I'm not advocating that we overthrow our government, just curious to know from a philosophical standpoint...
2007-01-26 07:35:47 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Thomas Jefferson said he would prefer a free press and no government if he had to choose.
If it's good enough for Jefferson it's good enough for me.
2007-01-26 07:49:43 · answer #1 · answered by jcboyle 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bad choices. I don't know if you are imagining some kind of utopian anarchy which changes things perhaps, but I do not believe a free press would long survive in a true anarchy. Nor do I believe I would long survive in true anarchy. So I would be forced to select the lesser of two evils, a government controlled press. Perhaps I could just avoid listenting to the press in such a circumstance.
2007-01-26 07:53:49 · answer #2 · answered by Jeremy B 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We've never really tried to implement Anarchy on a large scale, so its difficult to say given our limited knowledge of the options. A lot would depend on getting large groups of people to cooperate with eachother outside of the coercive role governments have tradtionally assumed. Assuming that were possible I would be all in favor of a "Free Press" over any government.
The likelihood of this happening seems remote at present. But even in our present circumstances I usually tilt toward the Press. Its just my nature.
2007-01-26 07:48:07 · answer #3 · answered by Telemachus R 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A government controlled press is worse than no gevernment at all. Imagine if it were government controlled right now...Bush's polls would be 90%, and we'd have won the war in Iraq decisively 2 years ago. Also, global warming would have been dismissed along with evolution back in 1990, and Bill Clinton would have been convicted of raping a 16-year-old Monica Lewinsky.
2007-01-26 07:43:31 · answer #4 · answered by Year of the Monkey 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We'd be much better off with NO gov't and WITH a press than with a gov't but no press.
With a gov't unchecked by a free press, you would see corruption that would make the Republicans' exploits look like a tea party.
With no gov't, yes we'd have anarchy, but at least a free press would be able to exert a level of accountability (for whatever that would be worth).
2007-01-26 08:04:36 · answer #5 · answered by Gamer 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Regardless of the sometimes seemingly biased reports, I love it just the way it is. I trust free press more than a government controlled one. It is our job to search what we hear and see and not to sit back and wait on someone to spoon feed us something and take it as truth because we had rather not put any effort in seeking ourselves.
2007-01-26 07:44:20 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No central government and a free press. I want the central government thrown out and the states to form their own governments. Don't like one, move to another.
2007-01-26 09:23:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We, in my opinion already have a government conrtolled press, and its not accurately informative, so i guess no government and a free press, which may also be misleading, so either way to find out the truth the person whould have to be educated enough to deal with either. Nice question
2007-01-26 07:42:40 · answer #8 · answered by lablanca15 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Government controlled press. With no government there would be total anarchy.
2007-01-26 07:41:59 · answer #9 · answered by Pfo 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
A free press and no government--its a lot safer.
2007-01-26 08:02:49 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋