their sole stated purpose is to generate money for their shareholders... They are short term thinking, quick money making organizations. The only thing that keeps them in check are laws imposed by Government.

There is a constant push (via lobby groups) to diminish these Governmental powers in favour or a "freer market" (read: more power to the Corporations) and "smaller Government" (read: diminishing authority).

The real battleground is in public opinion and this is fought in and through the media.


To my mind, the end result of increase Corporate power is the "chaos" that Art speaks of... Therefore, it is essential to increase the authority of Government... this is done either with tougher laws or the abolishment of Corporations.

Yes, as for what I have been saying so far - that's about it, Charlatan. It's just that the media is composed of more than just corporations - it is also the product of organizations and individuals. But I take your point about government also using media, of course.

I suppose I'm talking about governmental media (propaganda) and all other media (mass culture). I prefer governmental authority and propaganda (because it is amenable to the constitutional democratic process) to the degenerative mess that popular culture creates in the world.

I'd like to take it to another level and respond to roachboy at the same time, but I want to think on it for a bit.

The input of others is welcome at this point.

The problem, as I see it, is that The Media is made of Corporations. It'd be much better, IMO, if The Media wasn't allowed to concentrate ownership of many outlets in few hands. It'd be better if no one could own more than one outlet anywhere. No more networks as we know them, in other words.

Government is, in our case, good for dealing with Monopoly, as a "perfect capitolism" would tend to generate. ONE BIG CORPORATION that owns everything, versus what would have to be a small, ineffective, government, would be fine to many corporations, as long as they were in charge of The Corporation.

I suspect this is a tangent, though.

The problem with small orgs and individuals as regards media is that they produce anti-social anarchy and add to this counterproductive tendency.

BTW, before someone feels they checkmate me by mentioning that, as an artist and independent producer, I produce the kind of thing that I am pointing out as a problem, let me state that I am guilty as charged. I know my stuff is anti-social and anarchic at base. This is a part of the reason why I feel so strongly that people like myself should be regulated and held in check by powers more socially responsible than I am wont to be as an individual.

aside:
well, if that were grounds for checkmate, i too would be.
if anything, sound is more dangerous than visuals--maybe plato was right about that--on the other hand, being invisible feels like sufficient regulation.
if the collective ever gets visible, then we might be a problem. heh heh.

Honestly, I have no idea what you do for a living, Art. I find myself on opposite sides of almost every issue I discuss with you, so the topic hasn't exactly come up.

If you prefer regulation, that sounds to me as though you'd rather be a sheep yourself, which doesn't sound right. What do you really want, when you say "regulation" in this case?

Again, I don't believe that the Media per se is the problem. It is those that use the Media that are the issue. There is nothing inherently evil about a CD, a Television carrier wave, or Newspapers... it is the Corporations that create and distribute content in these various media that are the issue. The Corporations that sell us concepts of who we are until we swear it is our own idea of who we are...

I see this system as hugely problematic in that we are ruduce from citizens (active, cogent participants in our societal makeup) to consumers (where choice is ruduced to brand loyalty)...

The problem is that the Corporations using the media like this have created a situation where we believe ourselve to be free, empowered individuals... It is a wonderful dream from which I see no chance of escape (aside from becoming a hermit in a cave).

The problem with suggesting that a stronger government is neccessary and that propaganda (as Art defines it above) are so odious to so many on this thread is that it is much more up front in methods (perhaps it is because the form of government we have is a left over from the Modern era). As a result of this we can see the strings, as it were... we become acutely aware of the manipulation... Governement, as it is, is too unsubtle in the face of the Corporations and their media use.

Again, I suggest that success is to be found in a balance between these two opposing forces. You CAN have both a strong government and a strong economic engine.

denim,
What I do isn't important but for the fact that some of it involves creating adult content and much of it involves the supremely self-indulgent egotistical and anarchic type of thing often referred to as "art". I mentioned it because there are enough people here who know this that I felt it would be disingenuous not to do so in this context.

I have no problem at all with many of the things the rest of my kind denounce as "censorship of the arts," and so forth, because I understand that individual human beings, especially ones who cultivate their creative individuality to a high degree, are too self-involved to be trusted with much more than a single citizen's "right" to political power.

Sheep don't need much regulation as they are well-domesticated. Humans, on the other hand are unruly types who serve no higher purpose than their own, etc. No need for me to repeat myself here. I just want to indicate that I am against me-ism for precisely the reason that most of my colleagues are all for it. To hear an artist proclaim "free expression" to the rooftops is, for me, no different than to hear a baby scream, "me, me, mine."

Charlatan - by "media" I do not mean the tools of content creation. I mean the content itself and the manner in which it is promulgated.

Considering that the government (authoritarian side) has certain methods of ascertaining the truth in events (testifying under oath before congressional hearings), and the public (anarchic side) has it's methods of ascertaining the truth in events (freedom of press), a problem lies in the fact that the freedom of the press is abused in conjunction with freedom of speech, in that the press can often be full of shit. Biased in the direction of their private entities interests.

While the National Enquirer exercises it's freedom of speech, and pretends to be a member of the free press, it is by no means taken seriously. This is not a problem. The problem lies in news agencies that are, when they should not be. As a suggestion, it may be agreeable to all present that news agencies purporting to be credible be given the option (and, thereafter, seen to be the duty) to swear all reported facts as true, under oath and penalty of perjury, with punishments that could be doled out (fines, loss of press license, etc).

Editorial and opinion pages are nice, but it seems more and more of the opinions end up on the front page. This, under certain lenses, would be seen as an unfortunate feature of the anarchic side of the authoritarian-anarchic continuum.

I love it!

Don't be surprised if some of our esteemed colleagues hate the idea, Journeyman. But what the heck. That's life. I appreciate the concrete proposal. Eventually, this thread will have to become a series of concrete proposals. I'm sure if it continues there will be much discussion of each one.

Thanks.