Allowing "Free Will" free reign results in anything but.

Something I've known for years, but which was brought back to me reading of the prank "shock treatments" and the "McDonalds strip search caller" is how readily some (60%) people subsume their will to the voice of authority.

On our side of the aisle the freedom to choose is considered to be one of the cornerstones of progressive/liberal politics. It's a stone all right, but it's a millstone not a cornerstone. Why? Because 60% of people DO NOT WANT IT and are psychologically incapable of exercising it when given it.

They want to be told what to do. They NEED to be told what to do.

It is the reason organised religion has been so successful over the centuries.

Sixty percent of people are sheep, and if we refuse to be sheepdogs, then the wolves will have their way.

Baaa bbaaa baaa."

:rofl:

At a deep, core level the difference between Republicans and us is that they believe precisely what you say, that there is a natural heirarchy in people, and that some yearn to be sheep while only a minority has the stuff it takes to be sheep dogs. As a Democrat, I have to believe that with the right opportunity, education, whatever, all people will strive for greatness and freedom.

We 40%ers know the delicious (and terrifying) feeling of freedom that comes with self determination and acknowledging responsibility for one's own actions. We find it difficult, if not impossible, to contemplate the simple fact, that the other 60% do not want those feelings. They want simplicity, they want comfort, they DO NOT WANT responsibility.

Why is it that the meme: "It is not your fault. It is your (Serpent/Devil/Shaitan) flawed human human nature. Redemption may only be found through the intercession of a higher power." is so powerful?


Perhaps you are right in saying that every person has what it takes to be their own sheepdog and that with appropriate education/training this ability can be brought to the fore. But how are you/we going to bring that ability out in the face of determined opposition by the "wolves" if we refuse to speak the only language they understand. (Animal behaviourists stay out of it please. I know the analogy is not a very apt one, but it's the one that language gives me.) For those who believe that might makes right, any attempt to negotiate/reason with them only reinforces their belief. Negotiation can only come from a position of weakness, because if you had the ability to enforce your will then you surely would.

And having acceded the possibility that you might be correct in your belief, I have to say that I believe you're full of it. (No offense intended.)

It might be possible to "force"/educate people to act against their nature, but it is a very artificial and fragile edifice that we construct when in actuality we manage to be successful. And it's one that can be brought down in the blink of an eye if it is not constantly maintained with enormous and unrelenting effort.

Tribalism lies at the very core of our being, it is our base state. We express it constantly: In our choice of sporting teams; street gangs; Freemasonry; Which church; and so on. We NEED a place to belong, because deep down, so deep that few of us know that we know it, we know that "a man alone" is ultimately a dead man.

What it sounds like you're saying is that the majority of people don't want to take responsibility for their state, so they end up getting herded around by others who do take responsibility for matters. You point out the extent to which FDR did this (and I agree with that observation)

I think there is a truth in what you are saying to the extent it describes the world as it is but the real question is to what extent does it describe the world as it should be FDR is a good example, because he did use "sheep dog" like tactics, but he used them in a way that ended up empowering "the common man" through social programs, education etc. He tried to empower individuals to be the best that they can be, and arranged their activities into structures that benifitted them collectively. So he did work for what I'm saying, but he pursued it as an ideal, even if it was not, when he started, a reality.

And I think that's as it should be. The problem with the "Ubermensch" kind of thinking, which asserts that this elite takes responsibility for the idiotic masses, is that its founded in a dangerous arrogance which often leads them to do retarded things, usually taking covert action to protect the "sheep" against something which is actually a non threat, like Hitler's destruction of the jews, to liberate the German people from a jewish conspiracy which did not exist. Its good to remember sometimes that we are ALL a little stupid...

Just as we can force/train animals to act against their nature, it is indeed possible to make people shoulder the yoke of responsibility, but it sits uneasily upon their shoulders and they WILL throw it down at the first opportunity.

Absent constant forcing impetus, human beings will naturally and inevitably revert to their basic tribal nature. And even when forced to be "good socially aware citizens", we simply transfer our "need to belong" to some other (hopefully benign) entity.

FDR did not as much "empower the common man" as he dis-empowered those who would prey upon him. He put those many social reforms between the wolves and the door. And shortsightedly, the common man fearfully sacrifices freedom for the promised illusion of safety; He greedily sacrifices long term security for immediate short term gain; He willingly walks back into his cell and after locking the door, hands the key to his gaolers with a heartfelt sigh of relief. There is nothing so frightening as absolute freedom. Freedom to succeed on ones own merit comes with the freedom to fail utterly. Far better to hitch onto the shirttails of "A man who is going somewhere." and share in his success.

This from a Peanuts strip pretty much sums up our problem: (Working from memory, so the words might not be quite right.)

Lucy: The problem with you Charlie Brown is that you are not a self actualizing person.
CB: Can I become a self actualizing person?
Lucy: Not a chance. Five cents please.

The problem with the there should be no "Ubermensch" kind of thinking, is that if those of us who have the ability to lead/herd compassionately, absolve ourselves of our responsibility to do so, then we leave the "flock" wide open to the depredation of the wolves.

By self righteously excluding ourselves from the ranks of the (dirty word) elite, we ensure that the empowered elite is made up solely of those who embody the worst of what humanity has to offer, rather than the best.

You and I don't like locking people up, so we hand the keys to the prison to small minded men driven by a desire to dominate.
We don't like fighting, so we leave the fighting to those who want to fight. Young men, driven by a biological imperative to demonstrate their fitness to breed.

Even when you lambaste Hitler, you accidentally fall into his trap by using his words to speak of a fictitious "liberation". He unified the "sheeple" of Germany behind him, against the non-threat, in order to forge for himself a tool of world domination. And he used the "tribal imperative" and natural xenophobia to create that unity. Just as today the PNAC crowd used the same "tribal imperative" and xenophobia to empower themselves post 9-11. And we can only thank our lucky stars that they are so bloody inept at it. Hitler succeeded where they are failing, because unlike them, he DID know what it was like to he holding the shitty end of the stick. It gave him enough empathy with the common man to properly speak to their fears and prejudices.

What would the world be like today if George Bush had Hitler's insight?

Which is the more dangerous (and egregious) arrogance? That people must be led to do what is best for them, even in the face of their own opposition; or
That they deserve what befalls them, because they refuse to pick themselves up by their own bootstraps.

and I'd like to respond, but I have to sleep now for work tomorrow. Look for my response tomorrow night if you are interested/around.

Anyway, I wanted to at least respond to this post, because it raises some serious questions. The aspect about "not wanting to fight" so we let others do it, and not wanting to lock people up is absolutely true, 100% true. The world is where it is today because good people have done far too little, and it simply must change if civilization is going to avoid collapse, let alone move forward.

That said, I can truly also say that I worry about this regularly, and its constantly in the back of my mind. The relentless of advance of technology combined with sustainability threats needs to be brought under control, or else an infinitude of crazy bad things can happen.

But to your first comments: Yes, we are apes. We can see the world in terms of genes and memes and the interlocking mathematical structures thereof, and in this context we can see how silly, how predictable we are. Sex and fighting are excellent examples. The insane byzantine justifications that we give ourselves and others just for a shot at getting naked with a mate are pretty stunning, for example. Yet when its all said in done its about two primates copulating, as primates always have. I feel like so much of our "victorian" attitude is just to sheild our minds from the cognitive dissonance of this act, same with fighting.

And there is a lot of cognitive dissonance, not just to sex and fighting but to all of it. Its strange to those of us who have the intellectual capacity to really see the human animal, yet who also ARE the human animal: Even in knowing that my responses are primate, I am just as easily prone to them, and the emotions are just as real as with anybody elses. So there's this duality, this difficult aspect of ourselves to accept. But we have to find a way I believe, and fast.

If you look at many of the religion memes, and some other memes which condition us morally, then you'll see how often the deny the primate nature, prefering to look at us as a fallen angel rather than a risen ape, which is understandable given our own experiences of our intellect and emotions etc. Its worthy of noting because that's exactly what we can do if we look at everybody else in the world as being apes and ourselves as being something distict, be it through personal responsibility or anything else. One thing you can find cults and religions and so forth doing all over the world is denying that certain groups of people have souls.

So when somebody gets up and starts calling them all irrational while being equally in denial of their own programming, its good for nobody. This doesn't mean that we can't take responsibility and control, just that we have to be aware of our own programming, our own memes, and our own apeish and angelic nature.

I think Bob Dylan said "Everybody has to bow down to something", and I think its true. We all are limited by our natures, and have to at some point, accept a moral authority that is higher than us something to give our lives for...Because we all do it whether we recognize it or not. It doesn't have to be religious, but we need to figure out what its all for and be willing to sacrifice for that. I think the tough part may be that to make the changes that need to be made, we may all have to do it ourselves, and that's the part that doesn't come easy.

Because we insist on believing that there is a "higher state" to regain, we also find ourselves defining "angel" as our base state of being. Thus the "goodly" set themselves up for failure time and time again.

There is no "angelic nature". That is dangerous, woolly and wishful thinking. Yes "angelic disposition" may exist, but when it manifests, it is a quality of the individual, not the species.

Those of us who would harm others for personal gain, project the worst of ourselves onto others, and thus give ourselves permission to "hit back" preemptively. To do what we wish without remorse. And conversely the good amongst us, look to awaken that angel which lies within us all, and thus, time and time again, let the wolves off with a waggling finger and an admonition to "do better".

Whilst any significant number of us continue to believe in the "Angel" there is no and can be, no way to "repair" the human condition, because we keep looking for a way to recover that which never existed.

If there is a solution, that solution is to accept that the "beast" is present in each and every one of us and if an individual refuses to master that beast, then it falls upon all who have the capacity to confront the beast when it shows itself. Not with an appeal to that which is not there, but by exercising our mastery of our own personal "beast", setting it free in all its savagery in defense of ourselves (or of the defenseless) and then calling it to heel when its task is done.

...trying to repair what was never initially there, that is indeed a problem. But you also state that goodness is a quality of the individual, which personal experience contradicts. I myself have done both very evil and very good things, so I MUST believe that I am not totally evil, that I can change whatever wicked ways I have had in the past, because without that belief I don't allow myself room for any moral improvement or growth at all! I need to be believe that I can can change, to allow myself to "master my beast" so to speak, which is an important part of not being a "wolf" myself.

So while much of what you say about the state of affairs of the world I AGREE with, I'm also saying it can't all be laid at the feet of the individual...If we do so we risk taking into account how people change, and they do.

That is what it is to be to be human. Just finished watching Hogfather. Damn Terry has a way of screwing with people's arguments.

(AND I want my copy of SMALL GODS back whoever 1/2 inched it.)

Terry Pratchett should be required reading for all students. He has a way of making us see what is real by elevating utter unreality to solidity.



Despite my Peanut's quote, I don't actually deny the possibility of self improvement. Or it's opposite. But self improvement is just that. Improvement: Rising above the inner ape. Not regaining lost ground as we have already agreed.

Further, "Goodness" and morality are social qualities, not biological. The species only cares for what works to ensure it's continuation into the next generation.

Good and Evil are abstract and relative terms. Ill fitting labels for qualities that mean very little in the never ending quest for a full belly and empty scrotum.

Good and Evil are abstract and relative terms. Ill fitting labels for qualities that mean very little in the never ending quest for a full belly and empty scrotum.

It sounds like you don't take the terms good and evil seriously....So why do you have any problems? Why the complaints about anything that's going on? Where are your values of good and bad, right action and wrong action, and where do they come from?

True sin lies in hurting others unnecessarily. I found that a long time ago in Robert Heinlein's book Time Enough for Love and it pretty much covers it for me. Of course determining whether or not harm is or is not necessary can be somewhat problematical and is always up for debate by the receiving party.

I take good and evil very seriously. I simply recognise that what is good and evil may vary significantly with circumstances. Like: Is it good or evil to kill a compulsive eater in a situation when stranded with limited food supplies?

The ten commandments and the precepts of Christ (excluding the one specifically to do with God and worship) are reasonable rules for general use.

determining harm is indeed tough, especially in this world where local actions can have distant or even global consequences.

Speaking of which, I'll tell you what I wish. I wish scientists would get a little tougher in the area of demanding control. We've got this situation where they are telling the world about dangerous possibilities, and power isn't listening, or they are, and don't care. We have a government structure where the best scientific minds are chugging away at DARPA or whatever on what they ask, all to build killing machines which will be directed by a man who can't pronounce "nuclear". I say its time to get the great minds a little closer to the top.

I would have to characterise him as a sheepdog par-excellence.

It's the reason any organization has been so successful over the centuries, be it religion, the state, the corporation, etc.

"Because 60% of people DO NOT WANT IT and are psychologically incapable of exercising it when given it."

Technically not wanting it would be exercising the choice. Also, if you're given freedom, then you're starting point is authority. Seeing how corporations and governments basically own everything in one way or another, what choice is there? Your number might actually be a little higher than 60%.

"Sixty percent of people are sheep, and if we refuse to be sheepdogs, then the wolves will have their way."

So you want to take advantage in the submission of 60% of the population? Yeah, you'd be the sheepdog, but a sheepdog is only a sheepdog because sheep are put into fenced in areas to get the maximum production from them(sound familiar?). If you know what you're doing, obviously you could pull it off. They wouldn't even put up a fight, like most of don't every single day.

Like O'Brien said to Winston;

"Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating? It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery and torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less more more merciless as it refines itself. Progress in our world will be progress towards more pain. The old civilizations claimed that they were founded on love and justice. Ours is founded upon hatred. In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. Everything else we shall destroy---everything."

"They want to be told what to do. They NEED to be told what to do."

That sounds more like the wolf than the sheepdog. Also Jack Nicholson.

This is an ironic way to comment on the question of free will, but I think the conflict between individuality and group identity is built into us. I'll bet we have genes that tell us to "follow the leader"--and another set of genes that tell us to resist the herd. Nature is very mysterious in her ways.

The public lynching of whistleblowers or anyone who will not 'conform' to some en vogue social ‘norm’ supports the notion of the futility in ‘fighting city hall’.