Thoreau Root
From Metagovernment - Government of, by, and for all the people
Vilfredo Goes To Athens (as you know) is a website that supports asking questions and then seeking consensus regarding answers. The question below was asked on that website, and below the question are answers that have been proposed.
This wikipage is being commandeered for use as a "wikiforum" to enable participants to seek consensus more quickly and interactively than the Vilfredo Goes To Athens site enables.
Whenever questions or comments occur to you as you are reading, please insert them directly into this page, at the most appropriate spot (not just at the bottom -- general comments can go at the bottom, or on the talk page). Also it would be helpful to maybe paint your note with a pretty color, to distinguish it from surrounding text. Also, whenever you see a way to consolidate or clean up the text (anyone's text), to make the wikipage more readable and interesting for new readers, by all means do so. Anything we can do to make this wikipage generally useful would be good. To me, the question seems important enough to try to inspire interest in it. (NedC 19:45, 6 June 2011 (EDT))
Question: What is the Primary Root of current social, political and economic problems?
For every thousand hacking at the leaves of evil, there is one striking at the root. − Henry David Thoreau
("Evil" is not the emphasis here; "root" is the emphasis. There are wise sources that suggest that evil does not exist, and with good reason. Also, let us allow that there may be multiple roots, so that the question seeks the "primary" root.)
Proposal 1978: The root is the existence of Power over Other People ("POOP").
The Two Paths
Some say (**) that there are two paths that can lead individuals to enlightment, both equally valid:
The aims and methods of these two paths are in many ways opposite.
The Service-To-Self Social System
The service-to-self social system has an elite. For those in the elite, acquiring ever more "Power Over Other People" ("POOP") is the central aim. So far as possible, all organizations within the social system are hierarchically ordered, with the underlings "just following orders" of those "above". Those at the tops of the hierarchical organizations are then controlled (by the highest, hidden elite) by informal means (bribery, blackmail, extortion, etc.). Any social, political, or economic arrangement that concentrates power will be adopted as part of the social system. Any arrangement that disperses power will be neutralized, overridden and replaced. Any means available to weaken, confuse, dumb down, make dependent or divide the general population will be employed. It's all just business, very straightforward from the perspective of the central aim.(**)
Pretty much all the social systems that currently exist are variations of the service-to-self theme. The means through which populations can be "enslaved by their own free will" have at this point been very successfully implemented here on Earth (or so it seems). For example, compulsory schooling of young children by The State is not just accepted, but indeed embraced and celebrated by populations throughout the world.(**)
Striking At The Root
Toward A Service-To-Others Social System
We must start by discussing the notion of defensive action. It's a tough call: on the one hand, accepting whatever comes is very important as part of following the service-to-others path; on the other hand, standing by while entire populations are enslaved and the biosphere destroyed is not always and necessarily the best way to be of service to others.
Numerous attempts have been made over the millennia to introduce teachings and technologies intended to encourage, guide, and facilitate spiritual evolution along the service-to-others path. In each case that the teachings and technologies have been introduced into populations already "under the thumb" of service-to-self social systems, the teachings and technologies have been co-opted by the existing elite, distorted as necessary, and employed to further distinguish and empower the elite, and to further enslave and disempower the general population. This outcome has in many cases come as a surprise to those not wise in the ways of service-to-self individuals and social systems.
What would it take to have a service-to-others social system?
The Prime Directive
Just as service-to-self social systems have a Prime Directive (to acquire ever more "Power Over Other People"), so also must any service-to-others social system have as its Prime Directive the opposite: a service-to-others social system must be explicitly, intentionally designed to eliminate "Power Over Other People" in every way possible. By design, there must be no concentrations of power entailed, caused, or permitted within the social system.
The reason for this is simple. It does not matter through what means power is initially concentrated (through political, criminal, police, military, economic, financial, religious, or whatever other means) -- the end result will always be the same because power is fungible: any form of concentrated power can be used to acquire more power of any kind. As soon as there is any concentration of power of any kind within a service-to-others social system, that will create a positive feedback loop, and the social system will commence to morph into a service-to-self social system.
In Thoreau's quote, the thousand that are hacking at the leaves are doing so because they sincerely believe that their efforts will have the lasting effects that they intend. What they lack is depth of understanding. This would suggest that seeking understanding is more important than seeking agreement. The thousand may be in unanimous agreement (99.9% consensus!), but they are still hacking at leaves.
Proposal 1975: The root is lack of understanding and respect for private property.
Response to Proposal 1975:
Treat the earth well. It wasn't given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. -- Kenyan Proverb
During the westward expansion of the United States, numerous Native American tribes were encountered that considered the notion of humans "owning" land to be absurd. Historically, we can see that the policy of allowing centralized governments, corporations and private individuals to "own" tangible property has been one of the primary means through which great power has come to be concentrated in very few hands.
The "private property" experiment has been run, and the results are in. We can choose to either learn from that history, or not. Those who choose to "strike at the root" will be interested in replacing (rendering obsolete) all such arrangements through which Power Over Other People can be (and has been) concentrated.
Proposal 1969: Three main factors lead to the status quo.
- Addiction to power (economic and political power concentration)
- Inequality of opportunities (creates social stress and a framework for power concentration)
- Lack of a negative feedback loop to neutralize the effect of the previous statements
Such a feedback loop must not be centrally-imposed (i.e. government) but rather community-driven, open and decentralized. Internet opens an opportunity in this direction.
Response to Proposal 1969:
Addiction to Power
Any large population will most likely have at least a few individuals in it that, for whatever reasons, are interested in gaining as much Power Over Other People as they can. (I would not necessarily agree that this urge is always an addiction. For example, in some cases it may be a legitimate path to spiritual enlightenment, or the individual may have been raised to believe that Duty and Manifest Destiny demand it, as often happens in successive generations within dynasties.)
The existence of such individuals can be seen as one aspect of the "root" of our problems. But the more "actionable" aspect of that root is that the rest of us (that do not have the urge) agree to social, political, and economic arrangements that allow those few individuals to acquire and hold highly concentrated Power Over Other People. I do not fault those few individuals (who "have the urge") for taking advantage of the naiveté, myopia and stupidity of the rest of us. If the rest of us want a better world for our grandchildren, it is appropriate that we earn it, by choosing more wisely the social, political and economic arrangements that we support or oppose.
Pietro comment
The problem is not that there are few such individuals, but that nearly all of us are completely prone to it, if we are given any real power. In other words (rephrasing something said by Osho) it is not that power corrupts, is that you were already corrupted to begin with, and power only made that visible. (Please I do not support Osho in all he says, and I don't want to be attacked because I cited him, but intellectual honesty forces me to acknowledge that this consideration was not mine to begin with.) --Pietro 11:28, 9 June 2011 (EDT)
NedC comment
Yes! Point well taken. There are historically a few examples of individuals who held great power and handled it well, but they are very much the exception. Just as you and Osho say, any of us actually put to the test would probably succumb. Others as well have made similar suggestions, for example:
"Nothing is more dangerous for man's private morality than the habit of command. The best man, the most intelligent, disinterested, generous, pure, will infallibly and always be spoiled at this trade. Two sentiments inherent in power never fail to produce this demoralization; they are: contempt for the masses and the overestimation of one's own merits." — "Power Corrupts the Best,” 1867, Mikhail Bakunin
(I am a fan of Osho's music -- I have some of his CDs.)(And now we will see whether I get in trouble for quoting Bakunin ... ;^) -- NedC 15:26, 9 June 2011 (EDT)
Inequality of Opportunities
I am very much in favor of equality of opportunities, and agree that inequality creates social stress and a framework for power concentration. I do not however see this as an aspect of the primary root that we seek (a secondary root, maybe).
The primary root question is: What opportunities are available? So long as opportunities to greatly concentrate power are available (whether equally available or not), things will continue to not go as well as they could (for the rest of us).
Feedback Loops
I would suggest that it does not matter through what means Power Over Other People is initially concentrated (through political, criminal, police, military, economic, financial, religious, or whatever other means) -- the end result will always be the same because power is fungible: any form of concentrated power can be used to acquire more power of any kind. As soon as there is any concentration of power of any kind within a social system, a positive feedback loop will have thereby been created that will lead to further concentrations of power of all kinds.
The following societal arrangements inherently concentrate power:
- Big Hierarchical Organizations (governmental, corporate, religious, etc.)
- "Ownership" of tangible property (by governments, groups or individuals)
- Nations (and the nested subdivisions within nations)
- Private banks, private insurance, private investment, capitalism
- Fractional reserve money creation, debt-based money creation
If we wish to create a social system in which there is no concentrated power (thereby striking at the proposed root), we must replace (render obsolete) all of the arrangements in this list (just for openers). If we do not strike at the root of concentrated power, truly all of our other efforts will amount to merely hacking at leaves.
(Having said this, I also must confess that I don't understand the functionality, scope or aims of the negative feedback loop that the Proposal 1969 mentions, and I would very much like to understand.)
Community-Driven
It is not an accident that "Western Civilization" has conquered and wiped out a great many of the indigenous cultures of the planet at this point. Such is the power of the social, political and economic systems that characterize Western Civilization.
All of those indigenous cultures that got run over were community-driven. To displace (render obsolete) the systems of Western Civilization, we need alternative trans-community systems that have greater efficiency and power than existing systems, at the global level. Both history and current events suggest that "community-driven" cannot take us where we want to go.
Open and Decentralized
Yes! These are two primary attributes that our new systems must have, and the existence of the Internet has indeed opened opportunities to create global systems that have these attributes. I would heartily agree that implementation of alternative systems that are open and decentralized does definitely strike at the root of concentrated power.
Proposal 1965: The root is lack of community in the marketplace, manifested in two key mechanisms:
Separation: modernisation has led to separation between the top of a supply chain and the bottom. So there is much less capacity for the top to monitor the ethics of the bottom. 'Individualist solutions' are one way of re-inserting community: ethical consumerism, ethical business practices and ethical investment.
Competition: modern competition law alongside traditional economic theory, and a deficit of forums to cooperate shift the balance unhealthily from cooperation towards competition in the marketplace. 'Inclusive solutions' apply to all in any given group of stakeholders, and so are capable of getting round free-rider problems. Regulation is the most obvious example, with sector-wide business agreements (with/without co-regulation) and e-democracy progressively representing wider opportunities for engaging wider resources and creativity.
Response to Proposal 1965:
Separation
Given the actual histories of the big corporations (IG Farben, Monsanto, Raytheon, General Electric, British Petroleum, JP Morgan, etc.), I would suggest that the problem is that corporations exist at all. Once such huge business entities exist (and so long as they exist), they can generally buy whatever they need, and can hide whatever they want to. The inability to monitor is indeed one problem, but the disparities in power between those that monitor and the fascist actors is a much bigger problem. To me it seems naive to suppose that "re-inserting community" (in the absence of decentralizing power) could ever work.
Competition
The preponderance of evidence that I have encountered suggests that players in the big league power games are playing to win. The most ruthless, willing to do whatever it takes, will generally prevail. (Apparently nice guys do generally finish last at that level.) Again, to suggest that if we just had different laws and theories and forums then the lions would be happy to lie down with the lambs strikes me as naive.
Proposal 1980: The root is not understanding and following the rules of social order.
The rules of social order are: Don't hurt others and don't steal from others... Stuff you learn in kindergarten. In other words, respect private property/don't aggress against others/follow the non aggression axiom.
The difficulty is in understanding how these rules come about and in understanding all of their implications.
My thesis is that there are very simple rules of interpersonal interaction that when followed, rule out conflict between individuals. These rules are not arbitrary or given by an authority, they are the heart and core of Natural Rights. They are nature given, in the sense that the facts of reality and human nature put a limit on the set of rules that are conducive to establishing or maintaining a peaceful social order.
The difficulty is in the consistent application of these rules. People bend them to suit their short term wishes and delude themselves into thinking they are doing something that is ok or even virtuous, when they are in fact stealing, attacking and even murdering others. Most people understandably have trouble accepting a logical argument that shows they are behaving in such a manner and thus will continue to ignore their hypocrisy as long as it suits their needs.
An obvious example (today) is that of private slavery. Hardly anybody would say that another man has the right to force another to do his bidding. This was not always the case. A less obvious example (today) is that of public slavery. It is generally accepted that states may draft/conscript people in order to send them off to war. I think most people would say that it is only my opinion that conscription is slavery and that it is ok if I get drafted or that I be punished should I be ardent about my "opinion" that I am free and resist conscription. But this is not just my opinion, it is a fact. Looking at the definition of slavery, it is clear that it applies to the draft. That legislators realize this (though they obviously don't publicize it widely) can be seen in the exception that is made for it in the Artical 4 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Why in the paragraph on slavery would you have to make an exception if it were not slavery? Is it not blatant hypocrisy to write first that all men are free and nobody may force another to abide by his will and in the very next paragraph to write the equivalent of "except when we the politicians need some cannon fodder".
The fact is that I am the owner of my body and am thus the sole legitimate arbiter over it. No person OR group has a right to force me to something against my will. Both private AND public slavery are illegitimate. To prove the logic behind this assertion requires more text than I have space or time for here. I will point you to "The Economics and Ethics of Private Property" by Prof. Hans Hermann Hoppe.
This is just one example where peoples ignorance of the logic of Natural Rights leaves them unaware of infringements and thus leaves a wide open field for politicians and interest groups to capitalize upon. The key need perceived here and the fear that is exploited is protection against an enemy. Everybody would like to be protected, but this is no justification for violating the rights of others. This is the moral case and the only one that is important to me. Some are convinced by the economic argument, which is that slavery is less efficient than trusting people to make good decisions when they are free. I don't particularly like this argument, as it is akin to fending off a wolf by showing him the pile of meat we could get if we worked together. I cannot convince a wolf that we would both be better off in the long run if he didn't eat me and instead became my friend (only over decades can this knowledge be bread into them). But when dealing with a supposedly rational human being, I would hope the ethical argument would be the key to accepting that slavery is illegitimate, rather than an argument from economic efficiency.
This lack of understanding and respect for private property is the root of the great majority of our social, political and economic problems.
Response to Proposal 1980:
The rules of social order are: Don't hurt others and don't steal from others... (quoted from Proposal 1980)
Don't Hurt Others
Rules are tricky. Some say that we are here (on the physical plane) to choose one of the two paths available for spiritual evolution, and then to evolve spiritually by following the chosen path. The two paths are the path of acceptance and love (service to others, the light side path), and the path of control and power (service to self, the dark side path). The values and rules for these two paths are quite different, and the social order sought is quite different.
In a mixed population (a few following the light side path, a few following the dark side path, most not following either path or interested in spiritual evolution), one big question regarding the "don't hurt others" rule is: do we make exceptions for self-defense or for protecting the innocent? Hard-core light siders such as Jesus and Buddha would say no: turn the other cheek and all that. Hard-core dark siders (Taras Bulba, Genghis Khan, Rasputin, Hermann Göring, Heinrich Himmler, the Illuminati) would laugh at the naiveté of suggesting such a rule, and would heartily encourage all the stupid ones to (by all means!) abide by it.
A single individual acting alone, with only modest resources available, can do a certain amount of "hurting others" damage. That same individual in a position to command a dozen carrier groups armed with nuclear weapons can do significantly more "hurting others" damage. My thought is that in arranging our social order, we direct our attention and efforts to arranging that no one be in a position to amplify his own "hurting others" choices in such ways. It is fine to have the rule (Don't Hurt Others), but the rule will be broken. In my view, our root social problem is not that the rule doesn't exist, not that the rule is inadequately understood, not that the rule is sometimes broken; the primary social problem is that great power is currently concentrated in the hands of those very few who are most likely to break the rule.
Don't Steal From Others
Again, rules are tricky. From the perspective of the Sheriff of Nottingham, Robin Hood was a thief. Certainly, the world would be a better place if all of us without much power were to refrain from stealing from one another. And, to me, the "Robin Hood" solution does not seem likely to make the world a better place. (My understanding is that the Mafia started out in pretty much that way.) That said, theft among the powerless is but a pimple on the derriere of the much bigger problem that those with great power have for generations been setting up social arrangements that have had the effect of concentrating ever greater power and wealth in their hands, at the expense of the general public and of nature and of future generations. These "positive feedback loops" are generally completely legal, because the powerful make the laws.
Stuff you learn in kindergarten.
What exactly is it that we learn in kindergarten? According to John Taylor Gatto, here is a list of some of the things that we learn: The Six Lesson Schoolteacher
Any child that has mastered communicating through speech (generally achieved by age eighteen months) is capable of participating fully in making the decisions that affect his or her own body, mind and spirit. To treat children as slaves, belonging to their parents and/or The State, is not necessarily the best way to impart the lessons (don't hurt others, don't steal, etc.) that indeed can be learned during childhood.
Respect Private Property
In other words, respect private property / don't aggress against others/follow the non aggression axiom. (from P.1980)
Certainly I would agree that respecting rights and rules and contracts is important, but that certainly does not entail that I agree that tangible property (land, mineral rights, built environment, natural environment, machinery, etc.) must be or should be owned privately. I do not agree that tangible property must or should be owned privately.
My view is that "we" (humanity as a whole, nature and future generations) would be much better off if all tangible property were officially owned by "us" (humanity as a whole, nature and future generations), and leased piecemeal to small partnerships (not to corporations, not to central governments, not to Big Hierarchical Organizations of any kind). The lease arrangement would be formalized in a lease agreement. Violation of the terms of the lease agreement would cause the property to be taken back from the offending partnership and then leased to some other partnership. How this lease arrangement works, and the principles behind it, could easily be learned by children in kindergarten.
The difficulty is in understanding how these rules come about and in understanding all of their implications. (from P.1980)
History teaches us that one big implication of social arrangements that permit individuals and/or large organizations (central governments, corporations, etc.) to own tangible property is that the arrangements set up positive feedback loops that result in tremendous concentrations of power in the hands of very few, very ruthless individuals. What other implications did you have in mind?
Conflict Between Individuals
My thesis is that there are very simple rules of interpersonal interaction that when followed, rule out conflict between individuals. (from P.1980)
And when those very simple rules of interpersonal interaction are not followed, mayhem ensues. Any set of social arrangements that depends on everyone following the rules, and fails if they don't, is not likely to last long. Also, "conflict between individuals" is, again, at best but a pimple on the derriere of the much bigger problems caused by the choices and actions of central governments and corporations. The attacks by the USA on Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Libya are not cases of "conflicts between individuals."
These rules are not arbitrary or given by an authority, they are the heart and core of Natural Rights. (from P.1980)
On this one, I have to go with Niccolò Machiavelli:
The legitimacy of law rests entirely upon the threat of coercive force.
Authority is impossible as a right apart from the power to enforce it.
You and I may absolutely agree that those Natural Rights "should" be recognized and honored. But unless we set up social arrangements that can actually, coercively, enforce recognition of those rights, our opinions on the matter will have no more effect than does my current opinion that all humans are entitled to the right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (I note that the Guantanamo prison continues to exist despite my fervently held opinion.)
They are nature given, in the sense that the facts of reality and human nature put a limit on the set of rules that are conducive to establishing or maintaining a peaceful social order. (from P.1980)
Those few that currently are wielding great power are clearly not interested in establishing and maintaining a peaceful social order. And, they clearly feel that they don't need no stinkin' rules (other than the ones that they make for the rest of us). Until "we" (those of us without significant Power Over Other People) have gotten together and created alternative social arrangements that do not concentrate power, the rules that nature has given will continue to be ignored by those with power, because they can and because it benefits them (in their minds) to do so.
The difficulty is in the consistent application of these rules. (from P.1980)
I would agree with this. In particular, those wielding great power generally do not apply the rules to their own conduct. (But they do often apply the rules to the conduct of the rest of us -- I guess that's something ...) (For instance, they often remind us of the importance of respecting their private property.)
People bend them to suit their short term wishes and delude themselves into thinking they are doing something that is ok or even virtuous, when they are in fact stealing, attacking and even murdering others. (from P.1980)
Those sincerely following the dark side path have an entirely different understanding of what is and is not virtuous than do you and I. There have been innumerable characters in books, movies and TV series that have embodied and expressed this dark side ethos superbly. I do not see the dark side path as something to be eliminated. Spiritually, the possibility of choosing to follow the dark side path needs to be there. The social arrangements that I advocate (such as eliminating private ownership of tangible property) are not intended to make everybody be good. The arrangements are intended to eliminate concentrations of power, so that those on the dark side path will not be able to do quite so much damage when they freely and knowingly choose to steal, attack and murder.
Most people understandably have trouble accepting a logical argument that shows they are behaving in such a manner and thus will continue to ignore their hypocrisy as long as it suits their needs. (from P.1980)
The question we are seeking to answer is this: What is the primary root of current social, political and economic problems? We wish to find a primary root that can be addressed, in the spirit of "strike at the root." I would agree with you that most people would have the trouble you suggest.
It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it. -- Upton Sinclair
However, my view is that the root problem is not that "most people" have this trouble. The root problem is that great power is concentrated in the hands of a very few individuals that do not have this trouble. Those at the tippy tops of the highest hierarchies are not being hypocritical, and are not trying to be good in the "good for others" sense, but rather in the "good for self" sense.
Slavery
An obvious example (today) is that of private slavery. Hardly anybody would say that another man has the right to force another to do his bidding. This was not always the case. A less obvious example (today) is that of public slavery. It is generally accepted that states may draft/conscript people in order to send them off to war. I think most people would say that it is only my opinion that conscription is slavery and that it is ok if I get drafted or that I be punished should I be ardent about my "opinion" that I am free and resist conscription. But this is not just my opinion, it is a fact. Looking at the definition of slavery, it is clear that it applies to the draft. That legislators realize this (though they obviously don't publicize it widely) can be seen in the exception that is made for it in the Article 4 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Why in the paragraph on slavery would you have to make an exception if it were not slavery? Is it not blatant hypocrisy to write first that all men are free and nobody may force another to abide by his will and in the very next paragraph to write the equivalent of "except when we the politicians need some cannon fodder"? (from P.1980)
Yes! I very definitely agree with you that drafting someone into the military is an act of enslavement.
As mentioned earlier, I also see compulsory schooling (whether compelled by parents or The State) as an instance in which the sovereignty of the child with respect to his/her own mind and body is infringed.
The fact is that I am the owner of my body and am thus the sole legitimate arbiter over it. No person OR group has a right to force me to something against my will. Both private AND public slavery are illegitimate. (from P.1980)
Yes again! We could add here some other violations of sovereignty over one's own mind and body:
- prescription drug laws
- laws proscribing production, sale and possession of psychoactive substances
- laws requiring that medical practitioners be licensed by The State
To prove the logic behind this assertion requires more text than I have space or time for here. I will point you to "The Economics and Ethics of Private Property" by Prof. Hans Hermann Hoppe. (from P.1980)
We are agreed that slavery is bad. But, in my view, social arrangements that create private property have been shown historically to also be bad. I have no problem with saying that each of us "owns" our own body. But problems for me arise when we talk about "owning" land and other tangibles. As far as I can see (even after having skimmed Prof. Hoppe's very long book), there is no logical or necessary or natural connection between social arrangements that establish personal sovereignty with respect to one's own mind and body, and social arrangements that establish private ownership of tangible property. It does not appear to me that my personal sovereignty is in any way infringed when I lease property rather than own it.
This is just one example where peoples ignorance of the logic of Natural Rights leaves them unaware of infringements and thus leaves a wide open field for politicians and interest groups to capitalize upon. (from P.1980)
In keeping with the "concentrated power is the root" theme, I see politicians, and quite often interests groups as well, to be nothing but pawns. (The difference between Obama and Bush gets harder for me to see every day.) Politicians and interest groups appear to me to be leaves, not the root.
Fear
The key need perceived here and the fear that is exploited is protection against an enemy. (from P.1980)
If your point is that those with great power try their best to produce fear in the populace, and then try to exploit that fear to control and manipulate the populace, yes! My suggestion is that the root problem is that the powerful actually have enough power to succeed in doing that, and that the rest of us would be much better off if they did not have enough power to succeed.
If your point here is that we would be much better off without the social arrangements that divide the world's landmasses into geographically defined nations, I very much agree with you. (To misquote Stalin, "no nations, no enemy nations.")
If you are trying to say that owning property (rather that leasing property) somehow renders the general populace less fearful and feeling less in need of protection from enemies, I don't see it.
Everybody would like to be protected, but this is no justification for violating the rights of others. (from P.1980)
I agree with this. So what we need are ways to protect ourselves that do not involve violating the rights of others. The modern national standing armies are the most dangerous things on the planet (with giant corporations a close second). Most of the people in those armies (and in those corporations) are good people, "just following orders." Those people already follow all the rules that they learned in kindergarten, on the community and family levels. Those armies are mainly dangerous because the controllers of the governments of the armies are powerful enough to be able to start wars, from which the controllers can benefit. So, if we replace (render obsolete) the social arrangements that give the controllers the power to start wars, we can thereby protect ourselves, without violating the rights of others. (I am OK with violating the right to start wars.)
This is the moral case and the only one that is important to me. (from P.1980)
For me, it is not really a moral matter. It is more a matter of being wise.
The Economic Argument Against Slavery
Some are convinced by the economic argument, which is that slavery is less efficient than trusting people to make good decisions when they are free. (from P.1980)
To me, the economic argument is mostly spurious. It assumes that the primary motive to enslave is profit, not power over other people. Slave masters for whom that is true (profit more important than power) are not part of the root problem. It is those that pursue power for its own sake (and for its "spiritual energy" payoffs) that are at the root. The writings that came out of The Project for a New American Century were not particularly concerned with profit -- the writings were concerned with Full Spectrum Dominance and with Building The Empire.
I don't particularly like this argument, as it is akin to fending off a wolf by showing him the pile of meat we could get if we worked together. I cannot convince a wolf that we would both be better off in the long run if he didn't eat me and instead became my friend (only over decades can this knowledge be bread into them). (from P.1980)
Exactly! So I vote we stop giving the human wolves of the world control of armies and giant corporations (by creating new systems that render armies and giant corporations obsolete).
But when dealing with a supposedly rational human being, I would hope the ethical argument would be the key to accepting that slavery is illegitimate, rather than an argument from economic efficiency. (from P.1980)
Rational and ethical are two entirely different things. On the dark side path, enslaving others is quite often seen as actually beneficial to the slave, as well as to the master. (Compelling kids to go to school "for their own good" would be an example.)
Respect Private Property
This lack of understanding and respect for private property is the root of the great majority of our social, political and economic problems. (from P.1980)
Another reference to private property pops up out of nowhere. I understand that slavery involves people being private property, which is bad. I fail to see what owning or not owning land or other tangibles has to do with freedom or slavery. Leasing land, leasing a house, leasing an automobile, does not make me a slave (so far as I can see). Being relatively powerless in the face of our centrally controlled Police State does make me a slave. Concentrated power makes me a slave, not leasing.
If in your sentence you removed "private property" and put in its place "personal sovereignty (with respect to one's own mind and body)" then we would be closer to agreement, but still not there yet. Those tending toward the dark side do not necessarily lack understanding of personal sovereignty, they only lack respect for it. As Conan the Barbarian put it (when asked what is the best in life): To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women. It is the path of wisdom to recognize and accept that such individuals exist, and to make social arrangements accordingly.
Proposal 1984: The primary root is imbalance between compassion and mercilessness.
There is a tension intrinsic in life.
On the one hand equality, compassion tend to ask for all people be treated fairly whatever their condition. On the other private property, ownership, and meritocracy tend to ask that the way society treats people depends on their situation.
Each of those elements are grounded in some natural rules and needs that are not just common for human beings but in other animals as well. None of those rules can be used definitely above all others, or all sort of aberration would come out. Instead it is important that people relax and discuss, and try to find a balance between those equally important principles.
Any attachment to a single principle over all others will ultimately lead to an imbalance and suffering for the people involved.
Keeping this balance is what goes toward the root of the problem.
Response to Proposal 1984
Rewrite
Here is my rewrite of what you have expressed:
There is a tension intrinsic in life.
On the one hand "service to others" seeks to treat all people well irrespective of ability or effort. On the other "service to self" seeks separation, control and power over other people, seeing it as appropriate that those more able and committed should gain more at the expense of those less able and committed.
Each of these orientations is natural and has important lessons to teach. The aim is to design and implement social, political and economic systems that enable the two orientations to co-exist and both thrive.
Any attempt to exclude or stifle either orientation will ultimately lead to an imbalance and loss of opportunity.
Adopting systems that maintain the balance that allows both orientations to thrive goes toward the root of the problem.
Questions
Do you see our societies as being currently out of balance with respect to the dimension that you have introduced?
If so, how would you characterize that imbalance?
If so, what would be your suggestions for bringing our societies back into balance with respect to this dimension? (How shall we strike at that root?)
Proposal 1994: Let us change the question.
The phrase assumes that there is a root primary root to our social economical problems. But what we have noticed that even in three people we were unable to find an agreement on such root. This points out to the fact that either there is no such root or there is but it is not universally recognized. As such the question is unsolvable. A better question would be to ask "what is the root to social economical problems according to Thoreau?".
Response to Proposal 1994
The phrase assumes that there is a root primary root to our social economical problems.
The question does not spring from an assumption. It springs from a need. If we can find a root (or a set of roots) that we can agree on, that will be useful in focusing our combined efforts in the most effective way. If we all spend our efforts hacking separately at various leaves, we will all be much less effective, and the world's problems will continue and grow worse.
But what we have noticed that even in three people we were unable to find an agreement on such root.
I have not given up yet, because I do not accept that hacking at leaves, separately, is a useful way for us to spend our time and efforts. One thing that might help in reaching agreement would be to directly discuss our differing views in this wikiforum. That was my motive in setting this wikiforum up.
This points out to the fact that either there is no such root or there is but it is not universally recognized.
I would not agree that there is no such root. The fact that we have not (yet) reached agreement only suggests that we may arrive at a set of roots rather than a single root.
I would agree that we have learned so far that the primary root (or the set of roots) is not universally recognized. To me, that suggests that it would serve the world well for us to redouble our efforts to reach agreement, and then do what we can to cause the root (or roots) to become universally recognized. That again is Thoreau's point: the thousand that are hacking at leaves do not recognize the root. If they did, they would be striking at the root rather than hacking at the leaves. We need to point the thousand in the right direction. But to do that, we must first agree on what the right direction is.
One of the roots (which in my view is the primary root) is the existence of Power Over Other People. That root is a "useful root" because it is possible to adopt social arrangements that eliminate it, thereby eliminating all the leaves that spring from it. That is precisely Thoreau's point in his quote -- if we find the root and strike at that, all the leaves will wither and go away without our having to address them individually and directly.
In this wiki, I have directly responded to every proposal that has been made. I have put in this effort because I consider answering the question to be very important for all of us, and for the world. My reason for asking the question in the first place was that it is very important to us to work together in addressing the most important "roots" of the social problems that we have. Just as Thoreau suggests, the alternative is to waste ourselves hacking at leaves. For me, this question was not just a toy "trivial pursuits" question, that we should give up on when the pursuit proves not to be easy.
As such the question is unsolvable.
In this game, the only way to lose is to quit. The fact that there has been only one other contributor to this wikiforum besides myself (as I write this) indicates to me that we haven't even seriously started to work together on coming to agreement. Please, someone explain to me why he or she does not think that the existence of Power Over Other People is the primary root.
I would not be suggesting that we work harder on solving this question if I did not consider the question to be very important for all of us, and for the world.
A better question would be to ask "what is the root to social economical problems according to Thoreau?"
This to me would be a "trivial pursuits" question. Thoreau died a long time ago, and lived in a different world. I could have used systems theory language and asked what the primary "leverage point" is, through which to improve our social systems. This would have left Thoreau entirely out of the matter. The important part of Thoreau's quote is the distinction between "hacking at leaves" and "striking at roots." We are the ones now facing the world's current problems, and trying our best to make the world a better place. I want to know what our answers are, because we are the ones who are now in a position to take action.
Proposal [Unknown number]: The root of these so-called problems is the very nature of life itself.
Fundamentally, everyone has different (though similar!) values. We each want our values expressed by society, but our values are different. So there is always friction, disagreement, and perceived unfairness, due to our differing values.
For example, those with much power and influence want to expand their power and influence, hence societal pressure towards oligarchies and hierarchies. Those without much power and influence also want their voice heard, and their desires acted upon, hence societal pressure towards democracies and social programs.
This tension between competition and cooperation has always existed, will always exist, and indeed is at the core of those processes which produced us, which we call Evolution. The primary root of any and all of these so-called problems is the very nature of life itself. Some might call this a bug; others might call this a feature. ;-)
Either way, life, in all ways, and at every level, is simply doing its best to survive.
-- sladman
(Sladman, Greetings! You have presented an interesting proposal!)
(Thanks, NedC. This wiki page has been very interesting and stimulating for me to read, and I couldn't help but chime in!
"For every thousand hacking at the leaves of evil, there is one striking at the root." - Henry David Thoreau
Strike That Root?
If we posit that the root is "the very nature of life itself", are we then to strike at that root -- at the very nature of life itself? To me, that seems like maybe not such a good idea. The question had more to do with how to go about solving our biggest problems -- finding the main (usefully hackable) root from which those problems arise, so that we might know where best to start in trying to solve the problems.
Sladman: "The primary root of any and all of these so-called problems is the very nature of life itself."
My first main intent was to illustrate the assumption in the question -- morality is absolute, not relative -- which I fundamentally disagree with. You can only call something 'evil' based upon your values. For example, we don't see ants fighting as good or evil; it merely is. Some of us see war as evil because human life is sacred according to our values, whereas we don't see every ant life as sacred (though some might and in fact do!). So I'm glad you took my point when you say below that different people have different values and different ideas on what 'good' and 'evil' are, and that people many might consider evil have intentionally started and profited from wars in general.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that some might see such things as war, poverty, violations of personal rights and freedoms, biosphere degradation, or the fleecing of future generations as problems, whereas others might see such things as "features."
No. What I means is as follows. Conflict is a feature, not a bug; it is absolutely necessary for evolution to work, and arises inherently in evolving systems. Likewise, cooperation is a feature because it enhances fitness of those who practice it effectively. Diversity of values is also a feature; indeed, diversity itself is the key feature, because it dramatically improves the fitness of evolving populations, and thus also arises inherently in evolving systems. The problems we see all arise from these.
I would agree that there are indeed individuals who see such things as actually good. For example, there is compelling historical evidence (as for example in the works of Antony Sutton) that all the wars of the last several hundred years have been deliberately initiated and orchestrated by individuals who were in positions to profit from them.
I also appreciate the Buddhist, Taoist flavor of your proposal. Why get involved in the games of life, when one can just sit and watch from the sidelines? We all have choices to make, and sitting on the sidelines is indeed one of the alternatives that each of us has available to choose.
If, by Buddhist, you mean seeing things as they actually are, then I agree with your assessment. ;-) Yes indeed, some people's values get them involved; other people's values have them sitting on the sidelines.
Obviously, I am in the "see as problems and would like to solve" camp. So, for those of us that see wars and such as problems to be solved, what would be the main (usefully hackable) root at which we might strike in beginning to solve those problems? (I cannot agree that attempting to strike at the very nature of life itself is likely to be very helpful in solving such problems.)
Of course. But I think that "hacking at the root of evil" is a bad way to put it, because it assumes that those with different values are evil, when in fact they just have different values. Finding consensus between differing viewpoints, and also working towards a world which reflects your values. It also helps see (and voice) things as they actually are. For example, characterizing the financial miscreants who caused the global meltdown as evil is unhelpful. Whereas, it is very helpful to characterize them as people who only care about making as much money as possible and taking care of their own, who don't really care what pain they cause to others in the process, because then everyone else knows what we're up against and that we must constantly remain vigilant against whatever tricks and games and ill-advised new financial tools these miscreants are pursuing, and ensure that the framework they operate within keeps them from hurting others.
Perhaps you mean to suggest that progress cannot be made toward solving such problems (because they arise from the nature of life itself). If so, again I find that I cannot agree. Just because the games of life are hard does not convince me a priori that progress cannot be made. It looks to me like those on "the dark side" (who deliberately cause wars and so on) have been making good progress, mainly because so many on the "light" side choose to sit on the sidelines as spectators and just watch, or choose to expend all their resources hacking at leaves. {;^) (NedC 20:22, 6 February 2012 (EST))
See previous paragraph.
So then, I guess what I'm saying is that if the primary root of any and all of these so-called problems is the very nature of life itself, then that is obviously not a root that can be attacked, which means that there is no primary root to attack. Presuming there to be is an oversimplification of a complicated life's problem! Proposal 1960 says it best, I think:
Proposal 1960: "The preponderance of evidence that I have encountered suggests that players in the big league power games are playing to win. The most ruthless, willing to do whatever it takes, will generally prevail. (Apparently nice guys do generally finish last at that level.) Again, to suggest that if we just had different laws and theories and forums then the lions would be happy to lie down with the lambs strikes me as naive."
Yes, there is a reason that there are four times as many sociopaths among corporate CEOs as there are in the general population. (Ronson 2011)
There is no root of these social problems besides the nature of conflict and cooperation between people having different values, i.e. the nature of life itself. What there is is a wildly complex and quickly evolving social ecosystem in which each person is attempting to live their values. In this tug-of-war involving the actions of all actors in this ecosystem, the result is the sum of every interaction. Influencing the tug-of-war to pull more in the direction of your (or the common man's) values involves the actions of countless people in countless places all the time. It is not a case of there being one root and many leaves; it is a case of there being many, many influences, each one interacting with all of the others, some of which are more important and some of which are less important, but against all of which pressure must be maintained by like-minded people at all times. The breadth of the so-called problem (according to our particular set of shared values) is far more substantial than one root, or set of roots, but rather involves being vigilant against injustice (according to our particular set of shared values) whenever and wherever it is encountered. And yes, our "heavy-hitters" need to be set upon our biggest problems in this war, but there are many problems which all need to be attacked with consistency, lest you begin to lose ground in that particular area while of spending all of the group's efforts fighting some other battle.
So:
New Question: What are the many causes of current social, political, and economic problems?
And let us try to order them roughly in descending order of importance.
To this question, I might begin a partial (and unordered!) list as follows:
- First-past-the-post voting systems and the more flawed governments such systems elect. Instantaneous runoff is a must have, and probably also proportional representation, both of which encourage diversity of opinion and lead to governing by consensus.
- Publicly traded companies. Privately owned companies act far more responsibly than publicly owned companies, because they more often represent the primary owner's ethics.
- The revolving door between government and the corporat-ocracy, and all of the corruption that causes.
- Privately financed political parties. Politicians are forced to spend too much time fundraising and thinking about fundraising, with all of the lobbying and unethical activities which go along with it.
- Lobbyists.
- Failing to mold socially-appropriate behaviour by hitting people in the only place that really gets their attention: their wallets. For example, environmental issues. I care deeply about such issues, but there are times when I make poor personal choices in this regard due to a lack of time, energy, etcetera. But you better believe I would find the motivation to make better choices if there were a strong financial incentive.
- The lack of a quick, easy, and engaging way for people to indicate their pleasure or displeasure with their government's ideas and actions. Even better would be a consensus-based means for citizens to participate.
- Organized religion.
- Failure to root all public policy in science.
- Failure to provide access to scientific publications for all. Most publications are suck behind the paywalls of journals, regardless of whether the research was publicly funded.
- Failure to require all political statements and claims to be backed by fact, or be charged as fraudulent with associated penalties.
- Failure to require all advertising statements and claims to be backed by fact, or be charged as fraudulent with associated penalties.
- Allowing advertising to be directed at children. Unethical psychologists are paid to make advertising overly-effective tools which hijack young people's innate psychology and turns them into consumers first, citizens second.
- A lack of free education, for all ages, in all disciplines. Burdening students with debt is a great way to chain them to their jobs, and thereby keep them occupied and impotent.
- Too much complicated regulation. Also caused intentionally by lobbyists, and their tools: politicians.
- Too little good, simple regulation. Also caused intentionally by lobbyists, and their tools: politicians.
- A lack of linking of laws/regulation to expected/desired goals/outcomes. This would then be coupled with regular reviews of the results, and pushes to update or improve the laws (or their goals) over time, and eliminate those which have failed their stated goals/outcomes and are unable to be improved.
- A lack of complete transparency in the public sphere. Absolutely everything the government does and spends should be immediately published publicly, freely available for anyone to access. This includes the full text of any proposed bill, every law on the books, every dollar that is spent (immediately when it is spent) and what it is spent on. This would enforce accountability, and would also allow creative people to use the data to better our government, and our world.
- The broken United States political and justice system, and its ability to (often forcibly) export those values to the rest of the world. Not the least of which is the impenetrable and unaccountable Federal Reserve.
- Economic systems based on the (provably impossible) idea of limitless growth, rather than sustainability.
- The World Trade Organization.
- ...?
(Sladman, Greetings again! This is a fun exchange -- I appreciate your taking time to engage :-) (NedC 19:17, 8 February 2012 (EST))
NedC: I must confess that my intent was to solicit answers to the original question, not your new question. (I will repeat that original question here, since you seem to have missed some parts of it in your first reading.)
Question: What is the Primary Root of current social, political and economic problems?
For every thousand hacking at the leaves of evil, there is one striking at the root. − Henry David Thoreau
("Evil" is not the emphasis here; "root" is the emphasis. There are wise sources that suggest that evil does not exist, and with good reason. Also, let us allow that there may be multiple roots, so that the question seeks the "primary" root.)
Evil
NedC: You and I both agree that (we think) there is no evil in the world. But (for whatever reason), Thoreau did use the word "evil" in his quote. So, when I quoted him, I left the quote intact, and appended a note intended to remove the word after the fact. Obviously (given your reactions) that was not sufficient. So, I suggest we cut Thoreau some slack for having used the word in his quote, and mentally amend his quote to the following:
For every thousand attempting to solve all the leaf problems of a given system, there is one attempting to solve the root problem within the system that gives rise to all those leaf problems. − Henry David Thoreau (edited to make Sladman more comfortable)
Leaves & Roots
NedC: To me it seems that Thoreau is correct in suggesting that most people (sometimes even you, sometimes even I), after they have picked a problem that they want to solve, do not then seek a deep understanding of the problem as part of their process of choosing how to go about trying to solve the problem, with the result that they often wind up "treating symptoms" (as it would be called in medicine). The problem with hacking at leaves, or treating symptoms, is that the leaves and the symptoms will just keep coming back -- it is a sisyphean labor that cannot ever really succeed. I take that to be the gem of wisdom in the Thoreau quote: it is better to find the root problem and fix that once, than to hack away at the leaf problems (the presenting symptoms) forever.
There Is No Primary Root To Attack
NedC: (I had to chuckle -- I wrote the passage that you quoted from Proposal 1960. Glad you liked it :^) The assertion that there is no primary root problem that can be (resolved / fixed / solved / attacked / struck -- let's not get hung up on words) for any particular set of presenting problems is ultimately an empirical assertion, subject to falsification by evidence. It is (I suggest) not something that can be concluded a priori, as you seem to suggest. When (through careful study and analysis) a root problem is identified, and then that root problem is resolved, and then all the associated leaf problems magically go away without having been addressed directly, that would constitute evidence that the root problem was indeed serving as the root for those leaf problems.
Philosophy & Problem Solving
NedC: You have been raising some very interesting philosophical points in your remarks. But the aim of asking my original question was to seek deeper understanding and consensus with respect to collaborative real-world problem solving, not philosophy. To the extent that you are talking philosophy and I am talking real-world problem solving, we are talking past one another. I hesitate to make philosophical responses to your philosophical points in this wiki, because it really would be off-topic, and because this page is already getting seriously long even without discussions of philosophy. However, I would be quite open to breaking out the philosophical points and moving them to other wikis to discuss. I will follow your lead in that. (I have already responded to your new Vilfredo question.)
"Current Social, Political and Economic Problems"
NedC: In asking my original question, I did indeed assume that there was already sufficient consensus within the Metagovernment Community regarding what our "current social, political and economic problems" are to enable us (members of the Metagovernment Community) to begin looking together for a main (treatable) root of those problems, without needing to separately go through the prior step of seeking consensus concerning what we (the members of the Metagovernment community) take the "current social, political and economic problems" to be.
You appear to now be questioning the validity of that assumption. You seem to be suggesting that in fact there may not be sufficient consensus within the Metagovernment community (concerning what the "presenting problems" are that we would all like to solve) to enable us to go directly to searching together for a main underlying (treatable) root of those problems.
So let us (you and I) now put my assumption to the test. Here below are listed the five "presenting problems" that are at the top of my short-list of "current social, political and economic problems" that I would like to participate in solving.
- war
- poverty
- violations of personal rights & freedoms
- biosphere degradation
- fleecing future generations
If these five items also appear on your short-list of "current social, political and economic problems" that you also would like to see solved, then you and I have sufficient agreement concerning the "presenting problems" to begin searching together (if we both wanted to) to see if we can identify a main (treatable) root problem that is producing those short-list problems.
(You and I both agree that there are people in the world who think that the short-list items above are not problems to be solved. But I have not up to this point seen any signs that any of those people are members of the Metagovernment community.)
New Question
NedC: First, I appreciate your work in writing out that list of problems. As we continue this interaction, the list will potentially provide us with many good starting points for discussion.
That said, I found in the list (from my perspective, given my understandings and values and such) only one root problem mentioned. To me the other 20 items on the list all refer to leaf problems. My view is that even if they (the 20 leaf problems) were suddenly (poof!) all solved, the root problems that underlie those 20 leaf problems would still be operating, and would simply find other means through which to manifest to create war, poverty, and so on. (This, again, is not some sort of a priori philosophical assertion, but rather ultimately an empirical assertion having to do with various specific social systems and arrangements that we have now -- which could be rendered obsolete. Neither God nor Darwin has decreed that we must have hierarchies, capitalism, and parasitic banking. (If they had, I'm pretty sure that I would have gotten the memo :^)
The single root problem that I found in your list was mentioned in an aside: "Even better would be a consensus-based means for citizens to participate." We need that collaborative governance decision system, and having it would make a great many leaf problems magically go away. It would be a member of the set of new social systems necessary to be able to render hierarchies, capitalism, and parasitic banking obsolete.
My contention is that those three social arrangements are problematic because they set up positive feedback loops that (over generations) steadily concentrate more and more wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands. The abstract single, primary root problem is that wealth and power are increasingly concentrated. Any social system or arrangement that plays a role in setting up such feedback loops is problematic (for those of us who wish to solve the short-list problems). These days, the three main concentrators happen to be hierarchies, capitalism, and parasitic banking. In other times, other social arrangements have served to increasingly concentrate power.
