The Structure of a Society

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />pop quiz reminder

What is the most important difference between a free society and a dictatorship?

There is no deadline. Just think about it as we discuss, and if you have any ideas go ahead and share.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

My view of the most important difference is the freedom of expression found in a free society - that is why it is called a "free" society.

Well, I see I'm going to have to re-word my question to get at what I want. It's my fault, and this is another example of how difficult it can be to communicate accurately.

But this is still a good question, so I'll start calling this one pop quiz #1. When I figure out the best re-wording for what I meant to ask, I'll trot it out as pop quiz #2.

***

I do like freedom of expression, but personally I like freedom of action more. I suspect it is the more important of the two and I bet it is more likely to be curtailed (and to be curtailed to a larger extent) by a dictatorial government.
<center>(edit: Or more accurately, as a government becomes more dictatorial.)</center>

It is harder to get people to accept <u>limits</u> on thought and speech than to accept <u>limits</u> on actions. No one questions the 'rightness' of banning the act of murder. But we mostly accept that talking about it is fine.

And the re-wording was easier than I though it would be. (Why does that worry me?)

Pop quiz #2:

What is the most important difference between the government of a free society and the government of a dictatorship?

<b>[shando] "Sorry, my imagination isn't working too well today - what can this be?"</b>

Since this is sort of a hint about the quiz (now quizzes) I'm not ready to say. I've dropped other hints recently.

<b>LB: No one questions the 'rightness' of banning the act of murder.</b>

Hmmm ... true, but there is an unstated assumption that continued life is very important (sacred, in fact) and yet we realize that most of our problems are caused by the increasing volume of humans on this earth. Seems like a collision in the offing. And BTW, is there an upper limit on the number of souls available for the people on earth?

<b>[shando] "... most of our problems are caused by the increasing volume of humans on this earth ..."</b>

I'm not so sure.

<b><u>Run the following numbers</u></b>, and see if you also become suspicious of the 'overcrowded Earth' meme.

Assume:

<ul>Seven billion human beings</ul>And artificially assign them to one billion 'families' of seven people each (mom, dad, and five kiddos)

Now visualize a 'typical' American suburban environment
<ul>Four bedroom house (2300 sq ft)
One seventh acre lot (6000 sq ft)
Half of the street in front is included
Half of the alley in back is included
</ul>

Question: how much land is required for all seven billion human beings under these circumstances?

Compare that amount of land to something we can all relate to - such as the surface area of the continent of Africa.

Or the surface area of the state of Alaska. Or the country of Brazil.

***

NONE of our problems come from too many people. So ... where do they come from?