IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
1yr ago·Edited 1yr ago
So as I understand your argument is:
Knowing more things leads to more efficient outcomes
Central organizations are well intentioned
Therefore Central organizations knowing more things leads to better outcomes
Let us for a moment assume this is correct.
Better outcomes for whom? You assume, incorrectly that the interests of individuals and organizations are aligned, when nothing could be further from the truth. It could very well be in the interest of the organization you work for or live in the jurisdiction of for you to be a slave of them, which I don't believe would be in your interest.
You propose more power be given to organizations. What makes you think it will be used to improve outcomes for anybody but those organizations?
A fascist would here simply stand by the idea only the welfare of organizations matter. But fascism is an insane ideology that holds the existence of the individual is mental illness.
This argument is not necessary because your premise is flawed.
Central organizations are not well intentioned. They, in fact, do not have the ability to be well intentioned and are necessarily pushing for worse outcomes by virtue of their existence.
An organization does not wish to accomplish any goals, it wishes to survive and grow in size. This means that it has, to a degree, to pretend to accomplish a goal to convince people to let it live and give it ressources. Any power given to it will be used to service this pretending only if it is absolutely necessary and all the rest goes to growing it's influence. As has happened to every organization throughout history, because the game theory of power requires it.
Organizations unfortunately have to exist despite these deadly flaws because their pretending to care about something scales, and individual conviction does not.
But any power given to them at the expense of humans is just one more step down towards the inevitable goal of all human power structures: totalitarianism. That state where the one power manages to absorb all competition and wins the ultimate prize of politics. And then proceeds to destroy itself because it has to handle an infinitely complex world with finite information.
As you know this process usually involves millions of deaths, and people aren't too keen on it. Hence we've invented guidelines as to when power should stop being given to organizations. These are commonly called "rights" and they include privacy because we've noticed that learning all about a person's life gives organizations such a tremendous power over humans that the slide to total control is easy to see from there.
I hence enjoin you to renounce this silly idea, lest you be enslaved and murdered by systems that seek to make sure your thoughts are what they want.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
So as I understand your argument is:
Knowing more things leads to more efficient outcomes
Central organizations are well intentioned
Therefore Central organizations knowing more things leads to better outcomes
Let us for a moment assume this is correct.
Better outcomes for whom? You assume, incorrectly that the interests of individuals and organizations are aligned, when nothing could be further from the truth. It could very well be in the interest of the organization you work for or live in the jurisdiction of for you to be a slave of them, which I don't believe would be in your interest.
You propose more power be given to organizations. What makes you think it will be used to improve outcomes for anybody but those organizations?
A fascist would here simply stand by the idea only the welfare of organizations matter. But fascism is an insane ideology that holds the existence of the individual is mental illness.
This argument is not necessary because your premise is flawed.
Central organizations are not well intentioned. They, in fact, do not have the ability to be well intentioned and are necessarily pushing for worse outcomes by virtue of their existence.
An organization does not wish to accomplish any goals, it wishes to survive and grow in size. This means that it has, to a degree, to pretend to accomplish a goal to convince people to let it live and give it ressources. Any power given to it will be used to service this pretending only if it is absolutely necessary and all the rest goes to growing it's influence. As has happened to every organization throughout history, because the game theory of power requires it.
Organizations unfortunately have to exist despite these deadly flaws because their pretending to care about something scales, and individual conviction does not.
But any power given to them at the expense of humans is just one more step down towards the inevitable goal of all human power structures: totalitarianism. That state where the one power manages to absorb all competition and wins the ultimate prize of politics. And then proceeds to destroy itself because it has to handle an infinitely complex world with finite information.
As you know this process usually involves millions of deaths, and people aren't too keen on it. Hence we've invented guidelines as to when power should stop being given to organizations. These are commonly called "rights" and they include privacy because we've noticed that learning all about a person's life gives organizations such a tremendous power over humans that the slide to total control is easy to see from there.
I hence enjoin you to renounce this silly idea, lest you be enslaved and murdered by systems that seek to make sure your thoughts are what they want.
More options
Context Copy link