Is it a dictatorship, when transparency to the public is challenged and laws are enacted to benefit the elite while the majority of the public are used to that end?
Too often freedom for one person comes at the liability of another. Socialism could be a label to suggest balancing away from exploitation of this type, if it must be labeled. Another phrase could be respect for natural, human, and civil rights. Either way, everyone should have a voice in defining freedom, not only the hierarchy.
The US public has been hearing endless descriptions of life in our nation, and the exceptional supremacy over lives of other people around the globe. In FACT, the rest of the globe is often so informed of US exceptionalism. MSM that represents the D&R duopoly are the mouthpiece for this information. But more and more we begin to hear alternative views that seem legitimate when we consider there must be more than one view. Consider a few other perspectives…
Inculcation of the public into Capitalist Party/Communist Party hierarchical systems has limited democracy and local-community autonomy, and the inevitable failure of this top-down governance is being exposed. Hierarchy continues to mouth incorrect information in last-ditch efforts to retain power.
Direction and control by hierarchy are supported by homogenizing culture into a malleable and sterile unit.
Questions can be as important as answers to establish reality about topics that most of us haven’t absorbed.
The US media is commercial with an overriding mission of selling product, not journalism.
Rape of the Earth’s resources to convince consumers they need things they never knew about or that they needed, seems inane—
Dictatorship is easier when perception is taken as reality.
It’s like oligarchs bear no responsibility in a society called open, where the 1% can “pocket $1.1 billion” and then express disdain for the “closed society” of other nations.
If one may use artistic license, it seems to be an especially Trumpian-style of hubris in the phrase “it takes a good man with a gun to stop a bad man with a gun”. First we need to recognize the “good man”. Would that be one who attracts admiration by denigrating women and talking about grabbing them? Next one must accept the premise that “good men with guns” aren’t as frightened of “bad men with guns” as may be, for example, 10-year-old girls.
Definitions are vital, or we don’t know what we’re talking about. Discussion about health may be laughable as for example, disease perpetuation for profit is labeled health care. Who needs censorship when double talk will do?
Similar to the history of Jesus, the Establishment interpretation of the ideas of The Founders are quite different from what can be understood by reading their words. Not only The Founders had a diverse and sophisticated view of government, but also what in 2022 could be called “influencers” also could be eye-opening. For example, having heard but never read the ideas of Thomas Paine, who is said to have influenced views for liberty, to read his ideas is fascinating and heartening.