Nitroadict: 1. I disagree, it looks more like old fashioned oligarchy to me. A rouge PDA would assume that it emerged from a previously free-market environment, & no matter how much more free the USA used to be, it never was truly a free-market society to begin with, just a either a federation of associated states or a republic with a majority of free-market activity in it's beginnings, eroded over the next one or two centuries.
1. I disagree, it looks more like old fashioned oligarchy to me. A rouge PDA would assume that it emerged from a previously free-market environment, & no matter how much more free the USA used to be, it never was truly a free-market society to begin with, just a either a federation of associated states or a republic with a majority of free-market activity in it's beginnings, eroded over the next one or two centuries.
I think the gov't is another branch of the free market that over-time it had monopolized with coercion. The middle ages saw monarchy with loose protective affliations rise to absolute monarchy by the time the Age of Reason strolled into the picture, which ushered in an era of democratic-republics that grew in its infiltration of the free market. I don't think the gov't produces anything and all of the production comes about by the hands of people working in the market even under threat and acts of extortion for centuries.
Nitroadict:2. Does advertising equal coercion, then?
Propagandist appeal that gov't is necessary to 'stop the bad guys' isn't the act of coercion.
bloomj31:1. We already have a good constitution. People just need to start reading it and sticking to it again. I don't intend to reinvent the wheel.
But the constitution is not good, economically or morally. Heh.
The only reason why we may grow economically under a limited constitution is because of the simple FACT that more ANARCHY is allowed into the market system, the constitution itself is still a negation of that freedom and as such will limit the market to the extent it claims.
There is also no possible way in a democracy to keep a constitution limited, or for the constitution to even be taken seriously. This comes back to Hayek's quote, and rational ignorance. Somethign I deeply wish you would actually read about, I know I've mentioned it to you several times.
Nitroadict:Voluntarists & Emergentists ("anarcho-capitalists") can also have their fair share of fear-mongering thinking, as with any crowd, such as automatically rejecting non-capitalist free-market actions out of ideological purity (not everyone does this, but you could probably see a fair bit of this with the RP crowd & forums).
I agree with you here. But I think statists know that most people's intillectual framework revolves around a 'safety-net' the state. They assume you subscribe to a certain level of this, and that is why fear mongering is particularly useful to them. First they had to build the intellectual dependency, which they have done over several centuries. Now, after the fact, they exploit it to maintain that level of intillectual dependency. Fear mongering in all cases can be misleading, but also a useful tactic as statists have shown.
As Wilderness pointed out,
wilderness: And to maintain the focus on "common instincts" is that the gov't has to constantly appeal to those "common instincts" and the one that always makes a herd in the animal world, including humans, is fear.
I think the point of Wilderness's regimentation theory is that fear is a common demominator amongst men. Possibly one of the lowest. Because of this it becomes easy to develop social framework of coercion thats foundation is built apon fear, as most people understand and recognize fear. Where as most people may not understand or recognize the benefits of trade. Trade in this sense would not be a lower common denominator.
Sure the fear technique could work for ancaps, or anything else. The point is that the fear argument removes logic to make a point, and assigns emotion. It is particularly effective because most people understand fear, as opposed to other non-intuitive arguments of the market.
filc: I think the point of Wilderness's regimentation theory is that fear is a common demominator amongst men. Possibly one of the lowest. Because of this it becomes easy to develop social framework of coercion thats foundation is built apon fear, as most people understand and recognize fear. Where as most people may not understand or recognize the benefits of trade. Trade in this sense would not be a lower common denominator.
spot on.
There's a huge difference in clarity between coercion to maintain trade and coercion to attack trade. And trade is the appeal of the free market. Liberty, peace, and justice is the appeal of just property. There's definitely an appeal to the focus of a persons time and energy put into this:
or this
---
as opposed to the focus of the person wanding this
filc:Sure the fear technique could work for ancaps, or anything else. The point is that the fear argument removes logic to make a point, and assigns emotion. It is particularly effective because most people understand fear, as opposed to other non-intuitive arguments of the market.
yeap, fear clouds judgement
Just to clarify my "pessimistic view". People, in general, don't want to educate themselves. Consider - 50% of the human race has a below average intelligence. And at least some of the remaining 50% are lazy. I forget who, (and am lazy to a degree myself so I'm not looking it up) but a Roman philosopher once said that people don't want freedom, but a just master. It makes their lives easier. They are willing to give up some of their freedom to have a bit of security. So when someone comes along promising them security, whether it be moral or physical, they take the person up on it. Government is formed. This could be a PDA in anarchy or a politician in a state, but either way it means the government grows. And as stated, once it starts, it doesn't stop. Eventually, it takes too many liberties and the people aren't feeling so secure any more. Something eventually triggers a revolution. The government comes tumbling down, perhaps being replaced by another, perhaps leaving anarchy. The people, last knowing a state of tyranny, are afraid of it. For now, they DO want liberty. But soon, they get tired of being responsible for everything. Freedom is hard. And someone comes along to say, "Just give me a little bit of your liberty, and I'll give you some security..."
So why bother? Because the cycle does include a point where people want liberty. And by studying it, and thinking about it, and popularizing it, we can make that point stretch out a little farther each time. It's like a vacation - it doesn't ever last, but don't you want it to be as long as possible?
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. -- River Tam
I aim to misbehave. -- Malcolm Reynolds
Aster_Lacnala: People, in general, don't want to educate themselves.
For rational reasons as well. People don't have the time nor interest to be economic and ethical know-it-alls. This is why we have the division of labor. Perhaps we need to accept the fact that not everyone will understand the details of Austrian Economics and/or market anarchy. All that implies however is a change of strategy, I'll describe below.
Aster_Lacnala:Consider - 50% of the human race has a below average intelligence.
Most methods of measuring intellectual capacity are arbitrary and not wholly correct. People are specialized in different things and their skills are not always easily representable on paper. People used to think fisher men were simple minded people with limited intelligence. Then the Discovery channel released a show called "Deadliest Catch" which changed peoples perspective on the skills and disciplines needed to be a good fishermen.
We live in a world with the division of labor. It is not in people's best interest nor in ours for everyone to be experts in economics and the principles of liberty. Though I do agree with you partly about education, I'll explain more below.
Aster_Lacnala: but a Roman philosopher once said that people don't want freedom, but a just master.
A wise old man once climbed up a hill and shouted to his followers below. "Go forth and pick your noes's!"
Simply because some old man said something one day while he was on the can doesn't mean we should abandon logic to consider his point. Likewise just because some old Roman philosopher, who happened to be a member of one of the worlds largest states at the time, believed as he did does not make it true. He is not the authority on the human psyche.
Aster_Lacnala:So why bother? Because the cycle does include a point where people want liberty.
But your still subscribed to this notion that we are in perpetual repetition in history. We are not. Man does not repeat history, he may repeat certain actions of history but history is history, and cannot be repeated short of going back in time. The fact remains that man does change, and has historically changed for the better.
Aster_Lacnala:and popularizing it, we can make that point stretch out a little farther each time
So essentially we are saying the same thing, only differently.
So coming back to my point on education. Wilderness has established that the lowest common denominator in recognized human thought may be fear. I tend to agree. What if we replaced that lowest common denominator from fear to liberty. I don't mean in the republican/nationalist/conservative/ fake liberty sense. I mean in true liberty, genuine liberalism.
As it stands it's clear that a fundamental concept of liberty is not widely held and that it's understanding varies from parties to parties. If we focused on changing the lowest common denominator from fear to liberty our tactics change. No longer do we need to get caught up in the mundane tasks of step by step explanations of liberty and economic freedom. Perhaps instead we make a vast propaganda campaign. One that eliminates fear, and in its place puts a desire to be free.
What I'm trying to say is this. What we need to do is make the lowest common denominator an attribute that will make liberty and economic freedom be most favorable. In this way we no longer have to spend years on a single person teaching them the itemized details of AE and other topics. Instead it becomes a part of the culture. Freedom propoganda?
If people were more concerned with freedom than they were with fear our social framework may be entirely different.
filc:If people were more concerned with freedom than they were with fear our social framework may be entirely different.
In the current mainstream political climate as they scare everybody into the herd for safety and abandon reason, what is beautiful, and logical, then what happens is those latter are less to nil exercised in the pursuit of recognizing truth. It's a dumbing down process and the mediums of propaganda to perpetuate this duping, dumbing down process, ie. public schools, media, politicans, etc... are currently very far reaching geographically and perpetually delude the minds and hearts of people. There are some people that go around and try to offer kernals of truth due to the time such people spend in contemplation on what is wise; and then there are others that spend their time asking others to essentially give up, roll over, and die because it's "human nature" - no call of liberty at all in that kind of thinking cause they say it's "fixed". These latter people of course only perpetuate the duping, dumbing down process.
filc:What if we replaced that lowest common denominator from fear to liberty.
I liked you post, but I would say that instead of trying to change the fear we could use it.
I believe it is more effective to replace the fear of danger to a fear of government.
Wilderness,
I've been tossing around a concept which may refute the idea that man inherently is subject to creating government as an inborn physiological flaw which has been presented here on this thread. It seems to me that there is one irrefutable attribute of man that contradicts that point, The attribute being Human Action. The axiom that man acts, not men, but man acts. In order to act however man must be free to do so. Human Action implies that man is free, capable of acting.
There may be situations where man is naturally incapable of acting, but if he otherwise chooses not to act he is still acting in that sense. The state seems to be counter-praxeological and seeks to restrict human action, or manipulate human action to service its needs. In such a situation the people who are making decisions are still acting in their best interest, they only seek to use the state as a tool to negate the actions of others and have them comply to their own agendas. This is why the State operates even in the negation of Human Action. It's formation is done at the will of a minority, it than exploits a majority to perpetuate it's agenda. The Majority who goes along with it are only doing so in error. They think that this does not effect their action, or that it effects action in their favor. They are deciding rationally, it is observed after the decision however that it is done in error.
At the root it seems that the state can only prevent human action. This most basic fundamental attribute of man, the most irrefutable attribute of man. Man may decide to install a restrictive system, but he does so in conflict with himself. Or perhaps he installs restrictions because his actions are not restricted, only the actions of others, and others are forced to comply with his. There are a number of ways that the state can be formed, and despite the praxeological attribute of man that doesn't necessarily mean a state cannot be formed, obviously its the contrary.
The point however is that the most fundamental aspect of man is that he acts, he thinks, all by his own free will. The state is a direct negation of acting, it prefers inacting or the manipulation of action. Its counter-praxeological as it were.
Considering that point I cannot accept that man has an inborn physiological attribute that has made him prone to developing a state. At the very core man seeks the freedom to act. At the very core man seeks to be free, whether he realizes it or not. This is no different from the marxists to the socialists to the murderer. They seek to be free for their own agenda's.
It would seem that the state is in direct conflict with Human Action.
What are your thoughts?
filc:I've been tossing around a concept which may refute the idea that man inherently is subject to creating government as an inborn physiological flaw which has been presented here on this thread. It seems to me that there is one irrefutable attribute of man that contradicts that point, The attribute being Human Action. The axiom that man acts, not men, but man acts. In order to act however man must be free to do so. Human Action implies that man is free, capable of acting.
Exactly. Liberty is an inalienable right. It can't be taken away, but it can be corrupted with limitations, ie. control, thinking one is the state, etc.... With the latter this limits ones own negative liberty by surrounding oneself with restrictions physically and mentality. The restrictions even for Hitler to his own negative liberty was he couldn't change his impossible dogma and had to continue on with the Nazi rituals. He had to participate with the same rituals that restrict choice. Everything becomes more standardized. Of course new things, events pop up and choices are made, but choices in accord with a preconceptions that are arbritrarily chosen and therefore not logically known to all, ie. common sense.
filc:At the root it seems that the state can only prevent human action. This most basic fundamental attribute of man, the most irrefutable attribute of man. Man may decide to install a restrictive system, but he does so in conflict with himself. Or perhaps he installs restrictions because his actions are not restricted, only the actions of others, and others are forced to comply with his. There are a number of ways that the state can be formed, and despite the praxeological attribute of man that doesn't necessarily mean a state cannot be formed, obviously its the contrary.
The state is counter to human action. Political boundaries that world currently understands are a new phenomena anyways. If I remember correctly the British played a big role in determining the political boundaries of the world that usually didn't have anything to do with the actual people with their differing customs around the world. The nation-state is a new phenomena to the world. Culture is not government. Government is a territory monopoly and culture is the norms, values, and beliefs of a society. The capability of liberty to be enacted in any one culture would define how much of a monopoly the society holds upon the individual. And liberty is not power so various cultures had more liberty than say the U.S. back into ancient times I would say outside of the tyrant-kings that emerged in, ie. Eygpt, Babalyon, Rome, China, etc.... Simply because an individual grows up to learn a particular culture that culture doesn't necessarily restrict their liberty. And technological innovations are a gaining of power not liberty. But with new technologies the exercise of choice does multiply, not because there was a limitation on choice previously, but due to the additional choice of, 'Do you want to ride the train or car?'. But there wasn't necessarily a limitation on liberty previous to this technological choice. Culture doesn't necessitate limits on liberty. Not yet having the idea to do something doesn't mean the idea is not potentially available. Culture doesn't initiate physical aggression, but individuals within any culture has the potential to choice control over their neighbors rather than allowing their neighbors to live freely.
filc:Considering that point I cannot accept that man has an inborn physiological attribute that has made him prone to developing a state. At the very core man seeks the freedom to act. At the very core man seeks to be free, whether he realizes it or not. This is no different from the marxists to the socialists to the murderer. They seek to be free for their own agenda's.
I agree.
filc:It would seem that the state is in direct conflict with Human Action.What are your thoughts?
The state is not directly defined as culture. These are two differenct concepts as I said above. A state is a monopoly initiated with coercion and legislation is always trying to mold human action. Tyrant-kings/queens, rulers in general, are always molding society according to their arbritrary whims - not necessarily in accord with the current spontaneous culture that all individuals that have ever lived spontaneous mold in their exchanges. Individuals in the government are ONLY ever deciding, ie. legislation, decree, what culture is supposed to be. And there are always individuals thinking spontaneously out of the control of any gov't. As you point out it is praxeologically impossible for a gov't to ever maintain an ideology based on a central planner (all governments) and thereby gov't has never actually developed a foothold on civil society to this day.
filc,
i was wondering what you thought of in accord to my response to your post.
sorry if you were done with this, so, we could let this go for now.
No, I pretty much agree. I've been able to take surprisingly a whole lot from this discussion. It's been a while since I felt like I've learned this much from a thread. A nice suprise which cannot be said for some of the other poorer quality discussions I've been involved in as of late.
I learned a lot too. I was hoping Z would try to continue on with the discussion, but he got caught up in other ventures. That's the way the ball bounces.
This was a very enjoyable discussion. Thanks to all that contributed to help me think this through. If there's more, by all means continue. Simply wanted to let everybody know.
peace
Wilderness, I shared some of our dialogue with my local Ancap Meetup group. Every single person in my group is pretty genius so they presented some excellent additional information. As a result I have some additional stuff I'd like to share on our topic. Would you be interested?
wilderness:Yet instantly the mind-set, so it's more psychological than logical, of government defenders is that when dealing with criminals or dangers of the world, then individuals need to deal with those dangers on that beastly level. It's a relational level with the world that doesn't operate with logical arguments because as many have probably heard: 'how is ones logic going to stop people that operate with ruthless power and always want to harm people' - so - the government works on the 'eye for an eye' level. It seems that those that defend the government concede the fact that the government is a force of illogic because it has to deal with unreasonable people on their unreasonable level. They concede the fact that the government is illogical.
I guess that begs the question:
How do you define government?
An institution that can tax? An institution one cannot voluntarily secede?
filc:Wilderness, I shared some of our dialogue with my local Ancap Meetup group. Every single person in my group is pretty genius so they presented some excellent additional information. As a result I have some additional stuff I'd like to share on our topic. Would you be interested?
I would be very happy to find out about this additional information. I'm very curious.
wilderness:I would be very happy to find out about this additional information. I'm very curious.
Well in our regimentation theory we were discussing lowest common denominators, from that Hayek Quote. One of my friends introduced me to Maslow's Hierarchy of needs. Have you ever seen this and do you think it fits in without model? I think it makes perfect sense. Here's the wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_Pyramid
filc: wilderness:I would be very happy to find out about this additional information. I'm very curious. Well in our regimentation theory we were discussing lowest common denominators, from that Hayek Quote. One of my friends introduced me to Maslow's Hierarchy of needs. Have you ever seen this and do you think it fits in without model? I think it makes perfect sense. Here's the wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_Pyramid
yes, i've seen this before. What we were talking about, this model can be applied, but I wouldn't say Maslow's Pyramid is solely what we were discussing. But it can be used to help provide insight into our discussion. For instance, politicians are operating with safety and physiology and therefore don't have a foundation to develop further up. They're constantly operating on those levels so their focus can't go higher until those lower levels are solved and the gov't, ie. politicians, trying to solve those levels collectively will not happen. The gov't does dabble with family so that's the third level up. There are probably other operations of the gov't that involve higher levels, but what is happening is the application or the job task is being applied with threat of or use of coercion, so, I don't even think that's in the pyramid other than maybe under safety. The gov't is afraid of society collapsing, even maybe on a moral level (depends on the individual politician), but their job is performed by force so the build up socially and thus psychologically in the social interaction is not reason but force application.
Could a politician, an individual one, move beyond those lower levels, yes in his or her personal life, but then again that's the persons personal life and it's not dealing with the job. In the daily job task of a gov't politician (or any gov't employee for the most part that I can think of) the focus when the work papers hit the desk is a constant focus on these lower levels. So the gov't works on a different level. In gov't it's either in general, sociological factors of physiology (that level) or safety. Economics is performed on the gov't level to handle collectively these bottom two levels. So when is the gov't going to do a job that works on a higher level? That has happened, especially in the Holy Roman Empire with the Inquisition or Late Middle Ages with their form of the Inquisition, ie. Anabaptists. But again this was trying to work upon even higher levels but yet did it with threat of or use of initiating coercion, which is circular and back to square one in that the job task was performed not by reasoning but by force or threat thereof. This method of relating to others turns inward in a regimentation manner, not full out military order, though Machiavelli wasn't full military or Spartan. Yet there is a "rank and file" obedience to order found operating within the gov't. A bunch of people who get what they want and at times with threat or applied coercion, ie. legislated, executive orders, judicial rule; and how much do they get their way by approaching life this way. I would doubt a politician likes to be questioned.
Does that seem to fit into the discussion here?
wilderness:Does that seem to fit into the discussion here?
It makes perfect sense. So Government has established itself primarily in the lower two levels. Maybe even attempted to conflate the two. For example "Health Care" is now apparently some kind of need, just as important as access to oxygen.
wilderness:Could a politician, an individual one, move beyond those lower levels, yes in his or her personal life, but then again that's the persons personal life and it's not dealing with the job.
wilderness:So when is the gov't going to do a job that works on a higher level?
I think he can and does. What the politician does is attempt to make a government service or good appear to be in the lower two levels. So in this way everything is a security/health issue. That way they can exploit fear with all it's potential.
I think we don't realize that many items are already on the higher level, because we've been indoctrinated into believing they are a security/safety/health issue. Take socialized education for example.
wilderness: I would doubt a politician likes to be questioned.
But when questioned they always resort to fear tactics to justify themselves. For example when I questioned Congressman McDermott about capntax his response to me was a non economical/ non environmental response and totally an emotional response. In an indirect way implying that I'm insensitive and that if more people don't start caring we will all be harmed. Therefore we should remain in this perpetual state of fear.
And on a side note, it is interesting how government has entrenched itself in the family section. Even most Christian's now days believe that marriage is sanctified by the state. The have allowed the State to supersede their own God.
Aster_Lacnala:. Personally, I don't think any system, anarchy or government, will work, no matter who is in power. The problem isn't the system, it is the people.
Personally, I don't think any system, anarchy or government, will work, no matter who is in power. The problem isn't the system, it is the people.
Here's (below) an interesting system of authority that I happen to believe in that deals with what Lacnala is getting at. It does require omniscience and omnipotence to exist but since I believe in the existence of beings with those characteristics, this is not a problem from my perspective. I guess that it probably would be, however, for many of the people in this forum.
As for myself, I don't think there is a person on the planet that has ever lived anything other than a "religious" life, since no one (perhaps not one even in all the history of mankind) lives strictly according to logical deductions based on known facts. Besides the fact that the human brain is not programmed to work like a computer (strictly confining itself to logical deductions), we all "fill in" the (huge) gaps in our understanding of the world with things that are not known (with certainty and in the collective sense) to be true. Religion in its most general sense is acting on beliefs that are not provable - or at least are not generally susceptible of unconditional publicly-verifiable demonstration; and pretty much everyone does that to one degree or another. Of course this doesn't mean that all principles or world-views are of equal value (e.g. equally "true", equally promote our happiness, etc.); it's just a recognition that there are limitations and that the practical consequence of those limitations is choice of beliefs that are not generally speaking provable. It is my understanding that this lack of public verifiability is actually an important part of our condition - I mean that I believe that our circumstances are that way by construction that ultimately has to do with the purpose of life.
loftin: It is my understanding that this lack of public verifiability is actually an important part of our condition - I mean that I believe that our circumstances are that way by construction that ultimately has to do with the purpose of life.
It is my understanding that this lack of public verifiability is actually an important part of our condition - I mean that I believe that our circumstances are that way by construction that ultimately has to do with the purpose of life.
Here's an excerpt of an email I sent a couple of years back to someone on this same topic.
The beautiful thing (from my perspective and abstracting from practical matters) is that this lack of public verifiability of spiritual things is actually a necessary condition for diametrically opposed worldviews. On the one hand are worldviews that assert that spiritual things are largely irrelevant – because they don't exist. On the other hand is the worldview that claims that spiritual things are of primary relevance in this estate because they constitute the primary dimension in which we demonstrate our fitness for greater opportunities in [a future state]. Non-verifiability of spiritual experiences (and therefore spiritual truth generally) is implied in each case: in one case because they don’t exist, and in the other because indiscriminate (i.e. public) verifiability would largely destroy the purpose of this mortal experience by limiting our ability to choose what to believe and consequently how to act towards ourselves and towards one another. Now, because this condition (no public verifiability of what’s spiritual) is necessary for both of those worldviews, it is uninformative regarding which one actually obtains (i.e. it cannot be legitimately used to eliminate one or the other from the set of viable explanations of what we observe regarding public verifiability) - and this is precisely as it should be. This means that a priori assignment of spiritual matters to the domain of irrelevance without honest and thorough experimentation is ultimately not only unscientific (why not follow the gospel invitations [e.g. explicitly provided in Alma 32 or by the missionaries] to carry out the experiments at the personal level and see for oneself?) but also somewhat disingenuous it seems, from a purely conceptual standpoint.[3]
...
Perhaps not surprisingly, a similar situation (involving extremes) arises where the principle of natural selection is concerned: there are indeed different – in some ways even diametrically opposed - "selection" criteria (e.g. the “usual” one exhibited in the animal kingdom, and the one suggested in DC121, the last third of 2NE26, and elsewhere in the scriptures); but how very different are their corresponding outcomes for the behavior and the happiness of both the individual and the group! Is it any wonder that we learn that sociality will be "there" like it is "here"? We will have each chosen our reality in some senses - including the kinds of associations we'll be comfortable in: telestial, terrestrial, or celestial. I suspect that some may be taken in their own craftiness on this one - after the manner described by DC121:12. What a terrible surprise it may end up being for some to find that the same principle they used to justify becoming selfish/egocentric individuals in [mortality] has become the operative principle by which they are deemed unfit for greater opportunities and influence ... in the hereafter (DC 121). After the environmental phase-transition precipitated by mortal death, it may become absolutely clear that the kinds of character traits advantageous for mortal-physical survival may in many cases stand in direct conflict with those required to rule in glory and dominion – and “without compulsory means”! It appears to be the case that great power and selfishness or capriciousness are fundamentally incompatible, or at least unsustainable in the long run – perhaps due to the existence and agency of uncountably many other intelligences (who could “gang up”) or to the tendency for self-deception that seems to accompany selfishness.[4] Shadows of just such principles show up throughout the histories of past civilizations (in and out of the scriptures), but without much notice by a world obsessed with the next episode of “Friends” or “Seinfeld” (or whatever other false gods we choose to worship/emulate).
[2] Distinguishing between the two is useful because it is standard practice in the world, even if it turns out that the two kinds of truth are more similar than most people are willing to grant. For example, the restored gospel suggests (e.g. Alma 32) that experimentation – including exercising faith, patience, and diligence along the way – is just as necessary for learning spiritual as for "scientific" truths, even if verification of those experiments is necessarily individual – as opposed to public – in nature. Likewise, Joseph Smith’s description of the process of revelation has a similar experimental/inductive flavor.
[3] To cut some well-intentioned critics some slack, they generally operate without any exposure to the revelatory updates of recent centuries – including expanded (though always geared at developing the spiritual matrix that is most important) descriptions of the “beginning” of this world, and explicit recognition of infinitely many others. Perhaps as a consequence of this and of confusing spiritual truth with historical religions, some people I’ve met seem to accept evolutionary artifacts as prima facie evidence against spiritual things. But in reality all claimed inconsistencies between the two (the actual artifacts – not the theories – and faith) are largely contrived.
[4] Knowledge of all types accumulates more slowly for self-deceivers I would guess; and there is a way in which knowledge is power (as the saying goes). Besides, Godel showed with his incompleteness theorem that the subset of truth accessible by rational/empirical processes may ultimately be quite limited, leaving room for that other epistemological pillar: revelation of truth from a source that knows what rational process cannot access.
Here's (what I would consider) a sensible starting point for a balanced notion of good government, expressed in the form of a set of basic beliefs regarding it.
12 We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth...
From a practical perspective, preaching the gospel addresses the need for a good citizenry. While the term "gospel" does have a specific meaning to me, it can be thought of generally (if one is more comfortable with that) as engaging others in conversations regarding principles one feels are worthwhile.
Regarding the importance of laws, it seems that the quality of our lives depends to some degree on the laws that we are willing - as a group - to espouse. Here are some interesting verses on this topic (law is a general principle that has meaning beyond civil laws - it involves the laws of physics, so-called spiritual laws, etc.):
Sorry, forgot the references (most of that was not my own - I'm not that smart...). Here they are:
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/134
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/88/34-40#34
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/88/22-24#22
wilderness: There's definitely an appeal to the focus of a persons time and energy put into this:
There's definitely an appeal to the focus of a persons time and energy put into this:
That is beautiful. I hiked into some Mayan ruins at El Mirador (border of Guatemala and Mexico) and the guide said that these creatures are extremely difficult to find and observe in the wild. It's a great depiction of the Quetzal.
filc: wilderness:Does that seem to fit into the discussion here? It makes perfect sense. So Government has established itself primarily in the lower two levels. Maybe even attempted to conflate the two. For example "Health Care" is now apparently some kind of need, just as important as access to oxygen.
yes, maybe I'm wrong, but I also thought this pyramid was about once the foundation level is established, then the next can be developed further, then established, then next level, etc.... So to focus on the lower parts of that pyramid, in this context, would be a pursuit to establish the bottom to build higher levels. If the foundation levels fail, then the higher levels don't adequately develop. It seems to be a slight twist upon what we were saying, meaning, it's a good tool to explain the interpretations of what the model is useful for, but does it explain how the government achieves it's ends. Fear to establish regimentation to aggrandize the nation-state leading to mercantilism for one when it comes to economics, which I see as going hand in hand with amoral secularism, meaning, by any means necessary even initiating violence and deception if the moment is interpreted to call for it.
filc: wilderness:Could a politician, an individual one, move beyond those lower levels, yes in his or her personal life, but then again that's the persons personal life and it's not dealing with the job. wilderness:So when is the gov't going to do a job that works on a higher level? I think he can and does. What the politician does is attempt to make a government service or good appear to be in the lower two levels. So in this way everything is a security/health issue. That way they can exploit fear with all it's potential.
But then the question would be does fear used in this way lead to the higher levels, if I remember correctly from the model, that include family love and moral awareness, etc....
filc:I think we don't realize that many items are already on the higher level, because we've been indoctrinated into believing they are a security/safety/health issue. Take socialized education for example.
I think I see what you mean here. I'm willing to hash this out, which is why it took me some time to come back to this as I've been thinking, but if you mean that there are higher levels, which I would maintain are in the individuals no matter what sector of society they operate within so including politicians, if they are partaking in family, contemplation, etc...., then yes I agree. But the question, I think, is what kind of job does the government perform and that includes how it implements that job, which is by threat of force and persuasion/rhetoric is propaganda in the government sphere for appearance purposes because within the gov't there is a hierarchy. How much that hierarchy comes close in range to military regimentation is a good question. One known example of how much of a order and obey system is within the U.S. gov't (the E.U. is more military in nature I would say as the appearance of public choice has nearly been completely abolished) is what Rep. Sherman said on the House floor during the supposed TARP debates during the September 2008 economic crash. He said some people were fear-mongering there would be marshal law in the streets if the legislation would not pass. That's about as close as it gets to exposed military type regimentation. If you haven't heard about that I might be able to find the youtube on that as it was circulating a lot during that time.
filc: wilderness: I would doubt a politician likes to be questioned. But when questioned they always resort to fear tactics to justify themselves. For example when I questioned Congressman McDermott about capntax his response to me was a non economical/ non environmental response and totally an emotional response. In an indirect way implying that I'm insensitive and that if more people don't start caring we will all be harmed. Therefore we should remain in this perpetual state of fear.
yes. that's exactly what we are discussing. excellent point.
filc:And on a side note, it is interesting how government has entrenched itself in the family section. Even most Christian's now days believe that marriage is sanctified by the state. The have allowed the State to supersede their own God.
The U.S. gov't politicians and those that sympathize with them also plead more moral legislation to force ethics on society from time to time. Much of it seems more rhetoric than anything, I don't know of any strictly ethical legislation that has no ties to some kind of national security or domestic framework issue, but the idea of the U.S. being a strictly Christian valued gov't is explicitly advocated every now and then. Both parties haggle of that issue to win the hearts of those in society that are spiritually inclined.
loftin:....
That's really cool about the backpacking and Mayan experience. I don't have that much time tonight but I saw you had some posts in this thread and I definitely want to come back to what you wrote. I also would love to hear about this experience of yours as I think part of the purpose of this thread to not get stuck in the fear or initiated coercion but to contrast that with what is beautiful in life to help provide a wider context to what we are trying to express in this thread. I hope I get some time soon to come back to these posts of yours.
thanks loftin