News Is Democracy Worth the Risk of Electing Terrorists?

[Skyhunter]

Interesting thread.
I had not read it since I thought the idea of banning any form of expression to be wrong. Haven't read the whole thread but now I think I will.

 

[Smurf]

Interesting thread.
I had not read it since I thought the idea of banning any form of expression to be wrong. Haven't read the whole thread but now I think I will.

Pfft, why? I read the first page when it first started, and I read this page... that's about it.

 

[loseyourname]

Yeah. You have my sociology professor to thank for this one, I think it's his influence that helped me think this way. FOX news is a symptom of an already corrupt/ill society and/or culture. Getting rid of it won't solve the problem, and will probably make it worse.

Besides, far too often have we seen corrupt government ban something or other because it was "harming society", and been a legitimate claim... and then, somewhere they lose control and BOOM they start burning books.

Wow, I said exactly that same thing about Fox News from your first paragraph earlier in this thread. I've also mentioned what you just did in your second paragraph in tons of different threads - the danger of expanding the powers and responsibilities of government, even with the best of intentions.

I think I might have a heart attack now too.

 

[Smurf]

Wow, I said exactly that same thing about Fox News from your first paragraph earlier in this thread. I've also mentioned what you just did in your second paragraph in tons of different threads - the danger of expanding the powers and responsibilities of government, even with the best of intentions.
I think I might have a heart attack now too.

You know LYN I am a libertarian, libertarian social anarchist really. I know I come off as being big-government command state marxist, but that's only because I feel compelled to defend them since I see them getting attacked so often, and their philosophy is just as reasonable as any others. Just like you come off as conservative for the same reason.

 

[loseyourname]

Actually, I think it's worth reposting that again here, because it seems to apply. So here goes.

From an essay about Frank Herbert:

That is, he observed that people seem to have an inbuilt hunger for a powerful, charismatic leader to whom we can surrender our responsibility for making difficult decisions. Hebert observed that even the best leaders are humans, those humans have flaws, and elevating any man to a position of god-like power tends to magnify those human flaws to dangerous proportions. Worse, even if the original leader resists the temptation to abuse power, the bureaucracy which springs up around him will outlive him, and over time a bureaucracy becomes more and more incented to prioritize its own needs over the needs of people.

Bold emphasis is mine.

I think this is one of the reasons that the American system of limited government, chock full of checks and balances, has been as successful as it has been, and why centrally planned economies just don't work.* It is inevitable that if you vest too much power in the hands of anyone person or idealogical group that the power structure built up will attract people who have no interest in the common good and simply want power. The advantage with a democracy predicated on the separation of powers is that it contains the amount of damage such a person can do. When you have a central planning committee with absolute power over an economy, you don't get that. When you have one idealogical group in power, which is absolutely necessary to a pure socialist system, you end up with nothing to check their power.

I also don't advocate the imperial presidency that we've moved toward since Nixon. All of Schumer's talk about the need to give the federal government, and especially his Senate, more and more power, is frankly scaring me. I imagine he's a great guy with the best of intentions, but it's a dangerous path. I guess that's one of the reasons I actually like Roberts as a judicial nominee - he is staunchly advocating limited government and separation of powers. (Sorry about the digression - I have no doubt that you don't have the slightest clue who Senator Schumer is, any more than I know the names of French legislators.)

You bring up a good point, though. Even a democracy is not immune to the messiah impulse. Look at what happened here. All the way back in the early 60's, the civil rights movement and social equality programs moved people to advocate consolidation of power in the federal government, enabling the creation of the imperial presidency. This was something done with the best of intentions and resulted in legitimate progress in civil rights legislation. It also resulted in a much stronger federal government that was bound to fall into the hands of someone like Bush eventually.

I think we can apply this same line of reasoning in the case of Fox News. The people that want it banned are perfectly honest and operating with the best of intentions. However, by giving the government the power to regulate what does and does not qualify as proper news, you are creating an untenable situation in which some future regime (actually, it would likely be our current regime) will almost certainly abuse that power to limit the freedom of the press in a way that would irrevocably harm our way of life.

Note: Isn't it ironic that I go lauding Roberts for his advocation of limited government, and here he is insisting that the federal government has the right to regulate how doctors in Oregon prescribe medicine? That's the last time I go trusting a Bush appointee.

 

[Smurf]

I think this is one of the reasons that the American system of limited government, chock full of checks and balances, has been as successful as it has been, and why centrally planned economies just don't work.* It is inevitable that if you vest too much power in the hands of anyone person or idealogical group that the power structure built up will attract people who have no interest in the common good and simply want power. The advantage with a democracy predicated on the separation of powers is that it contains the amount of damage such a person can do. When you have a central planning committee with absolute power over an economy, you don't get that. When you have one idealogical group in power, which is absolutely necessary to a pure socialist system, you end up with nothing to check their power.

See this is the kind of bull**** that I end up defending those marxists against.

There is absolutely no reason (NONE AT ALL) why a command economy can't be controlled by a democratic government and vice versa. This guy's an idiot.

 

[loseyourname]

See this is the kind of bull**** that I end up defending those marxists against.
There is absolutely no reason (NONE AT ALL) why a command economy can't be controlled by a democratic government and vice versa. This guy's an idiot.

This guy is me, smurf; I'm quoting myself. Thanks, though.

Since you're so fond of throwing around words like "idiot" all the time, I may as well mention that I find you to be a naive, patronizing, pretentious teenage know-it-all wannabe. Hence the "taken-abackness" when I see that we agree on something.

 

[Smurf]

This guy is me, smurf; I'm quoting myself. Thanks, though.

Umm... I kindly propose that perhapse there are a few slight inaccuracies in your above post?

 

[Smurf]

Since you're so fond of throwing around words like "idiot" all the time, I may as well mention that I find you to be a naive, patronizing, pretentious teenage know-it-all wannabe. Hence the "taken-abackness" when I see that we agree on something.

Hey now, there's no need to get upset about it,

 

[loseyourname]

Hey now, there's no need to get upset about it,

It's all in good fun. I only actually get upset at the new guys.

 

[Smurf]

It's all in good fun. I only actually get upset at the new guys.

heh, really? The new guys? I usually end up laughing at them.

 

[Informal Logic]

In this thread members are discussing regulation as a check and balance, NOT banning any form of free speech. Those of you who are advocating limited control - It has been argued that Murdock with ties to the Republican party violate exactly that – they have too much control over vital information via Fox News (and it’s high viewer ship). So, your arguments are inconsistent.

Also, unlike other forms of free speech, the point has been made that the news is viewed as a service that informs the public, and is supposed to be in itself a check and balance as a watchdog in a democracy. You fail to address this matter at all.

 

[Smurf]

In Canada the CBC (government regulated) serves as the checks and balances for other news organizations - which are few and far between. CBC just has such a good record of being fair and balanced () that no one has reason to watch any other televised news.

 

[ron damon]

You know LYN I am a libertarian, libertarian social anarchist really... There is absolutely no reason (NONE AT ALL) why a command economy can't be controlled by a democratic government and vice versa.

You have no idea what Libertarianism is, do you? It means a state in which the individual is free (to the greatest degree) from arbitrary coercion, the most intense case of which being a government-run economy. What you describe is akin to something like being a "steak-loving vegetarian".

Only a genius like Spinoza can get away with such synthesis.

 

[Smurf]

You have no idea what Libertarianism is, do you? It means a state in which the individual is free (to the greatest degree) from arbitrary coercion, the most intense case of which being a government-run economy. What you describe is akin to something like being a "steak-loving vegetarian".
Only a genius like Spinoza can get away with such synthesis.

Yes, I know what libertarianism is. And I don't see how pointing out an incorrect assumption in someone's post makes it impossible for me to be one.

Also, I wouldn't mind challenging your assertion that a command economy is un-libertarian. It's merely a difference in philosophy. Make a thread about it if you want to discuss it.

 

[Brad_1234]

You do know that the president of FNC worked as a strategist for the Nixon and Reagan administrations, right?
Bill O'Reilly's in the middle? When did that happen?
So, when certain commentators have both sides on their show, but tell one side to shut up because it's his show and he decides who gets to speak, is that being fair?
I did not once not hear the second part of Bill Bennett's statement not mentioned by the media. In fact, I defy you to find one instance otherwise.
CBS didn't make the document. They obtained it from an outside source, who lied to them as well. Obviously, they didn't do as much fact-checking as they should have. However, as you have just shown, anyone can be guilty of that.

I was referring to Peter Chernin, News Corp president and COO who is a democrat. Roger Ailes? Hey we can all get to know what I personally think, its most likely inline with what Roger Ailes says.

OReilly calls himself an Independent, he tries to be middle of the road on everything, in fact IMO he looks at both extremes of an issue, picks the center and says its the correct opinion. He used to seem more conservative years ago, in 2003 he PROMISED to be upfront and honest about the Iraq war, then went into the center and lied about news events, and again IMO he wants to be in the white house, so to make Bush look bad and say "we are lookin out for you" ? Its a power grab.

Im not sure which show, but if its Hannity/Colmes and one guest rambles on and fillibusters? or won't answer questions? Sean gets to say its his show.

I don't always agree with Sean, sometimes I side with Alan. Once he had the new Black Panther leader on who would use his appearance as a microphone to rattle off some rant and wouldn't "discuss" things. Sean stopped him and stops similar guests who use the airtime for their own purpose and don't participate in discussion. Bill OReilly goes farther, he demands the discussion stay on track, and for this? He is now #1.

People are not stupid, we can listen to a person talk and usually tell if they have a good argument, this is why Foxnews is good. If you don't like interruptions or a biased show? CNN's crossfire typically has 3 democrats and 1 republican. Tucker Carlson is outmatched by Carville OR Begalla...

I heard radio stories on the Bennett story, but its typical of that side. The stories on Nixon/Watergate? Inflated nonsense; Vietnam was a big war crime? John Kerry testifies that he engaged in war crimes?? The Swift boat Vets for truth exposed some falsehoods in Kerrys Vietnam recollection, he wouldn't answer directly if he was a war criminal or if his testimony to Congress was therefore false? Its a sticky situation but they grill president Bush on anything he has said

As for Rathergate? Sorry I cannot accept any "we didnt know" story, because they had reasonable doubt and kept up the fake story, I followed it and their story fell apart, bloggers exposed the CBS fraud. So like at the Superbowl with Janet Jackson? Jason Timberlake rips the velcro attached part of her shirt to expose her naked breast on live TV? And their response? Oh... it was a mistake, it was a "wardrobe failure". What does Dan Rather and CBS say about their fake document and smear tactic on Lt Bush? oh, it was a mistake, a wardrobe failure. Do you believe it?? I dont.

 

[TRCSF]

OReilly calls himself an Independent, he tries to be middle of the road on everything, in fact IMO he looks at both extremes of an issue, picks the center and says its the correct opinion.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[ron damon]

Also, I wouldn't mind challenging your assertion that a command economy is un-libertarian.

OK, how am I not being coerced when someone else makes economic decision for me? Like what can I buy, at what price, from whom, in what quantity, of what quality, at what time and place...

Let's clear from the start that these are not choices to be measured against limitless options, like not being free to buy a ticket to Proxima Centauri. It means being restricted from choices I would otherwise have, like importing cloth from China when restricted by labor union interests.

 

[ron damon]

OReilly calls himself an Independent, he tries to be middle of the road on everything, in fact IMO he looks at both extremes of an issue, picks the center and says its the correct opinion.

Back on topic, let's be fair and accept O'Reilly is a conservative. However, he goes into greater efforts to present the Leftist point of view in his show than the New York Times in putting a conservative voice in its pages.

I do enjoy watching FNC, specially that O'Reilly dude, but think most people do realize it is a conservative outlet, and that it is only sane to have it counterbalance the rest of the mainstream news which is overwhelmingly Leftist.

And some important subjects that others won't touch, like child abuse, are only brought into the mainstream by O'Reilly, which makes his work valuable to any citizen who wishes to be roundly informed.

 

[TRCSF]

And some important subjects that others won't touch, like child abuse, are only brought into the mainstream by O'Reilly, which makes his work valuable to any citizen who wishes to be roundly informed.

You're right, if it wasn't for O'Reilly we'd never hear about Child Abuse.

And I particularly like O'Reilly's opinions on sexual morality and sexual harassment.

Can you just imagine what an awful place society would be if Bill O'Reilly wasn't around to champion women on the issue of sexual harassment?

Perish the thought.

 

[ron damon]

You're right, if it wasn't for O'Reilly we'd never hear about Child Abuse.
And I particularly like O'Reilly's opinions on sexual morality and sexual harassment.
Can you just imagine what an awful place society would be if Bill O'Reilly wasn't around to champion women on the issue of sexual harassment?
Perish the thought.

Did someone steal your yoghurt?

 

[TRCSF]

Did someone steal your yoghurt?

No, but I'm having trouble finding my falafel.

Have you been using it?

 

[ron damon]

No, but I'm having trouble finding my falafel.
Have you been using it?

Apparently I have

 

[Smurf]

OK, how am I not being coerced when someone else makes economic decision for me? Like what can I buy, at what price, from whom, in what quantity, of what quality, at what time and place...
Let's clear from the start that these are not choices to be measured against limitless options, like not being free to buy a ticket to Proxima Centauri. It means being restricted from choices I would otherwise have, like importing cloth from China when restricted by labor union interests.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=785307#post785307

 

[Informal Logic]

I do enjoy watching FNC, specially that O'Reilly dude, but think most people do realize it is a conservative outlet, and that it is only sane to have it counterbalance the rest of the mainstream news which is overwhelmingly Leftist.

Counterbalance I understand. Unfortunately a more accurate description of Fox News is aggressive-liberal-bashing propaganda. My guess is this is really why people like to watch Fox News.

You're right, if it wasn't for O'Reilly we'd never hear about Child Abuse.

And I particularly like O'Reilly's opinions on sexual morality and sexual harassment.

Can you just imagine what an awful place society would be if Bill O'Reilly wasn't around to champion women on the issue of sexual harassment?

Perish the thought.

Riiiiight!

 

[Plastic Photon]

I heard on Fox News during their winter break when some dork was filling in for Neil Cavuto actually suggest that the 'Canada needs to be bombed by terrorist to realize that we are in this together (war on terror)". ?what?