6.02.2006
freedom in context
It takes a concerted effort to maintain a despotic regime. Not only do you have to surveil people constantly for rumblings of revolt; you must limit the freedom of expression to insure that no revolution is permitted momentum in the information sphere. You have to enable your security forces great latitude in enforcing your rules. You must constantly monitor your political rivals or sympathetic compatriots for signs of a coup. Internal police, military police -- the loops of security become a paranoid hall of mirrors. The amount of energy necessary to maintain such a state is incredible, a skyscraper at the foot of an active volcano.
Power evolves, its methods pruned through centuries. How to achieve the desired control and stability with the least cost? There is a balance to strike here, and it cannot be without cost altogether:
1) Those actually in power should not be visible and open to scrutiny or revolt; the use of figureheads is advised. Also decentralized power among an aristocracy or other kind of oligarchy is less prone to upheaval, as there is no "head" of the beast of power that could be decapitated and rendered helpless.
2) Permit as much freedom of expression and action among the populace that does not threaten the power structure as possible; this insures that people will be relatively content, productive, and not prone to rebel. Publicly emphasize such freedoms so that people are thankful you have provided them.
3) Provide emotionally cathartic entertainment with high impact and sensationalism as a salve against popular frustrations; however, they should contain virtually no signs of awareness of the power structure. Include access to legal substances that enhance productivity or numb awareness, and make illegal any substance that might enhance awareness.
4) The warrior spirit of security forces should be motivated by rationales that emphasize abstract notions of liberation and protection that supersede any specific information about the actual agenda of the current regime; this will minimize rebellious tendencies among the military and police. Be sure to put in place checks and balances among the security forces so that no one division is able to garner enough support for a coup.
5) Provide rudimentary comforts to the population as a means to quell unrest, such as basic health care, paved roads, police protection, emergency services.
Overall, this schema will provide rulers greater stability than any despotic system. It will insure the productivity and consent of the populace, providing enough freedom and participation in the system for them to feel empowered.
Is this American democracy?
And if so...
What is the next step in social evolution?
America is one of the freest societies in the world, but can't we do even better?
How long will we watch the extremes of capitalism ravage us? CEOs making $20,000 a day, while the majority of the world starves?
Are we a culture eating its own collective vomit in celebrity-based propaganda, reality TV, sports, video games, the distraction network keeping our eyes off the wizards pulling the levers behind the curtain?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Well I feel smarter having read this , all kidding aside. Jeff you really out do yourself everytime . If we all thought like you what a wonderfull place this would be , then again where would free thinking fall . Please keep on writing , and we will keep reading .
Philip ( New York )
Wow!!!!
Nicely said Jeff.
Great blog, keep writing and speaking your mind.
-mykl
Thanks for your kind words! I would say for this piece I didn't lay enough responsibility at the feet of the ruled... We all have a stake in what's happening, and some capacity to change it.
just for the record, i'm not a communist. i would like to see more voluntary cooperation and less materialism, but these are free options under capitalism. what i would really like to see are reasonable limits to capitalism -- that's what the government should do, except they are rather easily bought off, unfortunately. we have too much not to share more. and i personally can't see why anyone would need over $250,000 a year income, unless they want to set up their own dynastic fiefdom!
and a dynastic fiefdom would be counter-democratic, right?
Post a Comment