NationStates Jolt Archive

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people, Do you agree with this tagline?

Yeah I want to see that movie too. :D

Yeah I want to see that movie too. :D

here's to hoping they get the break-up scene with justice right. cause justice is a two-timing tramp.

Yeah I want to see that movie too. :D

Unfortunately they put back the release date because of 7/7.

I think the fear should go both ways. It keeps either side from getting complacent.

I think the fear should go both ways. It keeps either side from getting complacent.
Well said! :)

It's a serious issue though. There is a perfectly good Natalie Portman movie sitting on a shelf, because some douchey studio executive at Warner, wants to be sensitive to the community.

For christ sakes, these are the people who watched "we can take it" during the blitz! Stupid studio executives. This is why the US is losing its lead. We have morons in charge of our companies.

By the nature of government the fear must go both ways, because government, a monopoly on the use of force, will respond to people with force when it fears them.

It is the ammount of fear that determines how bad a government is.

Well said! :)

I got a "Well said." from Cat-tribe as well. I have to be on a roll to get a complement from the both of you.

Anyways, how are you doing?

I think the government should fear the people. The government's job is to make life better for the people.

Oh yeah. I want to know what that movie is.

I think the government should fear the people. The government's job is to make life better for the people.

Oh yeah. I want to know what that movie is.

The government's job is to protect our natural rights. "Make life better" is too subjective to have any real meaning and gives too much license to the government.

I think the fear should go both ways. It keeps either side from getting complacent.
Despite our similar political views, I'm going to have to disagree with VO here. I don't think it should be necessary to traffic in fear and threats on either side of the coin. Governments should act by permission [not right] of the governed, without fear of reprisal or contempt. Likewise, the people should be free from the bonds of and threats and misery. Call me an optimist, but I like to think that a productive, mutually beneficient relationship between the two entities is possible.

Despite our similar political views, I'm going to have to disagree with VO here. I don't think it should be necessary to traffic in fear and threats on either side of the coin. Governments should act by permission [not right] of the governed, without fear of reprisal or contempt. Likewise, the people should be free from the bonds of and threats and misery. Call me an optimist, but I like to think that a productive, mutually beneficient relationship between the two entities is possible.

I agree with most of what you said, but I still think that a motivation is needed to keep a balance, and fear seems to be the most logical one.

I would like to see a benign relationship occur between government and the citizens, but a question:

Would the most likely government for that to exist under, and the most efficient government for that to exist under, be a monarchy?

New rule. Unless you have actually read the graphic novel V for Vendetta you don't get to quote the bad movie being made of it.

The people who do not fear their government will be disorderly and rebellious. The government which does not fear its people will be tyrannical. Both are imperative to the perpetuation of civilized society...well, actually you can be civilized under tyranny, but it's generally better to not be oppressed :D

I agree with most of what you said, but I still think that a motivation is needed to keep a balance, and fear seems to be the most logical one.

I would like to see a benign relationship occur between government and the citizens, but a question:

Would the most likely government for that to exist under, and the most efficient government for that to exist under, be a monarchy?
I really wish I could answer that. I do, at the moment, tend to favor Republics, but to be honest I think if any of us could answer this question, a great deal of civilization's troubles would cease.

The people who do not fear their government will be disorderly and rebellious. The government which does not fear its people will be tyrannical. Both are imperative to the perpetuation of civilized society...well, actually you can be civilized under tyranny, but it's generally better to not be oppressed :D

there will always be *some* people like that, but I think some, hopefully the vast majority, can exist in a situation where they do not fear their government, but instead respect it's rule.
They can do this knowing that the government acts in the best interest of the people, guided by their own policies and voters.

Optimistic? Sure. I don't think it ever will work out entirely like this, but there is still no need for fear.
I honestly think I've never feared the Australian government, and I don't think the government has ever had fear of the voters, other than the worry that they would loose support and be voted out.

Consequences: yes. Fear: no.

New rule. Unless you have actually read the graphic novel V for Vendetta you don't get to quote the bad movie being made of it.

so we're not aiming at getting to the land of do-as-you-please?

Dang, I thought the militia movement was passe and now there is a movie glorifying it. This is not a really friendly forum for the far right wing and if you want to talk about a proposition like this, go to one of those forums where it will get a better reception. This one will devolve into a flamewar with anyone supporting the idea being called a nazi and a racist and no one really arguing the point.



for those unable to detect it the previous post was sarcasm. there is however more than a hint of truth to it.

New rule. Unless you have actually read the graphic novel V for Vendetta you don't get to quote the bad movie being made of it.

Better yet, unless you used to read it in Warrior, then you don't even get to talk about it at all.

Anyway, they should have made Laser Eraser and Axel Pressbutton. Far superior in my juvenile mind.

Dang, I thought the militia movement was passe and now there is a movie glorifying it. This is not a really friendly forum for the far right wing and if you want to talk about a proposition like this, go to one of those forums where it will get a better reception. This one will devolve into a flamewar with anyone supporting the idea being called a nazi and a racist and no one really arguing the point.



for those unable to detect it the previous post was sarcasm. there is however more than a hint of truth to it.

I think it was more a warning of what would have happened had Micheal Foot had won the general election in 1983.

I think it was more a warning of what would have happened had Micheal Foot had won the general election in 1983.LOL, beautiful.

But wouldn't that case be fear for the government not fear of the government?

LOL, beautiful.

But wouldn't that case be fear for the government not fear of the government?

Well, admitedly, by the time the fictional events of V for Vendetta were occuring, Mr. Foot was long dead. He just kicked it off, so to speak.

Apparently, the author was concerened about increasing totalitarianism growing out of the centre-left of british politics. He envisaged a day when freedom of speech would be seriously curtailed, London would be blanketed with survailence devices and increasing police powers would allow the detention of citizens without trial.

It's pure fiction of course. Nothing like that could ever happen in England. Sort of.

It's pure fiction of course. Nothing like that could ever happen in England. Sort of.Certainly not under a Labour government, maybe if the evil Conservatives got in again.

Michael Foot's dead? I could have sworn I saw his name in some article recently with the implication that he was still alive.

Apparently, the author was concerened about increasing totalitarianism growing out of the centre-left of british politics.

according to what he wrote as an intro in my copy of the thing it was really the idea that labour would take steps to get rid of american missiles from britain, which allowed it to largely survive the nuclear war. but the desperate situation of that survival allowed the fascists to sort of waltz in to 'bring back order'.

Certainly not under a Labour government, maybe if the evil Conservatives got in again.

Michael Foot's dead? I could have sworn I saw his name in some article recently with the implication that he was still alive.

In the book he's dead. After his government causes a limited nuclear war by withdrawing from nato and disarming.

In real life he's probably still around, but let's face it, how would you know? There was little enough evidence of life to begin with.

according to what he wrote as an intro in my copy of the thing it was really the idea that labour would take steps to get rid of american missiles from britain, which allowed it to largely survive the nuclear war. but the desperate situation of that survival allowed the fascists to sort of waltz in to 'bring back order'.

From what I remember from the original in Warrior, britian's withdrawl from NATO and nuclear disarmament precipitates a small nuclear war, after which the militant tendency stages an internal coup. Same thing really.

"We've offered you promotion time and time again, and each time you've turned us down."

I'm hoping that, at the very least,they keep the essence of the story, the soul of it, if you will.

And I realise I'm just a silly little Usan and all, but I and a few friends have professed a belief that this movie should have been scheduled for release on the fifth of November. And, as much as it may pain me to say it, I would not be too upset if the primier date were pushed further back to coincide with the memorable night.