Alexis de Tocqueville, and "The Truman Show"

[whitehall]

Alexis de Tocqueville Institution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


the Koch brothers are in your brain

The Jews again?

 

[PoliticalChic]

All this pontification about 'liberty' and the people's 'sovereignty' from a poster who won't even acknowledge a person's right to privacy.

Ironic.

You never find yourself restricted by a necessity to stick to the truth, do you.

That's another of the characteristics that separate us, along with education and wisdom.


To set the record straight, what I have stated is that the United States Constitution makes no reference to any right of privacy.
That was an imaginary construct erroneously injected into a Supreme Court decision.
But, you knew that was the point, and, even so, wrote " a poster who won't even acknowledge a person's right to privacy."


On the contrary, not only do I acknowledge your right to privacy, would hope that you avail yourself of same, and stop appearing naked on LoseMyAppitite.com.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Alexis de Tocqueville Institution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


the Koch brothers are in your brain

The Jews again?

It seems that, since the malevolent billionaire George Soros has been revealed as the motivating force behind almost every Liberal endeavor, the Left has been scrambling to find a right-wing billionaire to try to pawn off as similar.

Of course, it isn't true....but it has been possible to manipulate the weak-minded to believe same.


Background information as follows:

1. The Shadow Party was born July 17, 2003, at Soros’s estate. It created the largest and most powerful juggernaut in American history. Present were Madeleine Albright, John Podesta, John Pope (director of the Sierra Club), Andy Stern (SEIU), among others. The basic structure of the Shadow Party was a network of seven 527 organizations.

a. “… the network of nonprofit activist groups organized by George Soros and others to mobilize resources -- money, get-outthe-vote drives, campaign advertising and policy iniatives -- to elect Democratic candidates and guide the Democratic Party towards the left. The Internet fund-raising operation MoveOn.org is a key component. The Shadow Party in this sense was conceived and organized principally by Soros, Hillary Clinton and Harold Ickes. Its efforts are amplified by, and coordinated with, key government unions and the activist groups associated with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). The key organizers of these groups are veterans of the Sixties left.”
http://www.churchmilitant.tv/cia/02fake/102.pdf


2. One part, called “America Votes” was referred to by one of its staffers as a “monster coalition” coordinating all of the left-wing grassroots groups including ACORN, Planned Parenthoood Action Fund, Sierra Club and the American Federation of Teachers and the SEIU. Soros contributed $23,700,000 in 2004.



BTW....the Koch brothers are not Jewish.

 

[Seawytch]

So, if The Truman Show is supposed to be liberalism taken to the extreme, is it safe to say WallE is conservatism taken to the extreme?

 

[Agit8r]

if you read the preceding paragraph, it helps clarify that this absolute power already exists:

"I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men, all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest; his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind. As for the rest of his fellow citizens, he is close to them, but he does not see them; he touches them, but he does not feel them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country."

So, subscribe to your ADT service, and buy your oversize SUV, and tease your fleshly desires with junk food, and tune into the Two-Minutes-Hate with Sean Hannity, and plug an iPod into your cranium, and tell yourself that because it is the private sector, there is nothing to worry about there.

Your quote seems to accept the false concept that man exists for the sake of others, and not for himself. That describes a slave, not a free man.

Free people exist in communities because those communities are beneficial to the dreams and ideals of those people. They do not exist for the community, the community exists for them.

Tis not my quote, but De Tocqueville's

 

[nodoginnafight]

Beware of false patriots

Very true - some of the most horrible acts are committed with flags waving and the national anthem playing in the background.

I love my country. I know we aren't perfect and never have been. But I feel very blessed to live in this time and in this place.

But we are in a period of flux. Old, rich, white men have called the shots up until now. Now we are embracing the idea that the American Dream belongs to everyone. We are closer today to fulfilling that promise of "all men are created equal" than we have ever been.

But those who still place all their faith in the old, rich, white guys aren't going down without a fight. A nasty fight.

 

[NYcarbineer]

All this pontification about 'liberty' and the people's 'sovereignty' from a poster who won't even acknowledge a person's right to privacy.

Ironic.

You never find yourself restricted by a necessity to stick to the truth, do you.

That's another of the characteristics that separate us, along with education and wisdom.


To set the record straight, what I have stated is that the United States Constitution makes no reference to any right of privacy.
That was an imaginary construct erroneously injected into a Supreme Court decision.
But, you knew that was the point, and, even so, wrote " a poster who won't even acknowledge a person's right to privacy."


On the contrary, not only do I acknowledge your right to privacy, would hope that you avail yourself of same, and stop appearing naked on LoseMyAppitite.com.

The 4th Amendment is about as clear and direct a statement of the right of privacy without actually saying the p-word outright as one could make.

 

[PoliticalChic]

All this pontification about 'liberty' and the people's 'sovereignty' from a poster who won't even acknowledge a person's right to privacy.

Ironic.

You never find yourself restricted by a necessity to stick to the truth, do you.

That's another of the characteristics that separate us, along with education and wisdom.


To set the record straight, what I have stated is that the United States Constitution makes no reference to any right of privacy.
That was an imaginary construct erroneously injected into a Supreme Court decision.
But, you knew that was the point, and, even so, wrote " a poster who won't even acknowledge a person's right to privacy."


On the contrary, not only do I acknowledge your right to privacy, would hope that you avail yourself of same, and stop appearing naked on LoseMyAppitite.com.

The 4th Amendment is about as clear and direct a statement of the right of privacy without actually saying the p-word outright as one could make.

1. Good to see you back-tracking, and admitting that there is no reference to any "right of privacy" in the United States Constitution.

Your defeats always give me that warm, fuzzy feeling.


a. If you are still searching for that ethereal "right," hear are some suggestions as to how to conduct your search:

"As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’

For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’"
“Originalism,” Steven Calabresi


2. If Liberals find it to be essential, Article 5 will explain to you exactly how to add it to the document.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Beware of false patriots

Very true - some of the most horrible acts are committed with flags waving and the national anthem playing in the background.

I love my country. I know we aren't perfect and never have been. But I feel very blessed to live in this time and in this place.

But we are in a period of flux. Old, rich, white men have called the shots up until now. Now we are embracing the idea that the American Dream belongs to everyone. We are closer today to fulfilling that promise of "all men are created equal" than we have ever been.

But those who still place all their faith in the old, rich, white guys aren't going down without a fight. A nasty fight.

"Old, rich, white men have called the shots up until now."
The words of a fool.

"Now we are embracing the idea that the American Dream belongs to everyone."
Now?

Pick up a history book before your next post.




I believe that you have inspired me to write an OP exposing the source of your ignorance.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You never find yourself restricted by a necessity to stick to the truth, do you.

That's another of the characteristics that separate us, along with education and wisdom.


To set the record straight, what I have stated is that the United States Constitution makes no reference to any right of privacy.
That was an imaginary construct erroneously injected into a Supreme Court decision.
But, you knew that was the point, and, even so, wrote " a poster who won't even acknowledge a person's right to privacy."


On the contrary, not only do I acknowledge your right to privacy, would hope that you avail yourself of same, and stop appearing naked on LoseMyAppitite.com.

The 4th Amendment is about as clear and direct a statement of the right of privacy without actually saying the p-word outright as one could make.

1. Good to see you back-tracking, and admitting that there is no reference to any "right of privacy" in the United States Constitution.

Your defeats always give me that warm, fuzzy feeling.


a. If you are still searching for that ethereal "right," hear are some suggestions as to how to conduct your search:

"As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’

For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’"
“Originalism,” Steven Calabresi


2. If Liberals find it to be essential, Article 5 will explain to you exactly how to add it to the document.

No. I said the 4th amendment is clearly a statement of a right of privacy. It doesn't have to use the word 'privacy' to assert a right of privacy any more than the 2nd amendment has to use the words 'handgun' or 'rifle' or 'semi-automatic' to assert the right to bear those arms.

 

[editec]

if you read the preceding paragraph, it helps clarify that this absolute power already exists:

"I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men, all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest; his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind. As for the rest of his fellow citizens, he is close to them, but he does not see them; he touches them, but he does not feel them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country."

So, subscribe to your ADT service, and buy your oversize SUV, and tease your fleshly desires with junk food, and tune into the Two-Minutes-Hate with Sean Hannity, and plug an iPod into your cranium, and tell yourself that because it is the private sector, there is nothing to worry about there.

Your quote seems to accept the false concept that man exists for the sake of others, and not for himself. That describes a slave, not a free man.

Free people exist in communities because those communities are beneficial to the dreams and ideals of those people.

True dat

They do not exist for the community, the community exists for them.

You got that slightly wrong but the slight wrongness ends up with enormously important implications for how we and community interact

We do not exist FOR the community, but we exist BECAUSE of the community.

No man is an island, champ.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The 4th Amendment is about as clear and direct a statement of the right of privacy without actually saying the p-word outright as one could make.

1. Good to see you back-tracking, and admitting that there is no reference to any "right of privacy" in the United States Constitution.

Your defeats always give me that warm, fuzzy feeling.


a. If you are still searching for that ethereal "right," hear are some suggestions as to how to conduct your search:

"As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’

For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’"
“Originalism,” Steven Calabresi


2. If Liberals find it to be essential, Article 5 will explain to you exactly how to add it to the document.

No. I said the 4th amendment is clearly a statement of a right of privacy. It doesn't have to use the word 'privacy' to assert a right of privacy any more than the 2nd amendment has to use the words 'handgun' or 'rifle' or 'semi-automatic' to assert the right to bear those arms.

The amendment says 'bear arms.' That covers any you can carry.
Don't you want to respond to " If Liberals find it to be essential, Article 5 will explain to you exactly how to add it to the document."

Why not?
Because it skewers your attempts to re-write the Constitution by judicial fiat.



Try to wriggle all you like.....

...you've been dissed, and dismissed.


Another victory...another warm, fuzzy feeling.
Now, write soon- y'hear?

 

[there4eyeM]

"Why not?
Because it skewers your attempts to re-write the Constitution by judicial fiat."

Does this mean judges are helping Chrysler by buying their partner's cars?
Does that make it a vehicle of justice?
Is Chevy jealous?
Am I crazy enough?

 

[FA_Q2]

if you read the preceding paragraph, it helps clarify that this absolute power already exists:

"I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men, all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest; his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind. As for the rest of his fellow citizens, he is close to them, but he does not see them; he touches them, but he does not feel them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country."

So, subscribe to your ADT service, and buy your oversize SUV, and tease your fleshly desires with junk food, and tune into the Two-Minutes-Hate with Sean Hannity, and plug an iPod into your cranium, and tell yourself that because it is the private sector, there is nothing to worry about there.

Your quote seems to accept the false concept that man exists for the sake of others, and not for himself. That describes a slave, not a free man.



True dat

They do not exist for the community, the community exists for them.

You got that slightly wrong but the slight wrongness ends up with enormously important implications for how we and community interact

We do not exist FOR the community, but we exist BECAUSE of the community.

No man is an island, champ.

That is enormously incorrect. How do you assume that we exist BECAUSE of any community? That makes assumptions that we owe our existence to one community or the other – a false premise.

He was perfectly correct – the community exists for us and when that community ceases to accomplish this we establish another OR we leave it for another. If we existed, as you presume, because of the community then we would not have the inherent right to walk away from it.

Further, if you so choose, you could very well be an island apart from any community. That would be your choice but unlikely as no one likes that kind of solitary existence. Instead, WE create communities that we want to be a part of.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Why not?
Because it skewers your attempts to re-write the Constitution by judicial fiat."

Does this mean judges are helping Chrysler by buying their partner's cars?
Does that make it a vehicle of justice?
Is Chevy jealous?
Am I crazy enough?

What are you babbling about???

The question at issue is whether or not the language of the Constitution has meaning.

It does.


The corruption by Liberals has imposed the whims and caprice of judges over said language.



" The brief writer’s version
seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal
judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s
problems.

Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority
of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied
to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a
judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a
quite different light.

Judges then are no longer the keepers of
the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately
situated people with a roving commission to second-guess
Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative
officers concerning what is best for the country."
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf



There is only one way to change the Constitution, or to insert new language. It is the amendment process.


Get it?

 

[there4eyeM]

Oh, fiat, not Fiat!

 

[nodoginnafight]

1. Very recently, I had the opportunity to see the not-so-recent film "The Truman Show." The concept is brilliant....



"The film chronicles the life of a man who is initially unaware that he is living in a constructed reality television show, broadcast around the clock to billions of people across the globe. Truman becomes suspicious of his perceived reality and embarks on a quest to discover the truth about his life....

2. ... Truman Burbank (Jim Carrey) lived his entire life, since before birth, in front of cameras for The Truman Show, although he is unaware of this fact. Truman's life is filmed through thousands of hidden cameras, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and broadcast live around the world, allowing executive producer Christof (Ed Harris) to capture Truman's real emotion and human behavior when put in certain situations....

3. ... Truman [accidently] reaches the edge of the dome, its bow piercing through the dome's painted sky. An awe-struck Truman then discovers a flight of stairs nearby, leading to a door marked "EXIT".

4. As he contemplates leaving his world, Christof speaks directly to Truman via a powerful sound system, trying to persuade him to stay and arguing that there is no more truth in the real world than there is in his own, artificial world. Truman, after a moment's thought, delivers his catchphrase — "In case I don't see you... good afternoon, good evening, and good night" —, bows to his audience and steps through the door and into the real world." The Truman Show - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





5. An imaginary world in which the individual's every need is taken care of so that he is kept docile, and ignorant of the ills and gambles that real life provides. And an 'executive producer' who takes care of the individual so as to increase his own power, and weath.

6. But everything is designed so that the individual is never allowed to understand how and why he is being taken care of, ...and being used.

7. Finally, the dénouement, when the individual realizes the fiction, the mirage of his cradle-to-grave fake existence...and he is given a chance to continue to be taken care or, or to walk through the door into reality, and be exposed to the buffeting of the winds of life.....he takes his destiny into his own hands.





8. The film is a brilliant portrayal of the predictions of Alexis de Tocqueville, who wrote in "Democracy in America" of the danger of Liberalism, of the warm embrace of big government, wanting only to provide for the citizen...but for its own power.

9. Writing in the 1830’s, he described “an immense, tutelary power, which takes sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate.” As he predicted, this power is “absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident, and gentle,” and it “works willingly for their happiness, but it wishes to be the only agent and the sole arbiter of that happiness. It provides for their security, foresees and supplies their needs, guides them in their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their testaments, divides their inheritances.” He asked whether it can “relieve them entirely of the trouble of thinking and of the effort associated with living.”

a. Tocqueville foresaw that the human “soul” would enter into a “long repose.” In the process, “individual energy” would be “almost extinguished”; and, when action was required, men would “rely on others,” in a new and unprecedented “species of servitude.”


10. So, the conflict remains in our time, between what we glibly call liberalism, and conservatism, the felt “need for guidance, and the longing to remain free.” What this would involve, Tocqueville explains, is a “species of compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people,” and the compromises that result, not in liberty, but in a soft, gentle despotism welcomed by those subject to it.



To exalt in one's accomplishments and success, one must be willing to face the travails of life.

IMHO: Very well thought out and articulated well. I disagree, but some good thought went into this nontheless. Does the bolded headline mean you copied it from somewhere? If it is your work, I'm impressed. I know that since we disagree so much that you probably don't care one bit if I'm impressed, but credit where credit is due anyway.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Beware of false patriots

Very true - some of the most horrible acts are committed with flags waving and the national anthem playing in the background.

I love my country. I know we aren't perfect and never have been. But I feel very blessed to live in this time and in this place.

But we are in a period of flux. Old, rich, white men have called the shots up until now. Now we are embracing the idea that the American Dream belongs to everyone. We are closer today to fulfilling that promise of "all men are created equal" than we have ever been.

But those who still place all their faith in the old, rich, white guys aren't going down without a fight. A nasty fight.

"Old, rich, white men have called the shots up until now."
The words of a fool.

"Now we are embracing the idea that the American Dream belongs to everyone."
Now?

Pick up a history book before your next post.




I believe that you have inspired me to write an OP exposing the source of your ignorance.

Ah, my history is sound. Just saying "no" and adding personal insult to it certainly doesn't prove otherwise. A disappointing reply from you considering the thought that went into the OP.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Very recently, I had the opportunity to see the not-so-recent film "The Truman Show." The concept is brilliant....



"The film chronicles the life of a man who is initially unaware that he is living in a constructed reality television show, broadcast around the clock to billions of people across the globe. Truman becomes suspicious of his perceived reality and embarks on a quest to discover the truth about his life....

2. ... Truman Burbank (Jim Carrey) lived his entire life, since before birth, in front of cameras for The Truman Show, although he is unaware of this fact. Truman's life is filmed through thousands of hidden cameras, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and broadcast live around the world, allowing executive producer Christof (Ed Harris) to capture Truman's real emotion and human behavior when put in certain situations....

3. ... Truman [accidently] reaches the edge of the dome, its bow piercing through the dome's painted sky. An awe-struck Truman then discovers a flight of stairs nearby, leading to a door marked "EXIT".

4. As he contemplates leaving his world, Christof speaks directly to Truman via a powerful sound system, trying to persuade him to stay and arguing that there is no more truth in the real world than there is in his own, artificial world. Truman, after a moment's thought, delivers his catchphrase — "In case I don't see you... good afternoon, good evening, and good night" —, bows to his audience and steps through the door and into the real world." The Truman Show - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





5. An imaginary world in which the individual's every need is taken care of so that he is kept docile, and ignorant of the ills and gambles that real life provides. And an 'executive producer' who takes care of the individual so as to increase his own power, and weath.

6. But everything is designed so that the individual is never allowed to understand how and why he is being taken care of, ...and being used.

7. Finally, the dénouement, when the individual realizes the fiction, the mirage of his cradle-to-grave fake existence...and he is given a chance to continue to be taken care or, or to walk through the door into reality, and be exposed to the buffeting of the winds of life.....he takes his destiny into his own hands.





8. The film is a brilliant portrayal of the predictions of Alexis de Tocqueville, who wrote in "Democracy in America" of the danger of Liberalism, of the warm embrace of big government, wanting only to provide for the citizen...but for its own power.

9. Writing in the 1830’s, he described “an immense, tutelary power, which takes sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate.” As he predicted, this power is “absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident, and gentle,” and it “works willingly for their happiness, but it wishes to be the only agent and the sole arbiter of that happiness. It provides for their security, foresees and supplies their needs, guides them in their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their testaments, divides their inheritances.” He asked whether it can “relieve them entirely of the trouble of thinking and of the effort associated with living.”

a. Tocqueville foresaw that the human “soul” would enter into a “long repose.” In the process, “individual energy” would be “almost extinguished”; and, when action was required, men would “rely on others,” in a new and unprecedented “species of servitude.”


10. So, the conflict remains in our time, between what we glibly call liberalism, and conservatism, the felt “need for guidance, and the longing to remain free.” What this would involve, Tocqueville explains, is a “species of compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people,” and the compromises that result, not in liberty, but in a soft, gentle despotism welcomed by those subject to it.



To exalt in one's accomplishments and success, one must be willing to face the travails of life.

IMHO: Very well thought out and articulated well. I disagree, but some good thought went into this nontheless. Does the bolded headline mean you copied it from somewhere? If it is your work, I'm impressed. I know that since we disagree so much that you probably don't care one bit if I'm impressed, but credit where credit is due anyway.

The plot summary is linked to Wikipedia.

And Tocqueville is quoted, as stated.

I use quotation marks judiciously.

The bolding is mine for emphasis.

 

[nodoginnafight]

1. Very recently, I had the opportunity to see the not-so-recent film "The Truman Show." The concept is brilliant....



"The film chronicles the life of a man who is initially unaware that he is living in a constructed reality television show, broadcast around the clock to billions of people across the globe. Truman becomes suspicious of his perceived reality and embarks on a quest to discover the truth about his life....

2. ... Truman Burbank (Jim Carrey) lived his entire life, since before birth, in front of cameras for The Truman Show, although he is unaware of this fact. Truman's life is filmed through thousands of hidden cameras, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and broadcast live around the world, allowing executive producer Christof (Ed Harris) to capture Truman's real emotion and human behavior when put in certain situations....

3. ... Truman [accidently] reaches the edge of the dome, its bow piercing through the dome's painted sky. An awe-struck Truman then discovers a flight of stairs nearby, leading to a door marked "EXIT".

4. As he contemplates leaving his world, Christof speaks directly to Truman via a powerful sound system, trying to persuade him to stay and arguing that there is no more truth in the real world than there is in his own, artificial world. Truman, after a moment's thought, delivers his catchphrase — "In case I don't see you... good afternoon, good evening, and good night" —, bows to his audience and steps through the door and into the real world." The Truman Show - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





5. An imaginary world in which the individual's every need is taken care of so that he is kept docile, and ignorant of the ills and gambles that real life provides. And an 'executive producer' who takes care of the individual so as to increase his own power, and weath.

6. But everything is designed so that the individual is never allowed to understand how and why he is being taken care of, ...and being used.

7. Finally, the dénouement, when the individual realizes the fiction, the mirage of his cradle-to-grave fake existence...and he is given a chance to continue to be taken care or, or to walk through the door into reality, and be exposed to the buffeting of the winds of life.....he takes his destiny into his own hands.





8. The film is a brilliant portrayal of the predictions of Alexis de Tocqueville, who wrote in "Democracy in America" of the danger of Liberalism, of the warm embrace of big government, wanting only to provide for the citizen...but for its own power.

9. Writing in the 1830’s, he described “an immense, tutelary power, which takes sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate.” As he predicted, this power is “absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident, and gentle,” and it “works willingly for their happiness, but it wishes to be the only agent and the sole arbiter of that happiness. It provides for their security, foresees and supplies their needs, guides them in their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their testaments, divides their inheritances.” He asked whether it can “relieve them entirely of the trouble of thinking and of the effort associated with living.”

a. Tocqueville foresaw that the human “soul” would enter into a “long repose.” In the process, “individual energy” would be “almost extinguished”; and, when action was required, men would “rely on others,” in a new and unprecedented “species of servitude.”


10. So, the conflict remains in our time, between what we glibly call liberalism, and conservatism, the felt “need for guidance, and the longing to remain free.” What this would involve, Tocqueville explains, is a “species of compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people,” and the compromises that result, not in liberty, but in a soft, gentle despotism welcomed by those subject to it.



To exalt in one's accomplishments and success, one must be willing to face the travails of life.

IMHO: Very well thought out and articulated well. I disagree, but some good thought went into this nontheless. Does the bolded headline mean you copied it from somewhere? If it is your work, I'm impressed. I know that since we disagree so much that you probably don't care one bit if I'm impressed, but credit where credit is due anyway.

The plot summary is linked to Wikipedia.

And Tocqueville is quoted, as stated.

I use quotation marks judicious.

The bolding is mine for emphasis.

IMHO - very well done. I wish all the people I disagreed with on these boards were as thoughtful and eloquent. Sure would make things more fun.