Orwell was wrong; the government doesn't impose Big Brother. Audiences demand it." Would you agree? Why or why not?
I'd agree that in democracies, this is a plausible statement, but in countries governed non-democratically, I'd strongly disagree. In Western democracies, the leadership is elected (one car argue on the margins as to how open the leadership is to all sectors of the population, but by and large I'd be willing to defend the statement). As such, leaders are accountable to the electorate, and are fairly responsive on issues their constituents feel very strongly about.
One such is personal security. People have very little tolerance for threats on their life or on those of their family. Thus, people are very demanding that the government "do something" whenever terrorists threaten that sense of personal security, causing governments to take extraordinary action, even at the expense of personal liberties, privacy, and other important issues.
Hence, "Big Brother" can well be a response to the electorate demanding that terror and violent crime be prevented, or at least punished immediately. In totalitarian regimes, the leadership cannot take any risks that the populace at large will organize and coordinate opposition to the regime. In these cases governments must use all their resources to root out, punish, and prevent any protest or opposition.
Favorite methods have included secret police, death squads, para-military militias, neighbors encouraged to tell on their neighbors (and frequently using the government to settle accounts over private matters by falsely accusing each other of sedition), wire-taps, mail interception, etc. All these are not a response to a demand from the audience but are rather done out of the fear of the rulers that the majority will throw them out and/or execute them if they ever allowed organized opposition to arise and survive.
There was a time, around the turn of the millennium, when Josh Harris was a giant. His stock for Jupiter Communications, his first Internet company, was worth $80 million at some point, and he started an Internet video company years before YouTube was introduced. Harris, no relation to this reporter, threw even more millions into building a fully wired bunker in Manhattan, where scores of people had their every move -- even in the shower and the bathroom -- recorded and broadcast.
In a newly released documentary, also called "We Live in Public," Harris is painted as having foreseen the age of Facebook and Twitter, where users voluntarily give the world the details of their lives. "People don't look up anymore. They walk around like this, clicking," says New York Times reporter Abby Ellin in the film.
"We are slaves to these little digital boxes. Harris was saying this is the way it's going to be. But Harris rapidly and radically unraveled.
His Manhattan bunker, which was filled with firearms and even an interrogation room, was raided by police. He and his girlfriend moved into an apartment where they broadcast their every move live to an interactive online audience, which led to a public and messy break up. Then the tech bubble burst and Harris lost nearly everything.
"It was a nervous breakdown," Harris told ABC News. Today Harris lives in a friend's pool house in Los Angeles. "I've got basically five bags," he says.
"I can be outta here in five minutes." He also plays poker a few days a week at a casino to make a living. After spending several years on an apple farm in upstate New York and then moving and starting a company in Ethiopia, Harris sees the new movie about his life as his ticket back to the big time.
He's now tooling around Hollywood in a borrowed Corvette, pitching a show that captures all the video streams that people are putting up on the Internet from their Webcams at home. The videos capture and broadcast brutally intimate moments of people's lives. "On a fundamental level, what's happening now in real time is the camera is being turned inside people's homes," Harris says.
Harris says he believes society is headed into a future where everyone lives in public. "Orwell was wrong; the government doesn't impose Big Brother," he says. And Harris says he's the guy to take us there.
"My prediction is if we sat here in a year I'll more than have my fortune back," Harris says. "That's my prediction. You'll have to come back in a year.
I'm either a hero or I'm screwed.
I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.
Related Questions
Religion /marriage /law. Where does the bible demand that people have a legal marriage? Why do churches demand the government sanction it?
Conservative Xtians: why should the government impose Xtian "values" on some issues but not others?
How Will Wrong Turn 3 Leave Audiences Screaming And Wanting More?
Why did anti-big government Tea Party members align themselves with the pro-big government Republican Party?
What do I do if I like my brother's friend who is a year younger than me but him and my brother don't hang out much and he doesn't really know me well and he's kinda one of those 'cool' kids and Im not?
What do I do if I like one of my brother's friends but him and my brother don't hang out outside of school and he doesn't really know me very much and he's kinda one of those 'cool' kids and I am not?