What the heck does that mean? I find this line of thinking oxymoronic. (I am not sure if oxymoronic is good use of the word or if it is even a legit word). But you get the idea (perhaps you do not).
I have heard the journalists assign this term to the President of the US. First of all if there is a free world it is incongruent to have leaders and followers - they would all be free without bondage or subservience.
Also it is mildly hypocritical to declare that we have a good idea of what a free world is since such a notion is entirely utopian. We think we know everything there is to know of global cultures and forms of government that rule across the world and believe that a free world is the only sustainable world out there and want to publish that idea on non believers.
Trying to impress that concept through speeches and propaganda is not good marketing. It should work somewhat along the lines of how Apple makes people into believers of its product. i.e. create a need where there is none and make people want it so bad they cannot think of an alternative. Let the believer spread the good word. The concept is called the 'Referral Business'.
Personally I think people get the governments they deserve and a majority vote drives the singular outcome. If the outcome is unfavorable where the majority indeed thinks differently then change does happen when the consensus builds beyond the tipping point. Think critical mass. Think Egypt revolution etc.
There are those that cannot accept a majority vote (and therefore likely are the minority) but have to live with it as part of a broader society. This philosophy also rules every decision we make in our daily lives - which job we do to earn a paycheck to the type of person we live with (we always have a choice).
It does help to have freedoms to pursue one's interest and the US definitely fosters and provides for a lot through various strata of society with some minor aberrations but that does not make our President the leader of the free world.
I have heard the journalists assign this term to the President of the US. First of all if there is a free world it is incongruent to have leaders and followers - they would all be free without bondage or subservience.
Also it is mildly hypocritical to declare that we have a good idea of what a free world is since such a notion is entirely utopian. We think we know everything there is to know of global cultures and forms of government that rule across the world and believe that a free world is the only sustainable world out there and want to publish that idea on non believers.
Trying to impress that concept through speeches and propaganda is not good marketing. It should work somewhat along the lines of how Apple makes people into believers of its product. i.e. create a need where there is none and make people want it so bad they cannot think of an alternative. Let the believer spread the good word. The concept is called the 'Referral Business'.
Personally I think people get the governments they deserve and a majority vote drives the singular outcome. If the outcome is unfavorable where the majority indeed thinks differently then change does happen when the consensus builds beyond the tipping point. Think critical mass. Think Egypt revolution etc.
There are those that cannot accept a majority vote (and therefore likely are the minority) but have to live with it as part of a broader society. This philosophy also rules every decision we make in our daily lives - which job we do to earn a paycheck to the type of person we live with (we always have a choice).
It does help to have freedoms to pursue one's interest and the US definitely fosters and provides for a lot through various strata of society with some minor aberrations but that does not make our President the leader of the free world.
The man living on the street (literally) is the freest of them all, in any society.
ReplyDelete