[From Bill Powers (2012.04.20.1500 MDT)]
Martin Lewitt 2012 Apr 20 1312 MDT –
ML: I agree that the social
world does become “our world” for most modern humans. We
are vulnerable to collective identification, from the level of the the
family, extended family, participatory sports team or military platoon,
the fan of geographical sports team up to the level of sectarian
religion, race, personality cult, nation state, humanity, gaia,
etc. I too am vulnerable to this. I try to make these
choices consciously, but keep them in perspective.
BP: I think those examples are simply more of “my world.” They
are all based on emphasizing differences between people who have
different beliefs and affiliations. My group versus your group. They are
all about conflict between people.
I’m more interested in a social design that starts with recognizing the
ways in which we are all similar – PCT is an expression of that
interest. So is my interest in science in general. When I decry conflict,
I’m not taking sides; I don’t care (except personally, which is at a
lower order of perception) what the conflict is about. Conflict is itself
a malfunction, a contradiction, an attempt to achieve the impossible
which is having the same perception in two mutually-exclusive states at
the same time. Any system with built-in conflicts will self-destruct
eventually, because at the system level, the conflict represents loss of
function. Martin Taylor calls it a time bomb.You can’t do two
contradictory things at once, despite what the Red Queen said. By
definition, nobody can win fair fights more than half of the
time.
So for the whole system to work and continue to exist, we need to remove
the bugs in it, of which there are many. Rather than pitting one person
against another as we do now, we have to find out what people really want
at their highest level and then make the effort to achieve the broadest
possible success at getting it. This is what the free market is imagined
to achieve, but doesn’t. The goal of the free market idea is just fine;
that’s what we want. But the method of free and unfettered conflict can’t
get us there.
Jesus Christ had the right idea: Don’t worry so much about yourself; try
to see to it that even the least of us has a good life, and if we all do
that, the bread cast upon the waters will turn into manna. Or am I mixing
holy metaphors?
…
BP earlier: And Republicans
would have to stop prolonging one person’s misery as a way of teaching
others a moral or practical lesson. Everyone involved, in fact, would
probably have to change something.
ML: Yes, most especially those engaging in or enabling
coercion.
BP: Or trying to prevent coercion by carrying deadly weapons. Yes.
Everyone will have to understand what way of life is feasible if we are
all to live as well as practicable, and each person will have to change
whatever is necessary to live that way. Not “have to” –
“will”, once the situation is clearly understood.
Of course, “the invisible
hand” is just a massless subjective concept, like
“society” and perceived organization like the “social
system”. Margaret Thatcher was refreshingly blunt when she
state “Society doesn’t even exist”.
BP: True, it’s not Out There. It’s a concept in our heads that organizes
the way we interact with other people. It it were really objective, there
wouldn’t be much we could do about it just by changing attitudes or
goals. But society is a concept, a real system concept that we adopt,
live by, act to protect, communicate, and sometimes even modify. All
those things and acts are real and possible.
ML earlier: As for getting “the use of things”,
I
do believe the fairest tax is a use tax, a good example would be
a
gasoline tax earmarked for improvement and maintenance of the road
system.
As for regard for the freedom of others, I suspect I have far
more of
that than you.
BP earlier: Perhaps, but not for people who think and say things like
I do, or for people who do not think that the fairest tax is a use tax
(which would keep poor riff-raff out of emergency rooms and make your
life easier but not theirs).
ML: But aren’t you assuming that the poor riff-raff are controlling for
the same perceptions that you are?
Yes. I assume that when they are in pain or disabled or sick, they want
those things to end and hope that there is someone who knows how to help
and will do so even if the sick person can’t pay the use tax. Even if
it’s only an imaginary perception that hurts, it still hurts.
ML: For
instance, some people would make it mandatory for, e.g., recent
immigrants to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty, when those
immigrants would rather continue sending funds back to their home country
instead. They want to control for something different.
People who think and say things like I do, would not presume to
substitute our subjective value judgements for theirs.
BP: I wouldn’t presume to make them buy health insurance, either, and if
they didn’t even though they have the means to pay, I would say that’s
fine – only please sign this waiver saying that you will not ask for
help from any hospital or clinic that charges other people for services.
That’s the intent of the Obama health insurance rules, isn’t it? To get
rid of the freeloaders who threaten to bring down the whole
system?
What about people who do want to make such judgments? Would you presume
to substitute your subjective value judgement for theirs? Of course you
would; you do it all the time. One can’t even open a mouth to say such
things without indulging in a self-contradiction.
ML: And I’d have to warn people
that you were far more dangerous if you were nearing a voting booth,
likely to support a politician that would delay access to potentially
life saving drugs costing tens of thousands of lives, or forcing people
like those in the 9th ward of New Orleans to be dependent on public
transportation by pricing independent vehicles out of range with safety
regulations.
Maybe. But a nut with a gun in his pocket daring anyone to knock the chip
off his shoulder is a much more certain and immediate threat. A guy in a
voting both doesn’t have sole control over your life and death. Other
people get to vote, too. But the guy with the gun pays attention only to
his own vote. He carries the gun because he expects other people to be
dangerous to him, and if he waits to shoot until they actually do
something to harm him it will be too late. In some states, such as
Florida, all he has to do is be convinced that you’re a danger to him,
and he can shoot you without fear of punishment. In any state, he can
claim self-defense and have a chance of being acquitted.
There’s a difference between a hypothetical delayed bad sort of general
statistical effect, and the immediacy of someone willing to pull out a
gun and shoot you right here and now if you do the wrong thing and
frighten him. And people with guns seem to seek out opportunities to use
them as threats. I think I told you about the sheriff’s deputy who called
me to congratulate me on a misinterpretation of what I wrote in a letter
to the editor of the Durango Herald; he told me about someone who
objected to the his parking too close to the person’s car so the person
couldn’t open the driver’s door. The deputy said all he had to do was
show his gun and the other guy shut up about it. I never heard “I
guess I shouldn’t have parked so close to him.”
BP earlier: Actually, I would
recommend that we all start doing that. Imagine risking your life just to
have lunch in one place rather than another. Restaurant owners might
change their minds about gun laws.
ML: If you have ever seen the courtesy and respect generally extant at a
gun show, you might realize that people in restaurants would be far
better behaved if they realized everybody might be
carrying.
BP: No doubt, for those who require such threats to make them behave
decently. Is that the kind of people who go to gun shows? But I would
advise not turning your back on anyone in that restaurant who is
carrying. People with guns tend to be easily frightened. They shoot first
and then look more closely to see if that guy had a gun in his hand, or a
packet of Doritos. Better safe than sorry, is the motto. Let somebody
else be sorry, like the kid’s mother.
Best,
Bill P.
