/32/ - Psychopolitics

I'm still undecided.

I hear that "truth" is not something so easily obtained, that's it's more like an unending process of repeated refinement, in which case we're talking about abstract ideals rather than realistic circumstances.

I don't know. The world is messy and imperfect. I suppose it's a poor excuse not to attempt to fulfill the ideals of eliminating censorship, both explicit and through obfuscation such as information overload.

I wonder if attempting to make use of the labor of people while they are incapable of informed choice also impedes their ability to learn, since it may not be possible to do so without attempting to domesticate them. What is that whole process where parents convince their children to behave, or to do some measure of the labor involved in their own care?

I am definitely against modern democracies as they are currently because not only are most individuals unable to make informed decisions about politics, but when we gather as a mass we tend to act very irrationally. Yet, the government should still be accountable to the citizens, so the right to criticize and question must be preserved at all costs. Of course, you can't criticize something without knowing something about it, which means that there is a minimal amount of information that the government should share with the people (besides the obvious, like laws and the identity of its members).

The problem comes from deciding how much/what information that is. Initially we are tempted to say that all information about the government should be shared with the people, but matters of military and police need to be kept somewhat secretly to prevent their use by the enemy (you can't publish the coordinates of you missile batteries, or the identities of your undercover officers). But we can end up following a slippery slope train of thought and start adding to that list things that could be used by enemies but are also necessary for government accountability.

The matter of corporations es even more complex, and I'm not sure where to begin exploring the question.

the key to liberation lies in man himself, no matter how twisted the lock

The concept of a "free market" is essential to modern economics. Government intervention is to be kept at a minimum. When a large corporation is said to hold a monopoly, the government steps in, as was the case with Standard Oil and the Sherman Act.

I have been wondering whether the same logic can be applied to ideas and information. Whether you agree with it or not, 99% of mainstream culture is liberal. Things like individualism, anti-traditionalism, secularism, egalitarianism, sexual liberation, globalism, multiculturalism, etc. effectively form an ideological monopoly. These ideas are so powerful that people are shunned from society for holding a dissenting opinion. For many who are young and have grown up within this cultural monopoly, its impossible to see any merit in the opposing ideologies. These relics of the past are simply backwards, antiquated beliefs that no modern educated man could possibly subscribe to.

Would it be ethical, or practical, for the government to enforce a free market of ideas? I would say yes to the former, but no to the latter. Ideas don't fall on a simple left/right spectrum, and it would be ridiculous to try to give an equal platform to the anti-natalists, fundamentalists, anarchists, neo-nazis, et cetera. On the other hand, arbitrarily giving certain ideas value over others would defeat the purpose. I am mostly thinking out loud here.

>>735
Would you entertain a lie?

There is nothing new under the sun, so any new 'ideas' are just variations on the theme, and any such idea worth seeing, I think you will find, has already been seen.

Just sort through the shit and enforce the truth. Mind you, that's the ideal. We're living in something like that, if it were played out to the opposite extreme.

>>716
> individuals should be able to make decisions about their own lives, such as how to spend their money, where to live, what policies to agree with, and so on.

I think that most cybernetic systems are capable of making decisions. Whether they ought to or not is beside the point. Before I'm willing to agree that people should be allowed to prevent the decisions or actions of others I'll need to have a good reason for doing so. What I think you mean is, "freedom need not be constrained without cause".

> Forming your own opinions is fundamental to the notion of identity, and therefore to a mentally stable individual and functional member of society.

An assumption. You presuppose identity is required, and reveal you've already been steeped in some form of identity politics. Prove that forming opinion is fundamental to having an identity, and that mentally unstable individuals are not functional members of society. Keep in mind that no system is without error, hence error tolerance and correction exists in your very cells. No mind is absolutely stable. Many of the most beneficial of minds in history, such as Poe, Lovecraft, Newton, Einstein, etc. have been notoriously antisocial, dysfunctional, and unstable minds. Is not "oppressed enslaved person" an identity of one without freedom of opinion?

Without instability there is no existence but crystallization, there is no progress or adaptation. A clockwork mechanism is usually not considered a "functional society".

> In order to make decisions of whatever kind, individuals need information.
Negative, which you will demonstrate shortly.
> An opinion based on facts and that takes into account many different (relevant) factors is an informed opinion. People who don't have informed opinions make decisions that are irrational, and often have negative effects.
So, you admit irrational decisions can be made. I loathe the term "irrational" because it dismisses process which placed terrabytes of information into the structure of your brain such that you can act reflexively, "irrationally", to save your hand from a burning iron, or instinctively be attracted to markers of health and fertility such as youth and beauty.

External information is not required to act. Nature itself has proven instinct a "rational" response in general through the exhaustive experimentation of evolution. To shun instinct is to disrespect the advice of every elder in your entire ancestry -- who's billions of years of irrational decisions resulted in the pinnacle of your very genome which encodes the recipe for sentience itself.

Now, your burden is to prove that "irrational" decisions are bad, and that nature, and thus mankind itself is evil, making your entire ethical position moot.

> Thus, an informed individual is both a good member of society and a good human being (assuming that the information they have is truthful and that the "rational" decision is to be a good person). By induction, it is safe to assume that an uninformed individual is neither good for society nor good for themselves.

Having the most information does not guarantee "good" or "ethical" decisions, elsewise the Snowden leaks wouldn't be such a big deal. You've taken on too many assumptions as safe for my comfort. In cybernetics I can show that entities with more information typically dominate those with less, and often those of lesser info lead "good", "innocent", "simple", existences... If goodness necessarily arises from having more information, then we would have no reason to fear those spying on our every action.

> individuals should have access to factual information, that is, truthful information that allows them to understand the realities of a situation.
True. But then you make the logical leap.

> From that, I can claim that it is wrong ... to deny that person access to such information, by censoring the facts and/or spreading lies.
I wish to lie by omission to my government in that I want to censor from society absolute knowledge of my action. I'm sure you'll agree it isn't evil of me to desire this.

> This is one point I guess (and I might be wrong) that you will agree with me on: the powers in effect -e.g. governments, corporations- should not lie to the people.

A degree of internal secrecy is required for any being (collective or non) to have freedom to act without being preemptively thwarted. The ratio of transparency to privacy of individuals should be very low, and very high for governments in order to maximize freedom.

Government lies are fine so long as the facts of reality are not prevented from being known.

With power must come accountability or we risk tyranny and despotism; Accountability is only possible through transparency.

Ethics typically value some outcomes. Here I value freedom, both collectively and individually.

>>774
>What I think you mean is, "freedom need not be constrained without cause".
Correct.

>You presuppose identity is required, and reveal you've already been steeped in some form of identity politics. Prove that forming opinion is fundamental to having an identity, and that mentally unstable individuals are not functional members of society.
First, I did not say that all mentally unstable individuals are not functional members of society. I said mentally unstable individuals and functional members of society. Whether there is an overlap between the two groups is a different matter.
By "identity" I mean the belief that you are an individual, or more than just a part of a group (a person in itself). An identity is the collection things that allow one to be identified (differentiated from others), even from their own perspective. While the physical aspect of the identity is not a blurry line (e.g. my body ends here, that person's body begins over there), the mental aspect is less clear. By "the mental aspect of identity" I mean the notion that your mind is your own, that you have a particular perspective no one else has, that you've had experiences exclusive to you, that the opinions you hold were arrived at by taking into account correct information from your perspective and processing that information using your experience as reference. Do you agree that these are important parts of the individual identity (as opposed to the national identity, religious identity, etc.)?
Where I wrote "a functional member of society" I should have written "our modern western society" where individuals are supposed to believe that they act as individuals and are not influenced by external forces and act accordingly. And by "functional" I meant "functions without deviation from the norm"
I concede my mistake in equating mental stability to conforming to the social norm.

>Negative, which you will demonstrate shortly.
Isn't a decision "The making up of one's mind on any point or on a course of action" (http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/48221?redirectedFrom=decision#eid) or "a determination arrived at after consideration" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decision)?

To choose between going into door number 1 or door number 2 you need to know that there is a door number 1 and a door number 2, and that you can go into one of them. Isn't that information? If you just walk into one of them without thinking about it, you are just continuing your previous course of action, and therefore it wasn't a decision (although one might argue that one decides to continue going wherever one was going). In order to decide you need to know that there are options, and that is already information. I did not state that one needs to know about the consequences of the decision.

>So, you admit irrational decisions can be made.
Here I made another mistake with the use of the term "irrational". All decisions are rational in some level, because one must consider the options and decide which will have the better consequences. Thus, an "irrational decision" is an oxymoron. Bad decisions are of two kinds: the uninformed and the unreasonable. The uninformed decision is one which does not take into consideration all of the available information, and the unreasonable decision is the one that does not derive from a logical conclusion from the information input (e.g. superman can fly, so if I wear a cape I will also be able to fly).

(1/2)

>>815
(2/2)
>Now, your burden is to prove that "irrational" decisions are bad…
Making decisions without taking into account all of the information available instead of listening to those better informed or seeking out more information means not being able to completely understand the consequences of one's decision. I know that it is impossible to have all of the information about every single aspect of any decision, but not seeking out to make the most informed decision possible is taking an unnecessary risk, which is irresponsible. Being irresponsible is generally bad* for you, and can also be bad for the people who depend on you or the people who are around you.
*unlikely to result in consequences that benefit your health, wealth, or general well-being.

>… and that nature, and thus mankind itself is evil, making your entire ethical position moot.
Here you were confused by my wording, and assumed that “bad” means “evil”. It does not, it means that which has (or is likely to have) unpleasant consequences to the individual or to the collective of which the individual is a part of. Think of the difference between playing with fire and setting someone on fire.
As I believe ethics only applies to the actions of humans, I cannot consider nature itself evil, nor can I state that mankind is evil. I am sure you will correct me enthusiastically on this point.

>You've taken on too many assumptions as safe for my comfort.
I suppose I have. Hindsight is 20/20.

>Having the most information does not guarantee "good" or "ethical" decisions.
First, let me restate that being a “bad” member of society is not the same as being an “evil” member of society. An uninformed person is generally not good for society or themselves, unless they are being guided by another individual which is both informed and has the well-being of society and of the individual in mind (what constitutes “well-being” is a different matter).
Being rational and informed does not necessarily make one good, but rational and informed people tend to realize the self-destructing effect that poorly planned or egotistical actions are likely to have. This is negated by a sense of distance between the individual and the rest of humanity, and thus does not apply to persons who either by mental illness, personal ideology or by economic/social status believe that. Unfortunately this last possibility might be justified.

>I'm sure you'll agree it isn't evil of me to desire this.
You know me better than I know myself.

>Government lies are fine so long as the facts of reality are not prevented from being known.
Can the Government publish so many lies and alternative interpretations of events that the truth becomes all but inaccessible? Is lying about which version of events is the truthful one also acceptable?

>Ethics typically value some outcomes. Here I value freedom, both collectively and individually.
I suppose what I value is the continual evolution of mankind, but I’m open to discuss that.

Obs.: I hope you realize that this exchange is not a debate, but dialectic.

>>735
>Whether you agree with it or not, 99% of mainstream culture is liberal. Things like individualism, anti-traditionalism, secularism, egalitarianism, sexual liberation, globalism, multiculturalism, etc. effectively form an ideological monopoly. These ideas are so powerful that people are shunned from society for holding a dissenting opinion.
Those are some wise words right there.
10/10 post.

>>716
> I think most people here agree that individuals should be able to make decisions about their own lives, such as how to spend their money, where to live, what policies to agree with, and so on.

I have to disagree with this, it is not true.
If you, or the group you belong too can ensure those rights, then yes.
If you cannot in some way defend those "rights"/privileges then no, you do not have them.

Also, after writing this I see that you said they "should be able" which is a different story.
There I am somewhat in agreement, however this almost libertardian might obfuscate the natural laws that I believe should never be hidden or forgotten.
At some level evolution needs, and will happen no matter if we try to prevent it.

>>1010
needs to, and will, happen *

Curt Doolittle has some interesting ideas about the relation between the people and the government. His argument basically boils down to this: since people want a moral/ethical society instead of one that merely protects their right to property, and therefore the more people in a society can trust other members of the society to act ethically/morally the less state suppression is needed to keep a society stable.

http://www.propertarianism.com

>>735
>When a large corporation is said to hold a monopoly, the government steps in

I'd definitely contend this; the government will permit or even foster monopolies when it so desires. But I see your general point, and you're not entirely wrong; schooling should aim to introduce the individual to a range of ideas, and take a neutral perspective on those ideas. Though obviously there's a difference between the unbiased teaching of a topic and actively pushing it to maintain an equilibrium.

>>1010
"Might makes right" must only necessarily work at the highest level. Below that, it's down to the opinion of the powers that be to shape society. Meaning on an individual level, it could be so abstract as to effectively not apply at all in day-to-day life.