From: ben (ben@machinegod.org)
Date: Tue Apr 16 2002 - 19:55:32 MDT
[ben 2]
I'm going to respond to your last point first, simply because I think the
remainder of my statements will be better understood if this is cleared up
first.
[Arcadia 1]
That's something most Americans and most Congresscreatures have in common.
If those people are 'above average,' as you suggest, then that would explain
a lot.
[ben 2]
I'm not implying by any stretch of the imagination that current govt
officials are of the sort that I personally would like to see in positions
of power. I believe that regardless of whether or not government is
required, it is inevitable. If every government body threw their hands in
the air right now and said "That's it - we give up!" it would be 24 hours
before we had some other group of people running things - maybe the
militias, more likely in my view is that the big companies would hire
mercenaries and take over regional areas. My point being, anarchy is an
impossibility. Since there is going to be government, I'd prefer it was good
government, run by people that are yes, 'above the average' is espousing
what I feel to be positive constructuve values and abilities.
[ben 1]
There are other judiciary systems in the world than
the 'catch and release' methodology in vogue in western societies...
[Arcadia 1]
My criticism was more that the system is too draconian, rather than not
enough.
[ben 2]
I agree, at least for most crimes. Actually I am of the opinion that a lot
of 'crimes' shouldn't be crimes at all. What I was alluding to is that the
person released isn't any "better" than the person caught, and is often
worse - for exactly the reasons you specified. However my disillusionment
with so called 'rehabilitation' hasn't yet made me abandon the principle of
discipline entirely.
[Arcadia 1]
I guess there are some rare individuals (and you may be one) who believe in
law and order as essential to 'pursuit of happiness,' or 'liberation of
desire,' whatever one prefers. But I think more believers in law and order
believe so because they are terrified of liberated desire, their own,
mainly, and anyone else's too. These folk I disagree with, but I don't
really expect them to take me seriously
[ben 2]
I think most people would be far more worried about other people's liberated
desires than their own. I have far more to lose from my neighbor's potential
homicidal rage than I do from mine :) I see law and order as not essential
to the pursuit of happiness, I see the pursuit of happiness as being wholly
my own responsibility. Where law and order are valuable to me is simply in
the retention of survival - I would never want to see it detached from that
purpose, but I would also like to see it, in many ways, limited to that
purpose.
[ben 1]
Isn't the point supposed to be however that the system is meant to be
administered by people who are better than average?
[Arcadia 1]
Is it? I mean is that the point? And, is it so?
[ben 2]
It seems the only reasonable point... I'm open to suggestions. Basically I'd
prefer not to defer my autonomy in any degree to those less competent than
myself. Therefore, if I can have any input into who gets the job
(remembering that someone is going to get the job nomatter what) I fail to
see the futility you described in doing so.
[ben 1]
Tweaking the education system to obtain better humans sound perfectly
legitimate and desirable to
me, but my tweaking would certainly not include sending my kid off to be
educated by any random Joe off the street.
[Arcadia 1]
But I am trying to say that when we discuss laws or
schools or other institutions, we are often externalizing problems that are
internal, thus taking the first step away from solving them
[ben 2]
What about problems clearly caused by [i]other[/i] people's internal issues?
Do we just wait for them to get around to working things out on their own?
The power of memetics is that by affecting what others believe, we can
better our surroundings and the general human experience. If a belief set is
demonstrably harmful to both believers and bystanders, what is gained by
[i]not[/i] engineering its demise?
[Arcadia 1]
So fine, design a good system, but don't imagine it's going to
'solve' any problem, except maybe those caused by how bad the previous
system was. The existential human problems that stuff does not touch.
[ben 2]
You've entirely lost me. All my problems are plainly due to other people's
deficiencies :)
I'm not sure what kind of existential human problems you are talking about.
If you say 'greed' I would say that better systems would take human greed
into account and mitigate against its negative effects. If you say
'xenophobia' I would say that better education practices could not only
mitigate the effects but could also alleviate the root, by teaching that
every new experience is an education in itself. I could go on, but I'm not
even sure that I'm on the right track (for what you meant) so I will wait...
[ben 1]
Truly given the choice, I don't believe that most people would opt to be
'good', and the few that did may well have very diferent interpretations
of 'good' than I hold.
[Arcadia 1]
It's a short jump from there to believing that some agency of violence is
the ONLY thing that stands between you and an episode of serious
misbehavior, or if not you, then some terrifying stranger misbehaving at
your expense.
[ben 2]
Not really. It just means that I think people need the proper incentive to
be good. I didn't anywhere equate 'incentive' specifically to 'terrifying
fear of torture by governmental thugs' or anything similar - a few simple
social conventions and the desire for human company could do the trick just
as well in most cases.
If it's convenient, easy and profitable to hurt a stranger most people will.
I and each person I care for/about are each a stranger to all but a few
hundred of the billions of humans. The math pretty much does itself.
[Arcadia 1]
well, first off, that's how master classes have always viewed their slaves,
[ben 2]
Never judge a person by the character of those who happen to seem to agree
with him ocassionally :)
[Arcadia 1]
and in the second place, is there any excess of a police state that could
not be justified this way?
[ben 2]
I can't think of one that [i]could[/i] be justified by what I have said.
[Arcadia 1]
If the question really is, 'what is good?' then I think there is far less
disagreement
[ben 2]
An interesting point, that on reflection I agree with insofar as it applies
to interpersonal behaviour. I still maintain that opinions of what is 'good'
in general in society differ greatly. In our society this is demonstrated by
the ongoing disagreements over abortion, drugs, homosexuality, etc etc etc.
[Arcadia 0]
sold out to the corporate boss,
[ben 1]
What exactly does that mean, to you? I hear that phrase a lot, but nobody
ever seems inclined to explain it.
[Arcadia 1]
It might mean exactly the same thing as knowing which side your bread is
buttered on. It's the negative inverse of autonomous substance. It means
that check comes regularly, and one is glad of it, and one is inclined to
oppose anyone or anything or any idea that suggests it might stop coming,
and one is likely to become furious at the suggestion that maybe it _should_
stop coming.
[ben 2]
Right down to the last sentence then I guess I am 'sold out to the corporate
boss'. I draw a regular check, I'm glad of it, I would oppose anyone who
tried to stop that check from coming, and while not quite infuriated I would
be very vexed at the least were someone to tell me that I should just work
this much for free and have to beg for food on top of it. On the other hand,
I believe that what I do increases the enjoyment of other people's lives,
and does in fact generally make the world a better place, even if on a small
scale. So, color me a corporate whore I guess :)
-ben
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:46 MDT