Don't make me draft a bill on your narrow ass.

[twfarlan]

Hmm. Philosophical conundrum. In bronxelf_ag001's journal, I said the following:

After I take over the world, remind me to tell the people who start campaigns to have the government ban things they don't personally like to shut the hell up, please.Now, do you see the conundrum into which I have entered? If I as the government tell these people to shut up, then

Comments

[teddywolf]

Only if absolute power is wielded with wisdom, otherwise known as a check-and-balance.

[twfarlan]

Power shared isn't absolute, by the definition I'm using. The office of the Chief Executive of the United States does not wield absolute power, no matter how much the current President wishes that to be so. The power of that office is checked; it has limits and thus is not absolute

[teddywolf]

Wisdom is knowing which ripples to stop, and when. Frequently it's fine to let things go to their natural conclusions instead of interfering; note the number of flame-wars that escalate owing to extra voices involved and compare it to the number that die down because of the extra voices involved.

Still, there are times when it is wise to step in and stop things. A baby falling on his head is not a good thing. Nor is a cat shitting on your hardwood floor. Bear in mind that most any food you use heat to cook has a good temperature, but only for a certain amount of time.

Not all ripples are good. If stopping the ripples would only be worse, you hunker down. If stopping the ripples isn't as bad, well, try to stop them.

[twfarlan]

You can't stop ripples, though. The attempt simply causes more ripples, in every direction. The action creates more ripples than it stops.

A cat shitting on the floor is a sign of another problem. The catbox is unusable, the cat is ill, the cat is upset and finds this the only method by which it can communicate with the shaven apes, whatever. It was a choice to have a cat in a house with hardwood floors in the first place. You clean up the shit and try to figure out why the cat did it. It's an attempt to stop a ripple rather than letting it work itself out, but the analogy doesn't hold together well at this point.

You can't please everyone. Knowing who to displease and by how much is perhaps the sign of a wise governor. What this tells me, though, is that I would not make a wise autocrat. Until I can stop fearing what a mess I'd make, I'm better off being powerless.

[theamaranth]

I'd be bowing to the pressure of the minority to bring down pressure from the government on something that minority position doesn't like.

no. you would be protecting peoples' rights by not letting the majority rule over those who are different.

that is a good thing, no matter who is pissed off. they'll get over it, just like white people got over blacks not being slaves, and men got over women being able to vote and wear pants (in a sense, i mean, at least legally in most places!)

[twfarlan]

Let the sheep be happy with their fleecing, for it isn't like they're given a choice.

Tell me how to reconcile a belief that all people should be left to live their lives as they choose with the position that most people are too stupid to be left to their own devices. Tell me how to tell the difference between the enlightened adult and a person who happens to agree with what my elitist self calls "enlightened and responsible." Do those things, and I can accept the position of Tyrant. Otherwise, I'm mired.

[theamaranth]

Tell me how to reconcile a belief that all people should be left to live their lives as they choose with the position that most people are too stupid to be left to their own devices.

improve education in the worst places. work towards ending poverty through neighborhood education programs and college funds (use corporations- they'll do anything for a tax break). curtail 'outsourcing' so americans can have good jobs rather than just flip burgers for a life or ring up groceries. give poor/stupid people more opportunities through those methods, so hopefully they can learn to live their lives. also put war money into other areas - homeless shelters and soup kitchens, start a volunteerism program for tax breaks to the individual citizen. the more people who are there to help, the less needy people there will soon be.

Tell me how to tell the difference between the enlightened adult and a person who happens to agree with what my elitist self calls "enlightened and responsible." an englightened person will have the live and let live

[twfarlan]

Forcing people to be educated when they fear and revile the educated isn't letting them live as they like. It's forcing them down a path they consider the road to hell.

Would an enlightened person with a live and let live philosophy accept a position of power that would guarantee having to interfere with people's lives on a daily basis? Just because I think I know what's best does not make me correct. Who dies to make me God?

[nsingman]

Lord Acton's warnings come to mind.

At the risk of splitting hairs, there is a difference between telling people to shut up and ordering them to do so, or if that's too finely split, there's a difference between telling people to shut up and punishing them if they don't.

No one who wants to rule the world, or even order around another person (and I'm not talking about consensual S&M or B&D, but political milieux), should be able to do so (they're already intrinsically flawed merely in having such a warped desire). And no one should be forced to do things they don't want to do. Ergo, since only those who don't want to rule people should be able to, but shouldn't be forced to, no one should ever rule anyone. :-)

[twfarlan]

It isn't splitting hairs when the distinction is fine but important.

When you are the only recourse, telling someone to shut up is functionally the same as ordering them to shut up. In a representative government, that group can campaign to choose new representatives who will listen to their position, yes. When dealing with an autocrat, the only alternatives of those to whom the government will not listen are acceptance or revolt.

I want to rule the world because I think I could do a better job of it than the people who currently actually do rule. Then again, I'm sure some of them think the same thing. The problem isn't necessarily that people who want to be in a position to make decisions are intrinsically flawed. The problem is that some of the people getting to those positions are lying as to their motives and seek the power with the intent to abuse it for their own betterment. I'd hate the bullshit associated with being in charge, but I'd still do it if it meant having the chance to set things right.

[acelightning]

when people start hollering for something to be banned, you (as absolute ruler) don't ban their protests, nor do you even tell them to shut up. you simply ignore them, and make it abundantly clear that any such protests will always be ignored. they have the freedom to holler all they want to... it's just not going to change anything.

overally, theamaranth is on the right track here. provide educational opportunities, employment, health care, etc. - but don't make them compulsory. or at least not beyond the point where a certain minimum requirement is necessary for the good of the entire population (e.g., preventing the spread of contagious diseases). absolute power is best wielded with a light hand, most of the time.

[twfarlan]

Ace, I consider education to be a minimum requirement for the good of the entire society, and I have a high standard that I consider the minimum acceptible level. Where do I go from there? I'm not willing to let people go on being stupid, so how do I reconcile that with letting people live their own lives?

If I am the ultimate authority and I make it known that I will ignore any mention of topic X, then I ensure that those who are passionate about topic X will revolt. When government closes off debate (and saying that you will not consider a topic IS shutting it down), you create a revolution.

If I had power, I'd abuse it. It's not in my nature to let people do things that I think are stupid, and yet I'm trying to live by the maxim of live and let live, whatever works. If someone is stupid and does something stupid that affects other people, I'm going to want to do something to stop them. Given the power to enforce my wishes, I'll do just that... and you know how broadly I can apply the word "stupid."

[acelightning]

education - make your minimum standard available, but not compulsory. as discussed above, have standardized testing. if a homeschooled individual is able to pass the test, then they receive the equivalent of a high school diploma or GED, same as the people who passed the test because they availed themselves of public education. anyone who doesn't pass the test, regardless of where they were educated, doesn't get the certificate. and how many employers are going to hire anyone who can't pass a minimum-compentency test?

dissent - provide a structured process for changing the law, similar to the way the US constitution can be amended. hollering in protest isn't going to directly change anything, but it might have some influence on the amendment process. reasoned debate might have more influence.

(of course, on a personal level, i'm in favor of outlawing stupidity altogether... and i think you know how broad my definition of "stupidity" is, too.)

[twfarlan]

Ace, in my hypothetical example, if I'm the ultimate authority, then the only way to change the law is to convince me to change it. If I announce that I will not hear arguments against a certain position, then I have effectively silenced the only channel available.

What is the point of having a minimum education standard if you're not going to compel people to reach it? I suppose we already live in that system, though, since grade school is compulsory and at least attendance of high school up to a certain age is required, though not completion of that. Look what a mess we're in, where high school certification hardly means anything. As for standardized testing, you've surely heard the arguments against that. How do you set the standards? How do you ensure neutrality of content? How do you ensure that everyone has equal access in terms of quality of education? How do you level the playing field when variation in quality is found?