[LINK] the myth of government censorship

[Craig Sanders]

On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 02:00:16PM +1000, Deus Ex Machina wrote:
> Damien Miller [djm at mindrot.org] wrote:
> > You should start reading some Chomsky! He says that direct government
> > interference is usually unnecessary as businesses are more than willing to
> > self-censor so as not to "display the wrong image". IIRC this was the 2nd
> > or 3rd order effect that he spoke on in _Necessary Illusions_
> > 
> > Why should the government intervene with you? You are doing it anyway!
> 
> excellent question. and you know I have a dozen chomsky books on my shelves, 

books on shelves are of no benefit if you don't bother to read them.

> [ irrelevance deleted ]

> to really hit the nail on the head, chomsky was not a systems thinker.
> chomsky is so busy analysing the trees that he never looks at the forest.
> systems thinking teaches you that the structure of the system as a whole
> creates certain patterns of outcomes that are manifest by the individual
> parts relationship to the whole.

you've obviously either never read chomsky or failed to understand him if you
have.  systemic problems in global capitalism, electronic and print media, and
american power are central to his arguments.  it is the right-wing apologists
who try to dismiss "problems" (ranging from local issues such as corruption,
censorship & propaganda, and overly "enthusiastic" police, to global issues
such as terrorism, support of and arms sales to dictators, and worse) as merely
individual aberrations, while chomsky is pointing out that it is the structure
of the political and economic systems that are responsible.  these problems are
not aberrations, they are inherent to the systems.


> chomsky says this is "internalising values", he is wrong. what it means is
> while you are at uni, without responsiblity you can be free to adopt wild
> eyed ideologies. and that is the key, different positions in society carry
> different responsiblities.  chomsky adopts an idealistic position without
> responsiblity.
> 
> running a business has been a challenge and has caused my views to mature.
> you can not run a business without strict attention to customer service, you
> can not run a business without looking after your staff, and you can not run
> a business without providing a return to shareholders. and doing all threee
> successfully is a delicate and difficult balancing act.

ironically, here you are providing yourself as a perfect example of how the
system enforces conformity, acceptance and support of the status quo, and you
don't even realise it.

you don't need to hold a gun to someone's head to force them to conform, you
just have to make it very difficult to not conform - the subject's own guilty
conscience will provide their own rationalisation to justify themselves selling
out.

> [ more naively lame arguments and ad-hominem attacks deleted ]


craig