Controversial? Praise the rule of few!

[Egeides]

SHORT VERSION: Read the short version + parts you like

EdricO thought we lacked controversies, so here's an effort. Someone I thought had an open mind never wrote me again after this. Seems overblown to me, but maybe it's controversial ;)

Totalitarianism/name-it is not bad by default, especially if we look at Mankind over an infinite time-span. It is functional as much as other systems but has its energy oriented with different potential/force balance. No empty parlementarian debates with no content, but actual action with its risks. This, from the most theoretical angle, plunges in very practical matters: The relation to the "empiric"/practical and "rational"/ideal is different on the field.

So, do you think that there exists times when the rule of few is more suitable? What I bring tends to say it might well be possible.

Topic:

The role of rational and empiric in human systems, bringing theoretical surprisingly close to practical matters.

BASICS- Three angles to Mankind's goal:

- Apply long term over the imperatives of the short

- Rational over the imperative of the empiric

- Practically, for example, it would mean to bring "human-enhancing" technology' growth rates high, then dwarfing eugenic effects (and therefore models). Therefore, the then more limiting empiric is a lesser variable in any equation.

It is a practical goal to be applied, yet applied from thinking the empirical (circular, potentially vicious/virtuous). If a long-term move gives 100 years, it means that there are 100 years to research ways to bring the system to last 500 years more.

It is again quite empiric a goal to say that survival is then to be extended towards the infinite.

But the world is not always ideal, and there can lack energy to carry every given goal. Once instaured, the realm of empiricism will demand solid empiric proofs to which it is then used to. If park chair designers get to put plastic legs, it's pointless to whine when someone too heavy sits on it: it should have been managed. The drama is not the heavy person but already occured before. Let there be other designers stopping the whole from getting even weaker.

CASE 1- Ideas and humans using them, "

[Dude_Doc]

In theory no social/political system could be bad - it is humans that makes them bad, or rather, the power they get in that system. I'd say there are times where we would need a leader, and when the leaders must follow the will of the people. But should totalitarianism be permanent (if that is your question), then no. I've interwieved a guy from the new Swedish party "Pirateparty" (www.piratpartiet.se - a party that is pro-cyberpiracy (P2P) and anti-survelliance), and he said something like this:

"When the system keeps everything locked up and away from people, when survelliance is everywhere and people have a list of things they can do - progress stops, society stops."

He means that progress has evolved through civil disobidience, like the black people's movement in America, the green movement in the 1980's and so on. He also says that if society becomes a complete police-state (or, "surelliance state") then their governments will put up a list of things they can do, and if they break them they'll go to prison, or be punished. As long as we have the power to go against our state and the corporations we have the power to change society. When our every move is tracked that progress will stop, and so will humanity.

(Was that an answer to your question :D ?)

[Egeides]

Well you bring your own answer :)

SHORT VERSION:

You're touching topics I had left blank, so I guess... here's part 2: systems fail because of bad people AND competence issues, freedom is in limited supplies, and not all disobedience/critique is as useful.

LONG VERSION:

In theory no social/political system could be bad - it is humans that makes them bad

- Not only bad humans make systems bad, but bad system ways can also bring crap by bad competence management.

Good people can also fail; so I think that the best system is the one with ways limiting both bad and incompetent people from "power" (power to manage, power to build a bridge...). It's about managing "freedom" (capacity to do).

- Freedom is not absolute in our physical world. For example, money and its rules can limit my "right of expression" just as legislation. There are no infinite supplies around.

"Everyone can do everything" (total/absolute freedom) is an utopy  as one person rams into another to get rights, money... So where is each person's limit? Some systems went too close to absolute freedom as a pillar, while many in the past played on the slippery slopes of indiscriminate power. I gave three points in the basics, and they are actually a promotion of development and not a hindrance of it... even when it means to not be free to do something first of all. Now, in a dynamic view every system has a corresponding use, so a system having (usually demagogic) ideals of total freedom might be adapted too in some special cases... like with ants, bees, or computers within a network ;D

- Disobedience is also a case of having freedom.

Someone always puts the limits and I would see it as better put if not established arbitrarily or consequential as de facto. I am a great believer in Ghandi, yet the point is to define Ghandi within what we know of things. Which cases should be let free: those not using force at all, those with few nutcases, those with a few "Black Block" style groups, those throwing molotov? Radical elements, even few, are thus often quite useful for totalitarians searching a reason to use force.

- Accepting disagreeing views is very important though. But which way of disagreeing was useful throughout history?

[T]he last move of a failing enterprise is to fire all those who want change. [From then on,] the forces pushing change will all come from the outside. Inside, we will see only denial and resistance, in equal measure. The downward spiral will accelerate.

- The New Republic, http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w060227&s=stuntz022706

Sclerosis of views (non-dynamic) comes by lacking some parts, and brings unstability exactly where are slippery slopes. Thus me being against promoting democracy by default, with its static view with "freedom" absolutely promoted as it sees little of the other pragmatic parts. Dangerous.

Critiques are beneficial, but as much as they are organized. Thus the importance of methodology (a system in itself), regulating in the best way possible the flow of information. Otherwise, there is always some organization, but not as good as if it is encouraged by a system. But what happens if there isn't such a system of rejuveneration? Once the top which directed is troubled, the rest follows in a big "Ponzi scheme".

- As for your quote in particular, what I wrote does not necessarily:

Propose permanent totalitarianism, but says that "rule of few" is not to be excluded by default. Formed engineers can mean lesser need of inspect with the best ones for example. True a contrario ("opposite").

Say wether or not totalitarianism should support cyber-piracy or copyright. Might, might not. Total does mean control from fewer, thus transfer of freedom in the immediate (not necessarily less on the longer term, as efficiency can also buy some freedom as a value: teaching how to fish can be better than giving a fish).

Imply wether or not the power should be held by Pirateparty ;)

[Dude_Doc]

"Everyone can do everything" (total/absolute freedom) is an utopy  as one person rams into another to get rights, money...

Well, of course no one can do everything in our time, but if the world looked different, if we lived to help each other, not to earn as much money as we can, then such a utopic future is possible.

Imply wether or not the power should be held by Pirateparty.

In any case, if the party ends up in the parliment it will be the very first one to do so in Swedish history. If you ask me, then I believe in people gaining their freedom in steps. In the 1960's it was the equality movement, then in the 1980's it was the green movement, now we have the pirate movement plus the very fundamental question of ownership, corporate power and so on.

(I recommend you see the movie "The Corporation".)