People Shouldn't be Afraid of their Governments, Governments Should be Afraid of their People
The movie V for Vendetta was set in near future 'dystopic' England that was being run by a fascist regime who was there to "control" just about everything for in the name of "safety" for the population.
After a biological terrorist attack, then Chancellor Sutler was granted emergency powers to being High Chancellor, a post for life with massive authority. The state controlled media reported whatever news they were told, even when they knew it was a lie. Criticizing the regime was harshly punished with dissidents frequently being swept away by the 'secret police' never to be seen again.
[NOTE: There are differences between the graphic novel and the movie.]
{Spoiler}
Later in the movie you find out that the biological attacks was not done by terrorists, but rather ordered by government officials. They wanted the people to be afraid, turning to the state for help, giving them the emergency powers they sought. As is typical with fascist regimes, tapping into religious beliefs of the population, as a tool to manipulate. In the film you frequently see this in this governments slogan of:
"Strength Through Unity, Unity Through Faith"
Even though most people didn't believe what they saw on the news, "press statements" other propaganda, they were still in a state of fearful submission. This is understandable when you constantly fear you or people you care about being whisked away if not directly hurt or killed.
Later in the movie, Natalie Portman's character (Evey Hammond) states "I wish I wasn't afraid all of the time, but I am." This fear built after seeing her parents taken away by the secret police for protesting the high chancellor and losing her brother to the virus used in the biological attack. Even if she knew what she wanted to do with her life, she couldn't pursue this, deferring instead to 'fall in line.'
She was captured during a secret police raid on the house she was in at the time, where her friend was taken (and likely killed.) She was interrogated and tortured regularly to get her to reveal the identity of the main character of V. ( You later find this was the character V instead of the police.) She constantly refuses to give any information, gaining strength from what she'd learned from V as well as a story of a woman who refused to submit.
{End Spoiler}
What things will you NOT allow to be taken from you?
While I'm sure there are those that will disagree, I view the role of government to be there to serve the individuals that make up the population, not the other way around. In all reality people, there is very little to stop people from doing what they want. There may be legal consequences in place to dissuade certain actions, but there is nothing there to actually stop you all the time. (Even though I'm sure some like the idea of a 'big brother' scenario where this wouldn't be the case.)
What are things that you do regardless of the rules? We all have our own answers to this, but I find this an important thing for all people to answer to themselves.
Here in America, it's more difficult for the powers that be to simply beat people over the head to force them to submit (though there are some cases this occurs.) Instead, there is choosing of what information is released and how it's framed to try and get you to derive the conclusions they want you to. This occurs from both sides of the isle, it is not a criticism on a political party, but rather the system as a whole.
Being in the age of information, let along the era of "post-truth" instead of focusing on trying to fully prevent information from getting out (even though they do try, but on a much smaller level.) Nowadays, there are so many 'news' options, yet most people fall into listening to the views that you want to hear. Conservatives following Fox, Breitbart, Drudge Report, etc...the left following NBC, NPR, Huffington Post, etc. While I understand why, there is an inherent problem of each side deciding what to bring up and how it frames it, essentially getting only half a view point.
It didn't used to be this way. There has been a huge rise in 'opinionated news' over the last 30 years, often confusing the lines between fact and opinion. Up until 1987 the Federal Communications Commision in the US required those issued a broadcast license to follow the Fairness Doctrine. In brief, this required:
(a) devote some of their programming to controversial issues of public importance and (b) allow the airing of opposing views on those issues. This meant that programs on politics were required to include opposing opinions on the topic under discussion.
Additionally, the rule mandated that broadcasters alert anyone subject to a personal attack in their programming and give them a chance to respond, and required any broadcasters who endorse political candidates to invite other candidates to respond.
-Source
While I understand the repeal of this doctrine, especially with it impeding free speech, it did mark the mass expansion of 'opinionated news' that at first was mostly by conservatives, but their liberal counterparts have become just as common over the years.
It's important to remember, especially with there being a 24 hour news cycle, that the bottom line for media companies, regardless of political affiliation, is PROFITS! They are driven to give people what they want, increase their ratings, and charge for advertising and/or subscriptions. The goal is not accuracy, it entertainment!
Personally, simply putting an Opinion Badge on the screen when applicable would make things more apparent, but that's not in their interests. They want you to hear what you want or react emotionally to things counter to this. It's why we live in an age of "alternative facts." Whether we like it or not, it's facilitating the divide and conquer tactic by one side demonizing and fearing the other. In reality, we're all in the same boat.
Machiavelli's "The Prince"
The Prince was writen by Machiavelli in feudal Italy during the beginning of the 1500's as a 'how-to' guide for a boy being groomed to someday take over Florence. The underlying question is raises is:
Is it better to be feared or loved?
This question is applied across many different scenarios including his own people of Florence, allies, enemies, conquered areas, etc. Overall this book focuses on what it takes to keep their governing power. If you get conquered by somebody else or are over thrown by your own people in a successful revolt, you lose.
Just to lighten this up a little bit, this is how Michael Scott from The Office answered this question:
State powers have a vested interest to prolong it's own existence. I'm not saying this is always inherently an evil thing, but rather most decisions are founded on sustaining the state.
In the end...
my ideal is to be in a world where people don't NEED to be told what to do, instead able to figure that out for themselves.
(Yes, this has it's own issues with differing individual points of view, but that's a separate issue.)
TLDR:
If you've not seen V for Vendetta, watch it.
Don't be intimidated or limit yourselves to expectations of others nor your government. You have more information about yourself than anybody, in reality leaving it up to you to find a personal philosophy and drive your life. Remember that most of America is now more than ever influenced by propaganda.
Go see things for yourself. Test things. Nothing truly replaces personal experience. Finding any semblance of truth requires WORK and EFFORT! We live in an age where facts and opinions are polarized and clouded.
Don't Miss the Show! Follow the Steemit Talk Podcast (STP) Account
New STP Website!!
Are you new to Steemit and Looking for Answers? - Try https://www.steemithelp.net.
Image Sources:
Guy Fawkes Mask
Chomsky Quote
The Prince
Question Everything Quote
The whole "who works for who" issue seems to have been twisted out of context by a rather toxic (almost "religious") adherence to the notice that we must respect our elders or those in power or those who ostensibly "know more." And so, people have questions... but are afraid of questioning, lest they be seen as rude or even unpatriotic.
Whoa... let's back up. WE hired THEM, by casting our votes. Doesn't matter whether they are socially in a "superior" position of influence, we still hired them. Which is why I have always been somewhat in favor of the mostly British system where one can call for "a vote of no confidence."
All in all, though... it seems like we also suffer from a declining ability to engage in personal analysis and critical thought. The school system is increasingly set up to teach "regurgitation" rather than thinking and reasoning. Our news and information systems are increasingly designed to deliver "the facts" in 30 seconds or less, when that is actually totally inadequate.
Solutions? Don't have any, right now...
I think the cult of personality and celebrity is also a problem. People seem to lose their minds when they see anyone famous and it seems to be being applied to politicians too.
Waaaay back when it seemed being in political office was viewed by many as a willing sacrifice, setting aside their lives, livelihoods, and to some degree families to 'serve.' While I'm sure it didn't quite perfectly fit this ideal, it was nothing like it is nowadays. Instead it seems most people going into politics (especially higher offices) look more towards their personal benefit.
I definitely can see benefits of being able to have a 'no confidence' vote, though I'm sure it would also be misused at times. To some degree, I'm surprised that there's been little move towards more direct voting now that we live in the electronic age. We really don't have as much of a need (due to slow communications) to have 'representative voting' on many issues.
I'll agree that there's a culture of not questioning elders/office holders, which does seem like a remnant of older times. It's somewhat ironic to have this coupled with the talking point of democracies running on an educated and well informed populace. Hard to have a good idea of what's going on when questioning is shunned. *sigh.
I remember hearing Chomsky talk about the issue of requiring concision, with things needs to be in nice little sound bites and fitting between commercial breaks. I really don't think most people truly care, so long as they're comfortable or getting what they want. It's unfortunately the case that outside of this it's easier to just agree with what sounds good or reinforces what they already think instead of actually putting in the effort to understand multiple aspects of any issue.
Solutions? On the large scale I can't think of any since most people don't necessarily want to change what they're doing or put in the 'work.' The best I've got are thoughts on trying to build smaller communities of people that do want to try better methods. There is always some prerequisite for 'ego-work' to be a part of things like this, so it won't be for everybody. But this would be a HUGE post to fully explain my ideas, which are still never a sure thing to work.
Even when economics work out, often communities fail because of the human relationships.
Great post. I think the points you make are spot on. I think V for Vendetta is very much in the tradition of 1984 and other dystopian literature. It is also close enough to the current situation to be worrying.
Thank you!
Oh yea, it fits it well with 1984, Fahrenheit 451 and others. I've read so many dystopias over the years.
This movie always comes to mind as I see fear-mongering from the higher-ups. Right now it seems to flip between comparisons to this on some days and idiocracy on others. Lol
Yes:)
Upvoted on title alone. Article not bad either... ;) We don' need no stinkin' guv'mnt.
😄😇😄
Hehe, I'm a huge fan of the quote and love the movie.
This started to be more a movie review but I've been enjoying just letting things go where they go lately. I enjoy flow of consciousness 'ranting' at times.
Without getting too much into the anarchy/libertarian type debate, I'm big fan of not needing the government. There are some things that benefit from a 'high level view' and planning, but there are often many ways the same function can be achieved.
Ideally, someday (unlikely though) the government will be irrelevant with people finding ways to work things out themselves.
Absolutely! Government is no longer relevant, other than as a destructive force to be avoided in every possible way. The internet, blockchain technologies, cooperative voluntary efforts can replace all the functions of existing oppressive force-based governments, IMHO...
I repeat this daily as a broken record.
But people are deaf. Fear controls their mind. Time to wake up.
Unfortunately it's easier to just muddle through life with closed eyes :(
Are you from the UK? In the USA, the liberals are the ones that started the opinionated news, based on nothing and it shows, especially in the economy. It is ruined
I'm in the US. In 87 most people already viewed the more 'standard' news as being liberal, with that year being the beginning of Rush Limbaugh syndication. I'm not arguing that one has more or is worse than the other, they both exist and have existed. However at the time, the conservative are the ones who took off in exposure. I didn't say it was a matter of who started it, just which took off with that doctrine being repealed.
This post has been ranked within the top 25 most undervalued posts in the second half of Mar 09. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $6.67 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Mar 09 - Part II. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.
I think that this should be the reality and not just something that people wish for. Government officials are called "public servants" for a reason. Meaning, they should serve the public. The same public whose taxes are feeding their families (and greed). Somewhere along history, it became lost in translation and the people in power turned the concept upside down.
It's a great question you posed there, about is it better to be feared or loved. As a fan of The Prince, my mind is wrestling with the different conflicting concepts that I want to believe in. Personally, I feel that both choices have their advantages and disadvantages. Being feared allows you to discipline the people, but it causes dissension among the ranks. However, being loved would lead many people to take advantage and you would need to rely on people's self-discipline to maintain order.
@lukestokes usually preaches about voluntaryism, and it's something that I've grown to embrace. A centralized form of government or authority may be the prevailing concept but the it's not sustainable and severely outdated. I agree that people need to find out the truth on their own instead of relying on other people to spoonfeed them with the information. That's truly the way to go if we hope to achieve a self-governing society.
It's easy to blame government and media, and there is no doubt that those in power want to stay that way and that media (The Circus) is more concerned with viewership than with acting as a weapon for the people in the battle to keep the state at bay, but I would have to argue that the blame lies mainly with the people, themselves.
It is far simpler to work and parent and play, all the while nodding along to whatever bias-confirming source that feeds you your "news" than it is to demand more and better from both elected officials and media outlets.
Most people won't make time for a PTA meeting... forget about them attempting to sift through all of the bias to find out what is really happening in their community, country, and world. And getting them off the couch? Forget it.
The vast majority of people will complain, waiting for someone else to do something, until they, personally, are bitten by a law or regulation.
I am right there with you in wanting a government that leaves me alone to pursue my happiness (and my own failures) but beginning to fix a problem means being brutally honest about its source.