Does human nature inevitably doom all free societies?

Yes, because scum (sociopaths/psychopaths) always rise to the top and fuck everything up.

However, in our now connected and digital age, there is an answer to the eternal question, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

(Who guards the Guardians?)

I had better not post it here, but do a search on a guy named "Jim Bell" and his Theorem.

and what society has ever truly been free?

Obviously in order to have a society you need a degree of structure to ensure civility and law and order,but having said that as long as you`re not endangering others and contributing to the greater good,you should be able to do anything you like,when you like, without being crushed under govt, controls.

The USA, circa 1700 - 1850, when the West was being opened up.

People migrated West, into virgin territory (OK, with a few pesky Indians around) to live big, 'n fat, 'n fine!

Most failed, of course, but that is the nature of human societies.

What can be done to prevent this?

Abolish government for the most part, make sure all people are armed and trained for combat. Allow people to freely associate, let the good people gather together and be strong and prepared to withstand any attack by the forces of human evil which will inevitably join together to try and subjugate those who are good.

If the good are more they will prevail, if not it wasn't worth it in the first place.

Last Edited by Manu-K on 11/21/2012 05:44 PM

Freedom is something you TAKE, not what you get GIVEN by some oligarchical thug RICO organization, like "government".

Which is why you must defend the 2nd to the death!

Well you must agree with me then.

Oh, yes!

Too many cervezas, amigo!

Uno poco borracho!

I agree, the scum does rise to the top. Of course if there weren't any "top" they couldn't. If society was organized similar to the book Probability Broach by L. Neil Smith, the psychopaths would have a short lifespan instead of wielding power over people.

Jim Bell has, shall we say, an interesting idea.

note: there is a graphic novel as well of Probability Broach

Last Edited by s. d. butler on 11/21/2012 06:01 PM

Even realizing that whatever form of hierarchical institution to govern society results in psychopaths at the top abusing the masses, the masses still argue for more government power and less freedom for themselves. Can you realize how stupid the masses are? they deserve what they have after all.

Short answer: Yes.

I think the best way to protect against abuse from human nature is simply to acknowledge it. Many talk of unity nowadays and I think human nature is something that can be used to promote global tolerance and also to try and prevent bad stuff from happening in the future. I think anyone can possibly abuse power, but the best solution is to have the absolute best and brightest people at the helm. Just have to ask.... who can deliver positive things for humanity AND be at the top simultaneously? And who requires evil to remain at the top? It's like Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan or something. One had to knee cap the other to be the "best" and one didn't. Some have to resort to certain measures to make it to the top and some can be more honorable.

So we should shoot for the best to be our leaders and the best way to do that is to ask these people to present to us what their vision for the future actually is and a plan to get there. We always hear talk of budgets and taxes, and regulations, etc. and those are certainly valid, but they are almost always absent some context. If a person presented a vision for our future and then said we need these taxes, regulations, etc. to get there I think that would be refreshing for once instead of simply arguing about them in the abstract.

It seems to be a pure govt. vs. private sector struggle without any real direction other than who pulls the levers of power (private sector vs. govt.). But actually in practice it doesn't event matter because the elites are masters at using both govt. and corporations to advance their agenda. The only way we'll change the agenda and our future is by deciding what we want that future to be and then tailoring how our society works to achieve that. If we instead argue about tax rates and govt. size and such in the abstract, absent any real vision for the future then the agenda doesn't ever really change and we'll all probably lose out. The life extension tech and space ships, etc. will be only for the elite. If we address the agenda directly and ask for our future to look a certain way, that would be more useful.

Just think... If we vote for small govt. the elite will lever their corporate muscle. Vote for big govt., the elite will install their politicians to continue the agenda. If you want the agenda to change you have to confront it head on and install the best people who will be least likely to abuse power simply because they won't have to due to their skill set.

Having a vision for the future also helps us to ensure that power isn't abused. If a leader were to lay out a plan, then we could check the progress towards those goals from time to time and see whether or not they are being truthful to us about what they're trying to achieve. But now, we are meandering with no presented vision and so it is tough to gauge the intentions of our leaders because we can't check their actions with the world they say they want to create, because they don't tell us about that world. We need more meaningful leadership and more talented people at the helm and people who aren't afraid to set big goals and provide leadership. Yes, there will be some little people and morons who won't want it and will turn away, but they don't matter in the end, so we shouldn't feel compelled to sink to their level.

I think most will get it though. Everyone always says it's amazing how people will come together against a common enemy. But I think also for big goals you'd get the same thing. As long as the goals are real. Phony man made climate change or domestic extremism are the cynical power grab faux problems of the past. We need something real these days. It's at least worth a try. And then we wouldn't have to hear all about unity and such all the time absent any real meaningful thing to actually unite behind. Find some big goals, provide strong and transparent leadership and most people will come along. People need to be part of something greater than themselves. It's also a part of our human nature. The vision and the leadership are simply missing.

Flawed. Psychopaths will always be the best fit to present themselves to the masses as the right people.

Maybe, but if the "right" person is based on an actual agenda and the transparency is there to assure the agenda is in fact going forward and the person is not a charlatan, then it could work out.

AIIIIIIight, any other unreasonable condition required so that your thesis may make any sense? For that matter you could just basically say, if all people were wonderful and honest it could work. Well Duh....

Not to mention that I don't need or want a "leader". I can't be alone in this. Let those who want to be led have their "leader" and leave the rest of us alone.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Any power corrupts. "Checking" on "visions" will work about as good as trusting a coyote to guard the chickens.

Or about as good as being bound by "the chains of the Constitution". The Constitution and separation of powers hasn't worked as a check on psychopathic gubmint either.

This idea of the"best and brightest" to rule goes back at least to Aristotle. It doesn't work either. Even if you could somehow weed out the psychopaths.

McNamara was a "best and brightest" and he got a few million people killed and maimed. And that is just one of thousands of examples of a "best and brightest" self appointed or otherwise.

The best way forward is freedom and people will do the rest. Not central planning,not some flawed "leader" or group, and not some massive stupid bureaucracy.

Last Edited by s. d. butler on 11/21/2012 08:23 PM

Human beings are bags of pus and filth. Failed broken species shitting its own bed in a ruined world.

It could have been so awesome but we fucked it up.

Well, no they aren't. Read about what Copernicus did,then read about his dying words.

It still can be awesome,we just need to get rid of the psychopaths in power.

Everything in nature or in man has it's cycles & runs it's natural course not matter what our beliefs or fears tell us.


So if you need to feed the doom & gloom monster, listen to the Stones:


[link to mnhopkins.blogspot.se]

Yes.

Well, it's not about being a wonderful person. I acknowledged human nature and that all people can do bad things. The best you can hope for is at least some sort of positive vision and for people to back that vision up, whether they be morally pure or not, and that was basically my point. Have a vision, have people in power with the skills to do it, have checks and balances so they don't abuse power and have some transparency to be sure they are doing what we expect. It's not that hard, really. Everyone's flawed, but your defeatist attitude in the wake of that unstartling revelation is pointless and unproductive.

Yes.

Either a dictatorship will emerge by those who see problems ahead.

Or mindless self destruction until the end.

Some society's faster then others.

But ask yourself. Have a true free society ever existed? Has a true democracy ever existed?

Well, then if your nihilist world view is carried out you will be destroyed by those wielding powers you never could via technology. Perhaps we should just kill everyone with bombs and robots right now and you can be put out of your misery? You obviously have no hope for the future and no will to fight through human nature to try and make things actually work. It's in people's nature to organize in groups. It just depends which groups. I'm a loner, but I still have groups that I loosely belong too. I don't like the dogma that may be tied to such groups, but the loose affiliations and tribalisms that we all have are a part of being human. Whether or not you want those affiliations to be formalized in some leadership structure or another is a different matter, but people are tribal and leadership presents itself one way or another, even if it is informal and not backed by force. I'm not calling for global communism. But if we are all Americans or all humans or whatever and want a stake in the future and not simply to be run over by technology, then we have to address that head on and demand that technology be used in whatever ways we want. It may not always work that way, but it's worth a try.

You seem very nihilist in govt., but don't big corporations run govt. to some degree and are also capable of power abuse? Don't the same elitists wield power in both areas? I'm pretty sure that if the govt. was dissolved, the agenda would just continue and be continued by the corporations. That's why I'm saying you have to address the agenda head on. The govt. could be a check against corporate power and vice versa. That would be useful, but we don't have that now, and it gives the govt. a bad name. We also don't have useful leaders and that gives leadership a bad name cause we get jaded that everyone trying to lead is a liar and con man. Physical therapists lead their patients back to health. Coaches lead their teams to victory. The spiritual side of life sometimes demands leadership, even if it's pretty informal and non binding. It's cause those tribalisms in us all exist even if we don't want them to and demand to be quenched with some sense of purpose from time to time... a purpose greater than ourselves. We just have to choose wisely about who our leaders should be and be careful not to give any leader too much power or abandon our own individuality too much.

I think that if you want a stake in the future you have to demand it directly. You're putting ideology before what the future should actually look like. Strict ideological futures of no govt. or all govt. equal the same thing cause the agenda will be unchanged. Ideology is part of the puzzle but the elite have mastered playing both sides, rendering a purely ideological debate about govt. versus corporate power almost irrelevant cause they control both.

Human nature is a dark thing but it's acknowledgement could possibly save us. I've always believed that certain religious people and perhaps some statists have been so violent over history because they project evil onto others strictly. They don't scknowledge its existence within themselves and purge it in a healthy fashion, so it comes out somewhat uncontrollably and to the detriment of others. We have to get over perception and embrace reality. Some people will look evil cause of their habits or the way they look or their dark senses of humor, but perhaps they are just quenching their dark side in a healthy fashion. Meanwhile those that are all smiles might be the ones that would stab us in the back. Coming to terms with our duality as humans helps bring us all together and could actually help lead us to rise above the darker aspects of our humanity and be better. You seem to see it as a sure sign of our demise as a species. We'll see, I guess.

Only if you believe that only psychopaths possess abilities of persuasion and leadership. We're so used to snake oil in politics, I can see how you came to that conclusion, but outside politics, doctors lead patients to health, coaches lead athletes to victory, etc. Leadership is not the sign of s psycho. In fact, leadership is often required to achieve great things. It can make people rise above their lower instincts and embrace the best in themselves and each other. People want to believe in something greater and be a part of something greater than themselves. It's part of us. But now there is no leadership or vision. What does it mean to be American? What are the goals? I bet if the GOP had provided something meaningful to unite behind and been more moderate on social issues they'd have beaten Obama by 10+ points. That's the power of leadership, but they chose the status quo and got crushed. We also have a great opportunity to provide leadership on a national level and then pivot from that to a more international level. You hear lots of talk about global unity but there's nothing worthwhile provided to actually unite behind. Unity will eventually be achieved... but what will it be for... simply the fiat demands of the elite and some carbon tax scams? Or will it be something more real and more meaningful. It's important and presents a real opportunity for some with better intentions to take the reigns and lead us towards a better future. The people are waiting for it, and I actually think most are savvy enough these days that they'd be able to distinguish the real deal from the snake oil. That's perhaps a first in human history! Now is our time to provide some meaningful goals and leadership before it's too late.

We'd all like to think as scientists and engineers that we can just give people the facts and nothing but and they'd ask for us as their leaders. Life extension tech, spacecraft, sustainability without carbon taxes and surveillance. You'd think they'd be clamoring for our real solutions to real problems and kick the phonies to the curb. But they don't cause they get swayed by other things besides the facts. They vote on identity... are the leaders "like them?" They get persuaded by various rhetoric without greater vision or substance. So, people who have better things to offer humanity need to come down off their high horses a bit and be willing to give these people a little identity and persuasion. It's not ideal and we wish it wasn't the way things are... but that's just the way things are and it's not going to change. And if those of us who want things to be better in the future don't present that vision AND do it in a persuasive way that will get the masses excited then it's not going to happen. We need people with vision and skills, but also with leadership and persuasion abilities. And we can't be too proud to use all of those tools to get the people to demand our real problems and real solutions and kick the pretenders to the curb.

People will be saved by escaping the cycle like the founding fathers did. Gotta build those spaceships. But, people are also more savvy about the past and human nature so we can possibly stop ourselves before we destruct. We also have unprecedented tools of connectivity (internet, cellphones) to provide checks and balances on each other and especially those in power, so we've got more of a chance now than ever before... but will it be enough? Don't know. Maybe not.

You sound like my friend.

Space ships.

Id say as north americans we should have turned around and fought the entire world a LOOOONG TIME AGO.

Answer to your first question is obvious, at least to me. As for the second and third questions, it makes no difference whether power is in the hands of the public, i.e., in a democracy, or in the hands of elected representatives, i.e., in a democratic republic, because it is "human nature" that causes all the problems to begin with! Humans are not the highest "authority", though there are many who think they are in control of their future. Such is, as the evidence so amply suggests, pure folly!

I think the movie Prometheus provides some great insight into whether or not we have a future down the road. So, if there was a planet of advanced beings... would you try and steal their technology by force, or would you just peacefully ask for whatever they were willing to give and be on your way? Or, if you were the advanced species, and someone came looking for you, would you hand over some of the tech or would you see the people as a threat and attack?

I think the advanced beings would probably hand over some life extension tech and spaceship tech, etc., and some body modifications, but perhaps they would refuse to modify your brain to make it as smart as their own cause they'd undermine their own advantage over you. I personally think that the more advanced beings would be less likely to attack the visitors than the visitors would be to attack them. The advanced beings have the upper hand, so they don't need to see you as a threat. But the visitors would be so tempted to try and get access to the technology cause who doesn't want to live really long and have superpowers? So, maybe that's the binary on whether we survive... will those who have lesser tech always try and steal greater tech from those who have it? Or, will those with greater tech always be tempted to use it against those who don't?

I think there's hope and you're not going to see a highlander like reality were the Universe contains only one person. But will freedom survive, or will the more advanced races always expand through space conquering other races either by force or through shiftier tactics, perhaps equivalent to today's carbon taxes or debt based monetary systems? Thoughts?

Typical human response. By doing something such as sexual promiscuity with many partners, be it bisexual or transexual, which has resulted in rampant STD transmission in society and AIDS, for instance, is this not "endangering others"? Your human logic is fatally flawed! Its Lucifer's libertarian logic! "Do what thou will..."!