Free Expression Curbed to Benefit Elites

In theory American democracy is a level field in regard to political opinion and free expression of it. In fact, free expression is on the decline in social media through a variety of means and that primarily is for the benefit of elite, wealthy insiders whom may view democracy as messy, sloppy and somewhat communist rather than serving a nice, neat hierarchical society with the richest plutocrats at the top of a social pyramid. If governments that are democratic only do things with mass public support or that benefit plutocrats and one-percenters, censoring the masses with good ideas will prevent the popularity of good ideas rising to be used by government and the established economic practices owned by plutocrats will be unchallenged.

 Corporate inhibitions on free expression in social media are broadly applied. If a writer has used politically incorrect words at any point in his writing of articles all of his work may be eliminated or obscured with search engine burials. Elite insider collusion on select political goals allows sycophantic yes-person expression in social media obviously. Opinions that benefit ‘uppers’ are almost never repressed. Democratic free expression is a traditional enemy of ruling elites and a necessary tool for democracy. Minorities often look toward elites for support and trade repression of their own political points of view for allegiance to rich insiders. It is a reinforcing cycle with various social incidents in the news and political opinions antipathetic to the rich becoming curbed, diminished and eliminate or confined in solitary to the darkest, most remote data dungeons. Over time free expression of the demos, or people of democracy; the electorate, is reduced to a range that permits supports for policies rich insiders prefer and nothing else. Corporatism is not dissimilar from communism in that regard; though taking different courses to eliminating free speech each arrives at the summit of highest political empowerment concentrated for a few.

The strength of democracy is found in the liberation of free speech and the generation of new ideas rather than in their suppression. Democracy is strong when individualism is strong and private property and private interests are expected of a people rather than permitted. Over-concentration of wealth is inimical to democracy. Overly concentrated wealth almost inevitably coincides with the decease of democracy. The masses have more ideas than the few. Concentrated wealth suppresses those ideas as it has control of the marketplaces of ideas and business. Positive social change does occur even when a majority have wrong ideas on domestic and international politics if the infrastructure of free expression isn’t repressed.

The majority of people are fundamentally in support of equal protection of the law; it is elites that direct foreign wars or slavery and etc. Some moral issues can divide a society. When those issues arise, the elites will exploit them to serve as opportunity to decrease free expression. Almost any issue that prompts emotional reactions can be politically exploited to help curb free speech and concentrate wealth. The hate speech legislation of Congress is a case in point. Individuals should not be, and are not legally allowed to encourage or coordinate crimes in speech obviously, yet using politically incorrect language to political opponents should be protected free speech. It is a threat to democracy only when that language effectively shuts down social media of free expression. Suppression of free speech is a 360-degree universal threat a democracy should have vigilance of. If a writer that is on the repression roster advocates presently for new government leadership in developing homes during the housing shortage that are radical in comparison to established stick-frame home paradigmata, the new housing paradigm will be suppressed. Ecological economic logic suggests a new paradigm for U.S. human housing such as hollow artificial mountain ranges with interior condos for hundreds of thousands with mariculture, agriculture and rivers within and usable surface exteriors without for example, yet that would require government leadership as individual home builders haven’t the capacity or venture capital to get started.

There are some people happy with imperialism and the relation of being subject to what they regard as benevolent royalty. A similar acquiescence to concentrated political power exists in the modern political form called corporatism; a policy first applied by Adolph Hitler developed when his wealthy former aristocrat supporters saw a way to co-opt the German nationalist social workers party and bring it to serve rich corporate leaders. Corporatism is a partnership of corporations and government – invented by the journalist and dictator of Italy Benito Mussolini.

 Life as a kind of amoral fish in a tank without real concern trusting in benevolent plutocrat guides is for some, what democracy means today. The elites take care of pet fish in their aquarium and knowing what’s best for them. Sometimes the interests of elites are more important to elites than concerns of fish in the tank. The tank may be left uncleaned or water unchanged, overheat or freeze solid; who knows what the fate of pets will be. Fish have less than political self-determination prospects at that point. Perhaps they will be converted medically into being useful attackers in war against Oceana or sent to the Eastern front.





%d bloggers like this: