Does that mean innovation is limited ?
Do you believe in an authoritarian state they would be more technological progress or would the opposite be true ?
2006-11-11 12:18:51 · 7 answers · asked by IRunWithScissors 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It is limited when those in power only want to hear what they agree with
There is always more progress in a freer society
2006-11-11 12:20:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
All freedoms are limited to certain boundaries...True freedom has never allowed anyone to do absolutely as they please. True freedom has always been in view of the benefit of not just you but also those around you. If America was "free" in a way where anyone could do as they please, I could murder the next person that walks by and not worry about consequences. Such a concept of freedom is not only inconsiderate and self-centered but also an obvious oxymoron. It is no freedom at all for those whom I decide to use it on by taking advantage of them. Therefore I conclude that a concept of true freedom has to include a concience towards others. Every nation has its laws of boundaries to one degree or another, whether a dictatorship, tyranny or democracy. So as long as this is followed, I don't believe innovation would be limited. I think without the fear of another's "freedom" it would leave room for nothing but growth.
In a land where anyone could do as they wish, I don't think things such as technology would be as advanced. Many lives would probably be reduced to a life of drugs, violence, and/or crime. Probably all would suffer a great deal more than we do in america...which is not much. I think when looking back to times of heinous "freedoms" such as slavery in america or the holocaust we can see exactly where this "freedom" to do as one pleases is derived from...a lack of humane concience towards others. Not only this but as far as technology and innovation was concerened, it had all of its focus placed upon military intelligence and surplus artillary in hopes of the victory against the enemy. An abstract difference between the focus innovation should have...to expand knowledge and experience and that for the BENEfit of mankind. Not the annihilation of. Landing on the moon is a goal of lesser importance than that of survival.
2006-11-11 20:26:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is sort of the same, as learning rules on how to paint, or draw, or even write. This inhibits creativity, and innovation, but yet, still are taught until it is permanent, and a person no longer realizes such.
I think the opposite would be true.
2006-11-11 20:22:16 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
My sentiment exactly. Even it the U.S
Technological progress is restricted by politics,
Bush did not let scientists publish documents validating the Green House Affect, and Global Warming.
We have to have a place where Science is seperate from Politics entirely!
2006-11-11 20:24:14 · answer #4 · answered by sur2124 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
an authoritarian state can outlaw specific types of research (drugs and that) and so i think ultimately, innovation and science suffer
that's a crappy answer
2006-11-11 20:21:13 · answer #5 · answered by jerrytherobot 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Quotes:
"Many a great mind have been ruined by a formal education."
And finally, from a great inventor,
"I would not have pursued this project had I been formally educated in the subject matter."
2006-11-11 20:31:00 · answer #6 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
all I know is that if I say "***** BUSH!" to loud, the FBI will knock on my door!
2006-11-11 20:33:25 · answer #7 · answered by smart@$$ 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋