It's not your decision, fuckwad, to determine what a fulfilling life for me is.
Ah, but it is. My (meaning society's) role is to tell you EXACTLY what you can and can't do. For example, we don't allow you to find a fulfilling life by being a mass murderer.
Either tell me what society gives each of its members a Ferrari, or get the hell out of my way, because I'm busy earning one.
In other words, you want the house of gold. But your response will be "wanting a Ferrari doesn't infringe on other's rights like being a mass murderer". But doesn't it?
For the price of that Ferrari, society can feed hundreds of people. Put 5-10 people through college for a year. Produce thousands of volumes for a library. You damage society by owning a Ferrari, and for what? So you can prove your dick is bigger.
On the other hand, there IS room in society for art and sport. Maybe your passion lies in building cars for art. Maybe your passion lies in road racing. A communist society doesn't have to be bland, dull and gray -- just fulfilling for all its members. There is room for Ferraris in a communist society, but it needs to be done for the right reasons: art or sport, and it needs to be participatory. There is room for Ferraris for the right reasons.
so I want a lifestyle that is better than "equal".
Ah HA! That's where your philosophy breaks down, and you don't even know it. Note that you're not asking for a lifestyle that is satisfying to you, you're asking for a lifestyle BETTER THAN OTHERS. What difference does it make how someone else is living? Wouldn't it be more rational to worry about your own lifestyle? And ask whether it is satisfying or not?
Now ask yourself: why if EVERYONE could have a satisfying lifestyle? Forget questions of money and luxury; it's only an immature society that craves decadent luxury. Is it really necessary that someone lives in a house of gold? Wouldn't it be a better world if everyone was guaranteed a healthy, productive, fulfilling lifestyle that was primarily concerned with personal growth?
Yes, I understand that your response will be something like "screw personal growth, I want houses of gold". And that's why the world isn't ready for true communism. But someday, we will grow out of our adolescent "I WANT CANDY CANDY CANDY NOW NOW NOW" lifestyles. The fact is, it doesn't cost that much money to give everyone fulfilling lifestyles.
"Pretty funny how that works -- the more a country embraces policies of compassion and fairness, the more liked they are in the world." Pretty funny how impotent the "liked" socialist nations are. They are powerless. Do you understand the idea of power? Other countries will decimate a weak populace, and socialism breeds weakness.
Whoever said that socialist countries should not have a defensive military? Not me. But you pull out all these cliched statements that you ascribe to me without thinking anything through.
A thought experiment: What if every country on earth was socialist/communist? With democratically elected leaders? With STABLE democracies? How many wars of agression are started by stable democracies? Almost none (although there are certain exceptions, but almost always civil wars of aggression like Croatia).
You can only believe that socialism breeds weakness if you believe that compassion is weakness. A compassionate society is one that cares about ALL its members, not just the rich ones. When you eliminate money completely, then all class distinctions will be eliminated (by definition), and thus all will be treated equally. That is one definition of a compassionate society. It's hard for me to understand how you would see that as weak.
Easier to be 15 and read childhood social/political philosophy than to accept reality, isn't it.
Easier to spout insults rather than engage in honest debate, isn't it? But just for the record, I'm 38, married, two kids. I make a good income, live a modest lifestyle, and most of my money goes to helping those less fortunate. How much of YOUR income goes to helping people, or does your "understanding of power" preclude any sort of compassion?
In case you haven't noticed, the terrorists are generally from those fucked up third world countries, and they attack the modern world because of jealousy and ignorance.
Yeah, watch out for those Swedish terrorists -- they're a POWDER KEG WAITING TO BLOW.
You're making the classic mistake -- either intentional or not -- of equating totalitarian regimes with compassionate socialist systems. This is simple sophistry. Cuba, China and North Korea are NOT socialist, communist or any other system of compassion. They are simple dictators who cloth themselves in the language of Marx. But calling yourself a "leader of the people" obviously doesn't make you one.
And just for the record, this goes for the old Soviet Union. They were NEVER communist or socialist. Calling yourself something does not make you so.
So tell me about all the oppression in the REAL socialist democratic countries. None of them are ideal, by the way, they still have a LONG ways to go until they become truly communist Great Societies.
Mock me if you must, but here's another data point for you. How often do socialist countries get attacked by terrorists? Why does it seem that the more socialist a country is, the less anger there is toward that country in the world?
Pretty funny how that works -- the more a country embraces policies of compassion and fairness, the more liked they are in the world.
But hey -- maybe you're right. It's all a coincidence.
Easier to mock me than it is to refute me, isn't it?
Yeah, yeah, laugh if you want. I've heard it all before.
But look at how much better the quality of life is in socialist countries. In fact, it's remarkable that the more socialist a country is, the better their people live.
People are starting to wake up to these simple facts. I'm not sure what it's going to take to convince people like you, but the evidence is all around you. Open your eyes and get angry.
Karl Marx has already explained exactly where money is going to go... into the ash-heap of history.
We're already starting to see it. How much anger are you seeing over corporatism and capitalism in general? Everyone is fed up: THE SYSTEM DOESN'T WORK. Everyone knows it, but so many people are afraid to face it. They're afraid of what might replace it. "Better the devil you know, than the devil you don't".
But there is a better way! Do your research. Look at some of the alternative political parties.
The future is a moneyless society where everyone shares everything equally. We all do the jobs that we are best at, not the ones that you HAVE to do to "make a living". Everyone contributes to the public trust, and everyone shares in the public trust. No money needed!
There are so many people afraid right now, but I see that as a sign of hope. Finally everyone is seeing the absolute black soul of capitalism and are searching for something better. Soon we will be tearing down the walls of corporations, and the whole idea of "ownership" in general. Just like music and software shouldn't be owned, neither should physical resources, either. Everything should be publically owned. And no ownership means no need for money.
All of this was predicted over a hundred years ago. Read about it and learn.
With all the dot-bombs blowing up, it's exposing the flaws in the current system. The real solution is simple: The internet should be financed by the government, with the webmasters of truly useful sites getting direct financing. All bandwidth should be free. How many people are not ever going to get a high-bandwidth connection?
There is a reason that telephone service used to be run by the government. It's because private companies are not going to run lines to 100% of the people, they are going to run them only to the rich people. Meanwhile, the poor go without this vital resource.
We need to get corporations (like Microsoft) out of the Internet, and return the power to the people.
we do have these people they are called "consumers". companies are directed by money, and consumers are where the companies get their money.
Well, that the theory. But what about the practice and reality? The reality is that Microsoft holds an incredible amount of power of the industry. What is one person's purchasing power against hundreds of billions of dollars of Microsoft power? If the "magical hand of capitalism" worked, we wouldn't see all the powerlessness of the software choices by the people.
Think about all that money that could be better used to fund open source projects in the PUBLIC interest, not Microsoft's.
This just proves that we need to have people on the boards of directors of every corporation in America to represent the interests of the people. This is just one company; what about all the others? It is definitely in the people's interest to break the Microsoft stranglehold on the industry. But that's never going to happen as long as we have greedy industrialists in charge of the country.
Every board of directors of every corporation should have an overseer representative of the people, with full veto power over any decision that is not in the best interests of the public. All these companies should (and eventually will) be nationalized, but this is a good first step.
Clearly corporatism only has its own greedy profits in mind when it makes decisions. We need to have people in control that represent OUR interests.
First off what's the difference in a huge multinational and a huge govt. entity owning everything?
The difference is that the people have ownership, rather than a select, powerful few.
in the great nationalized society that used to be the USSR, how much great art was created in comparison to the US?
You're joking, right? The USSR had a lot of problems, but art was not one of them. Their ballet, opera and orchestras were commonly known as among the best in the world.
It's clear that the huge multinational corporations that are buying up gaming companies right and left are out of control. There is a simple solution: Nationalize the arts, including gaming.
Once gaming companies are publically owned and operated, they will have the freedom to create whatever they want without the interference of having to "watch the bottom line" or "what will the Mother Company think of this?" It will be ultimate freedom.
As for massively multiplayer gaming, they should be publically owned also, but should have a board of oversight from the government -- with veto power over all decisions -- to watch privacy issues, etc.
This is just more proof that we must nationalize the music industry and return the arts to the people. It's obvious corporate greed of these people knows no bounds.
All art should be publically subsidized, and all ownership should be public domain by law. Everyone should be able to freely copy any work they desire. Only then can we kill the corporatism of the arts.
We must take back all the money stolen from consumers over the years (from BOTH the corporatists AND the musicians who have made sickeningly too much money), and redistribute it to the worthwhile artists who have not been willing to sell themselves to the music industry.
What would've been more witty is something like, "Since the Human Genome is closed-source, do we dare violate the will of God? Perhaps Microsoft is the True Way!"
The Human Genome Project shows that human life is open-source.
No, the Human Genome Project is the equivalent of reverse engineering binary code. In fact, we haven't even done that... we've only dumped out a binary. We haven't even hardly begun to actually reverse engineer it.
If we had the "source code", then we would have a notation describing the biological syntax similar to source code, which would be compiled into a genetic sequence. Obviously, we're a long way from having something like that.
It's just like saying you believe in free speech, but tell those goddamn KKK people to shut up!
Freedom of speech is NOT unlimited. Speech that is harmful to others is not protected (Yelling fire in a crowded theatre, yadda yadda).
Some of the most harmful speech we have right now are the lies that Microsoft has told consumers. How do you think they became a monopoly? The government has a responsibility to protect regular citizens from the lies of corporatism.
Placing government reps on corporate boards (every corporation? even 5-person outfits? who's paying for this?)
Yes, and what's the cost to the economy of Corporatism stealing from the people? That's trillions of dollars. In any case, the cost of oversight would minor. What are there, maybe 10,000 corporations in the country? Another 10K goverment employees is a drop in the bucket. Just eliminating corporate welfare would pay for it 10 times over.
Nationalization would be guaranteed to bring the French disease (labor inflexibility and lousy productivity, leading to economic contraction, unemployment and sky-high taxes, huge deficits or both) to the USA
I wouldn't use the French as my example. Their problems are with government corruption on the one hand, and too much selective corporatism on the other.
Look at Sweden. Government and the workers form a partnership. They could nationalize a lot more of their industry, but they are on the right road.
Excuse me, but I don't trust any mammoth corporation to "protect me" by putting up some fake figure head.
What we need is to either nationalize these mammoth corporations, or at the very least require one government representative to be put on every board of directors -- by law -- with veto power over any decision. Only by providing oversight with a people's representative can we be assured that the riens of their extreme power can be brought under control.
Again, I'd rather see them nationalized, but I think this would be a good first step.
If the email had been encrypted, the court could have required them to provide the key then, with legal penalties for refusing to comply.
You don't get it. Now Microsoft and other corporate bloodsuckers have learned not to leave an electronic trail, and be much more careful. The only way to bring down these people is to monitor their communications before they can destroy them. If Microsoft (and others of the industrial complex) have unbreakable encryption, then it will be much more difficult to bring them down.
There is one way to solve all of these problems that a lot of people don't think about, and that is to publically subsidize the arts and nationalize the recording industry.
Let's face it... corporatism has totally taken over the music industry, and the people are the victims. We must completely eliminate the greed and bring art back to where it belongs -- to the people.
With only public ownership of art allowed, we wouldn't need any of these encoding schemes, and the greedy record industry would stop stealing from the people.
I know this isn't going to be a popular opinion around here, but encryption should be regulated by the government. The smoking gun that caught Microsoft was the e-mails that they sent. Imagine if they had been all encrypted. Microsoft would be even more powerful right now.
I fear that corporatism will continue to grow more and more powerful if they are able hide their stealing with encryption that the government can't crack. It will make it even more possible to take advantage of the people.
No, the solution would be no one regulating it. Censorship by gov't or by buisness is just as bad either way.
"No one regulating" is just corporate censorship by default. We've already seen what happens in that case. There is a very real possibility of Microsoft taking over the Internet and controlling what we see and hear. The only solution is bring the people back into control.
Is it any wonder that after 70 years of government restriction and regulation, that the mass media eventually all became like minded and pro-establishment?
It is exactly the opposite! The reason radio and TV are like minded, etc, is because of the corporate ownership. Because of their profit obsessiveness, you see very little innovation unless it "shows a profit".
Why is it that PBS is so much better than regular television? It's because of the government involvement, so that producers only have to focus on quality rather than the "bottom line".
Quite frankly, we need to remove corporatism from the airwaves, and let the government publicly fund all programming. Only then is the corporate greed removed.
You don't seem to understand the real issue here is that corporate entities are controlled by managers, and managers are pretty much the same (ie: lazy, greedy, dim) in both the public and private sectors.
That's simply not true. Looking at the US, you might be tempted to believe that. But that's because the US has been poisoned by too many years of unrestrained capitalism. Look at more enlightend countries like Sweden, where the government works in partnership with the workers.
The United States can be like that too, but we have to rid ourselves of our profit-obsessed Corporations. Once we have cleansed ourselves of our greed, and the corporate people in power, the people will naturally elect workers of their own peers, because the corporate power-mongers will have been removed from their "thrones". Without their money stolen from the people, they will no longer have the power to control elections and the people.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not your decision, fuckwad, to determine what a fulfilling life for me is.
Ah, but it is. My (meaning society's) role is to tell you EXACTLY what you can and can't do. For example, we don't allow you to find a fulfilling life by being a mass murderer.
Either tell me what society gives each of its members a Ferrari, or get the hell out of my way, because I'm busy earning one.
In other words, you want the house of gold. But your response will be "wanting a Ferrari doesn't infringe on other's rights like being a mass murderer". But doesn't it?
For the price of that Ferrari, society can feed hundreds of people. Put 5-10 people through college for a year. Produce thousands of volumes for a library. You damage society by owning a Ferrari, and for what? So you can prove your dick is bigger.
On the other hand, there IS room in society for art and sport. Maybe your passion lies in building cars for art. Maybe your passion lies in road racing. A communist society doesn't have to be bland, dull and gray -- just fulfilling for all its members. There is room for Ferraris in a communist society, but it needs to be done for the right reasons: art or sport, and it needs to be participatory. There is room for Ferraris for the right reasons.
so I want a lifestyle that is better than "equal".
Ah HA! That's where your philosophy breaks down, and you don't even know it. Note that you're not asking for a lifestyle that is satisfying to you, you're asking for a lifestyle BETTER THAN OTHERS. What difference does it make how someone else is living? Wouldn't it be more rational to worry about your own lifestyle? And ask whether it is satisfying or not?
Now ask yourself: why if EVERYONE could have a satisfying lifestyle? Forget questions of money and luxury; it's only an immature society that craves decadent luxury. Is it really necessary that someone lives in a house of gold? Wouldn't it be a better world if everyone was guaranteed a healthy, productive, fulfilling lifestyle that was primarily concerned with personal growth?
Yes, I understand that your response will be something like "screw personal growth, I want houses of gold". And that's why the world isn't ready for true communism. But someday, we will grow out of our adolescent "I WANT CANDY CANDY CANDY NOW NOW NOW" lifestyles. The fact is, it doesn't cost that much money to give everyone fulfilling lifestyles.
"Pretty funny how that works -- the more a country embraces policies of compassion and fairness, the more liked they are in the world." Pretty funny how impotent the "liked" socialist nations are. They are powerless. Do you understand the idea of power? Other countries will decimate a weak populace, and socialism breeds weakness.
Whoever said that socialist countries should not have a defensive military? Not me. But you pull out all these cliched statements that you ascribe to me without thinking anything through.
A thought experiment: What if every country on earth was socialist/communist? With democratically elected leaders? With STABLE democracies? How many wars of agression are started by stable democracies? Almost none (although there are certain exceptions, but almost always civil wars of aggression like Croatia).
You can only believe that socialism breeds weakness if you believe that compassion is weakness. A compassionate society is one that cares about ALL its members, not just the rich ones. When you eliminate money completely, then all class distinctions will be eliminated (by definition), and thus all will be treated equally. That is one definition of a compassionate society. It's hard for me to understand how you would see that as weak.
Easier to be 15 and read childhood social/political philosophy than to accept reality, isn't it.
Easier to spout insults rather than engage in honest debate, isn't it? But just for the record, I'm 38, married, two kids. I make a good income, live a modest lifestyle, and most of my money goes to helping those less fortunate. How much of YOUR income goes to helping people, or does your "understanding of power" preclude any sort of compassion?
In case you haven't noticed, the terrorists are generally from those fucked up third world countries, and they attack the modern world because of jealousy and ignorance.
Yeah, watch out for those Swedish terrorists -- they're a POWDER KEG WAITING TO BLOW.
You're making the classic mistake -- either intentional or not -- of equating totalitarian regimes with compassionate socialist systems. This is simple sophistry. Cuba, China and North Korea are NOT socialist, communist or any other system of compassion. They are simple dictators who cloth themselves in the language of Marx. But calling yourself a "leader of the people" obviously doesn't make you one.
And just for the record, this goes for the old Soviet Union. They were NEVER communist or socialist. Calling yourself something does not make you so.
So tell me about all the oppression in the REAL socialist democratic countries. None of them are ideal, by the way, they still have a LONG ways to go until they become truly communist Great Societies.
Mock me if you must, but here's another data point for you. How often do socialist countries get attacked by terrorists? Why does it seem that the more socialist a country is, the less anger there is toward that country in the world?
Pretty funny how that works -- the more a country embraces policies of compassion and fairness, the more liked they are in the world.
But hey -- maybe you're right. It's all a coincidence.
Easier to mock me than it is to refute me, isn't it?
Yeah, yeah, laugh if you want. I've heard it all before.
But look at how much better the quality of life is in socialist countries. In fact, it's remarkable that the more socialist a country is, the better their people live.
People are starting to wake up to these simple facts. I'm not sure what it's going to take to convince people like you, but the evidence is all around you. Open your eyes and get angry.
(one again putting on my flame-retardant suit)
Karl Marx has already explained exactly where money is going to go... into the ash-heap of history.
We're already starting to see it. How much anger are you seeing over corporatism and capitalism in general? Everyone is fed up: THE SYSTEM DOESN'T WORK. Everyone knows it, but so many people are afraid to face it. They're afraid of what might replace it. "Better the devil you know, than the devil you don't".
But there is a better way! Do your research. Look at some of the alternative political parties.
The future is a moneyless society where everyone shares everything equally. We all do the jobs that we are best at, not the ones that you HAVE to do to "make a living". Everyone contributes to the public trust, and everyone shares in the public trust. No money needed!
There are so many people afraid right now, but I see that as a sign of hope. Finally everyone is seeing the absolute black soul of capitalism and are searching for something better. Soon we will be tearing down the walls of corporations, and the whole idea of "ownership" in general. Just like music and software shouldn't be owned, neither should physical resources, either. Everything should be publically owned. And no ownership means no need for money.
All of this was predicted over a hundred years ago. Read about it and learn.
With all the dot-bombs blowing up, it's exposing the flaws in the current system. The real solution is simple: The internet should be financed by the government, with the webmasters of truly useful sites getting direct financing. All bandwidth should be free. How many people are not ever going to get a high-bandwidth connection?
There is a reason that telephone service used to be run by the government. It's because private companies are not going to run lines to 100% of the people, they are going to run them only to the rich people. Meanwhile, the poor go without this vital resource.
We need to get corporations (like Microsoft) out of the Internet, and return the power to the people.
--
we do have these people they are called "consumers". companies are directed by money, and consumers are where the companies get their money.
Well, that the theory. But what about the practice and reality? The reality is that Microsoft holds an incredible amount of power of the industry. What is one person's purchasing power against hundreds of billions of dollars of Microsoft power? If the "magical hand of capitalism" worked, we wouldn't see all the powerlessness of the software choices by the people.
Think about all that money that could be better used to fund open source projects in the PUBLIC interest, not Microsoft's.
--
This just proves that we need to have people on the boards of directors of every corporation in America to represent the interests of the people. This is just one company; what about all the others? It is definitely in the people's interest to break the Microsoft stranglehold on the industry. But that's never going to happen as long as we have greedy industrialists in charge of the country.
Every board of directors of every corporation should have an overseer representative of the people, with full veto power over any decision that is not in the best interests of the public. All these companies should (and eventually will) be nationalized, but this is a good first step.
Clearly corporatism only has its own greedy profits in mind when it makes decisions. We need to have people in control that represent OUR interests.
--
First off what's the difference in a huge multinational and a huge govt. entity owning everything?
The difference is that the people have ownership, rather than a select, powerful few.
in the great nationalized society that used to be the USSR, how much great art was created in comparison to the US?
You're joking, right? The USSR had a lot of problems, but art was not one of them. Their ballet, opera and orchestras were commonly known as among the best in the world.
--
It's clear that the huge multinational corporations that are buying up gaming companies right and left are out of control. There is a simple solution: Nationalize the arts, including gaming.
Once gaming companies are publically owned and operated, they will have the freedom to create whatever they want without the interference of having to "watch the bottom line" or "what will the Mother Company think of this?" It will be ultimate freedom.
As for massively multiplayer gaming, they should be publically owned also, but should have a board of oversight from the government -- with veto power over all decisions -- to watch privacy issues, etc.
--
This is just more proof that we must nationalize the music industry and return the arts to the people. It's obvious corporate greed of these people knows no bounds.
All art should be publically subsidized, and all ownership should be public domain by law. Everyone should be able to freely copy any work they desire. Only then can we kill the corporatism of the arts.
We must take back all the money stolen from consumers over the years (from BOTH the corporatists AND the musicians who have made sickeningly too much money), and redistribute it to the worthwhile artists who have not been willing to sell themselves to the music industry.
--
What would've been more witty is something like, "Since the Human Genome is closed-source, do we dare violate the will of God? Perhaps Microsoft is the True Way!"
--
The Human Genome Project shows that human life is open-source.
No, the Human Genome Project is the equivalent of reverse engineering binary code. In fact, we haven't even done that... we've only dumped out a binary. We haven't even hardly begun to actually reverse engineer it.
If we had the "source code", then we would have a notation describing the biological syntax similar to source code, which would be compiled into a genetic sequence. Obviously, we're a long way from having something like that.
If anything, life is extremely closed source.
--
It's just like saying you believe in free speech, but tell those goddamn KKK people to shut up!
Freedom of speech is NOT unlimited. Speech that is harmful to others is not protected (Yelling fire in a crowded theatre, yadda yadda).
Some of the most harmful speech we have right now are the lies that Microsoft has told consumers. How do you think they became a monopoly? The government has a responsibility to protect regular citizens from the lies of corporatism.
--
Placing government reps on corporate boards (every corporation? even 5-person outfits? who's paying for this?)
Yes, and what's the cost to the economy of Corporatism stealing from the people? That's trillions of dollars. In any case, the cost of oversight would minor. What are there, maybe 10,000 corporations in the country? Another 10K goverment employees is a drop in the bucket. Just eliminating corporate welfare would pay for it 10 times over.
Nationalization would be guaranteed to bring the French disease (labor inflexibility and lousy productivity, leading to economic contraction, unemployment and sky-high taxes, huge deficits or both) to the USA
I wouldn't use the French as my example. Their problems are with government corruption on the one hand, and too much selective corporatism on the other.
Look at Sweden. Government and the workers form a partnership. They could nationalize a lot more of their industry, but they are on the right road.
--
Excuse me, but I don't trust any mammoth corporation to "protect me" by putting up some fake figure head.
What we need is to either nationalize these mammoth corporations, or at the very least require one government representative to be put on every board of directors -- by law -- with veto power over any decision. Only by providing oversight with a people's representative can we be assured that the riens of their extreme power can be brought under control.
Again, I'd rather see them nationalized, but I think this would be a good first step.
--
If the email had been encrypted, the court could have required them to provide the key then, with legal penalties for refusing to comply.
You don't get it. Now Microsoft and other corporate bloodsuckers have learned not to leave an electronic trail, and be much more careful. The only way to bring down these people is to monitor their communications before they can destroy them. If Microsoft (and others of the industrial complex) have unbreakable encryption, then it will be much more difficult to bring them down.
--
There is one way to solve all of these problems that a lot of people don't think about, and that is to publically subsidize the arts and nationalize the recording industry.
Let's face it... corporatism has totally taken over the music industry, and the people are the victims. We must completely eliminate the greed and bring art back to where it belongs -- to the people.
With only public ownership of art allowed, we wouldn't need any of these encoding schemes, and the greedy record industry would stop stealing from the people.
--
I know this isn't going to be a popular opinion around here, but encryption should be regulated by the government. The smoking gun that caught Microsoft was the e-mails that they sent. Imagine if they had been all encrypted. Microsoft would be even more powerful right now.
I fear that corporatism will continue to grow more and more powerful if they are able hide their stealing with encryption that the government can't crack. It will make it even more possible to take advantage of the people.
--
No, the solution would be no one regulating it. Censorship by gov't or by buisness is just as bad either way.
"No one regulating" is just corporate censorship by default. We've already seen what happens in that case. There is a very real possibility of Microsoft taking over the Internet and controlling what we see and hear. The only solution is bring the people back into control.
--
Is it any wonder that after 70 years of government restriction and regulation, that the mass media eventually all became like minded and pro-establishment?
It is exactly the opposite! The reason radio and TV are like minded, etc, is because of the corporate ownership. Because of their profit obsessiveness, you see very little innovation unless it "shows a profit".
Why is it that PBS is so much better than regular television? It's because of the government involvement, so that producers only have to focus on quality rather than the "bottom line".
Quite frankly, we need to remove corporatism from the airwaves, and let the government publicly fund all programming. Only then is the corporate greed removed.
--
You don't seem to understand the real issue here is that corporate entities are controlled by managers, and managers are pretty much the same (ie: lazy, greedy, dim) in both the public and private sectors.
That's simply not true. Looking at the US, you might be tempted to believe that. But that's because the US has been poisoned by too many years of unrestrained capitalism. Look at more enlightend countries like Sweden, where the government works in partnership with the workers.
The United States can be like that too, but we have to rid ourselves of our profit-obsessed Corporations. Once we have cleansed ourselves of our greed, and the corporate people in power, the people will naturally elect workers of their own peers, because the corporate power-mongers will have been removed from their "thrones". Without their money stolen from the people, they will no longer have the power to control elections and the people.
--
There is a great deal of irony in my being moderated down (read: censored) for having an unpopular opinion in an article about censorship.
--