The role of the media in democracy - American corporatism su

[honest intellectual]

The media is part of any democratic system, so for democracy to exist the media must be unhindered by the state or any other powers. The founding fathers of America realised this and stated in the constitution that Congress could pass no law to control or restrict the media. However, the problem that arose was not that the state mechanism came to control the media, but that the corporations did. Most countries have legal restrictions on hostile takeovers of media bodies, but not the US. The media is a vital part of a democracy, yet it can be bought and sold like any other commodity. Democracy for sale. It is no less anti-democratic than bribing people to vote for you

[Ex Nihilo]

First of all, the United States is a republic, not a democracy. Second of all, the three basic fundamental rights of man - Life, Liberty, and Property - take precedence over your, our anyone else's, construed notions of freedom.

See, you seem to think that democracy = freedom. Well, your wrong. Tyranny is tyranny, wether it is imposed by a single man, a group, or a whole mass of people. People's rights...freedoms, are being violated.

By taking away the right of the media executives to dispose of their property however they choose, you are denying them one of the basic individual rights of man. In affect, your are actually denying freedom in the name of democracy. Which is wrong.

-- Dark Capitalist

(Edited by Ex Nihilo at 8:03 am on July 14, 2003)

[Liberty Lover]

Dark Capitalist? Whats the go?

[sc4r]

Quote: from Ex Nihilo on 8:03 am on July 14, 2003
First of all, the United States is a republic, not a democracy. Second of all, the three basic fundamental rights of man - Life, Liberty, and Property - take precedence over your, our anyone else's, construed notions of freedom.

See, you seem to think that democracy = freedom. Well, your wrong. Tyranny is tyranny, wether it is imposed by a single man, a group, or a whole mass of people. People's rights...freedoms, are being violated.

By taking away the right of the media executives to dispose of their property however they choose, you are denying them one of the basic individual rights of man. In affect, your are actually denying freedom in the name of democracy. Which is wrong.

-- Dark Capitalist

(Edited by Ex Nihilo at 8:03 am on July 14, 2003)


Well first of all the USA is both a democracy and a republic. The two things are not mutually incompatible.

It may not be a very effective democracy but thats a different subject.

I find it rather stange for anyone to say that 'Life liberty and Property take precedance over... notions of freedom'. WTF do you think Liberty means?

It gets even stanger when you then actually use the word freedom to describe something that you clearly believe should not be violated.

Property rights are merely an abitrary legal construct established by consensus. There are absolutely heaps of things you cant do with the things you own, and heaps of things you are not allowed to own. Those limitations are simply defined by law. Changing the law to alter what rights you can dispose of is nothing more than that, just a change in the consensus of what rights you have.

Rights are defined by people. They dont exist in the fabric of the universe.

Peoples freedom is restricted all the time by all sorts of things. By Criminal Law, By wealth, by their sex, by their geograpical position, by the fact that few are 10' tall, by the fact that we all die, by a million things. The trick is to set up those restrictions which we can affect in such a way that it benefits people the most. I think most would say that limiting peoples freedoms as little as possible commensurate with maximising benefit is also a good thing.

Because ultimately all political ideas are about Maximising the freedom of some group. They do this by limiting other freedoms in some ways (e.g. I dont want anyone to be free to shoot me without penalty, because this places a pretty hefty negative on my freedom).

Democracy is intended to regulate the freedoms of a large group in such a way that the group decides which freedoms should be curtailed in order to maximise the total.

BUt as HI said a vital part of the mechanism of effctive democracy is true honest information, which means the media. A democracy which does not ensure that its media remains free of influence is going to be fed duff info, and will make duff decisions as a result.

This is even presupposing that it remains a genuine democracy. Because representative democracies with a media which is owned and manipulated are going to find that the people forming almost all opinion are the same people who benefit from forming it in a particular way. This allows these people to act exactly as if they were autocrats in many ways.

They are autocrats with an extra cost to pay than the more tradtional sort (they have to fool peopleand keep them fooled); but then of course they save on some of the security costs of the more traditional breed.

It is undeniably of interest that several of the american founding fathers did warn of the dangers of an unfree press and at least one of them warned against the dangers of corpotaism itself.

America is not as free as it was, nor is it a meaningful democracy. The founding fathers saw that this was a danger and warned of how to avoid it. Unfortunately what they did not realise is that capitalist mechanisms are so inexorable that these warnings were bound to be in vain.

America survives because by a combination of having vast untapped resources, a remote geographical position, access to European advances early on, a democratic system which did work in the early days, and the ability to aquire interests elsewhere and exploit them, its population is wealthy enough that they dont care overmuch to inspect what democracy they have, which is close to none. Most live under a benevolent autocracy and those who do mainly avoid thinking about it, or thinking about the distinctly unbenevolent nature of this system to most outside of it, and increasingly even to many within it.

They have been taught the mental tricks to avoid thinking about it. Those tricks are on autopilot for most and are taken as reality. But they are not.

Crucially it wont last. what is being accepted benefits the autocrats more and more, because this is inbuilt in the system. But many people will have their lives devastated in order to provide the wealth that allows the illusion to be worked.

You may not care, You may take the attitude that irrespective of why it works for you, it does (at the moment), and thats all you are concerned with.

But their are many who do care.

[Elect Marx]

Well, I suppose Sc4r covered that fairly well. I'll just state that controling the media is not a right, it is a violation of rights. The US is truly not democratic because capitalism isopposed to democracy.

[In It 4 The Money]

Whats your point, the US isnt truly democratic, give me an example of somewhere where true democracy exists.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Quote: from In It 4 The Money on 11:06 pm on July 15, 2003
Whats your point, the US isnt truly democratic, give me an example of somewhere where true democracy exists.

Communes in various places, maybe not on a large scale but there are still practices of democracy.

Just because everyone else does things one way doesn't mean it's right.

[In It 4 The Money]

Please indulge me, do you think it is possible for Britian or America to exist as a series of communes?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Yes



However not as we know nowadays, they would not be the evil, money grabbing, exploitive piles of nasty stuff they are nowadays. Actually they might be worse, but you are right in a way, they can't exist in the same way as a series of communes.

Although if they truelly believed in a free economy it should be better. Small communes, if they weren't centrally controlled, could induldge in open trade. Without the protectionist measures of the central governments of the US and UK.

But that isn't the point, I really don't know what would happen to the ecconomy of countries in that situation, nor do I care because it is very unlikely at the moment. However I would love living in that situation, that is just me.

Anyway, whether or not it can be applied to a large scale country matters not, the fact is true and direct democracy can and does work.

Like I said just because everyone does it one way, doesn't make it right why not try it?

Come to think of it, that same argument could be applied for democratic socialism working on the large scale, because communism does work in that situation;)

[Elect Marx]

^ LIKE I SAID, capitalism is opposed to democracy, capitalism is global in nature, as it is a disease. There can be no democracy when powerful groups are in control, fueled by monetary gain.