The most Dangerous Addiction

[MSimon]

restrictive political state for their own good.

The problem as always is that later or sooner (sooner mostly) the restrictions fail to comport with reality. then you get this:

I think that's where we are now. Until the peons see the results of totalitarianism in their own lives, they will continue to believe the siren song of the authoritarian collectivists. That's why we can't reverse the course to collectivism with conventional political means. A catastrophic failure of collectivism must occur first, and while we've been building up to it for a while, we're not there yet.

http://coldfury.com/2012/08/21/lion-jackal-of-the-left/

Or this:


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The ballot box first. Then the cartridge box.

[MSimon]

Let me add that without total control (it is called totalinarianism for a reason) you cannot control men's private habits - even for their own good. We have a long history of smuggling to evade government going back at least to John Hancock.

The first point is that John Hancock before he became a signer of the Declaration of Independence was a smuggler. He had a famous run in with Crown officers in 1768 when his sloop the Liberty refused to pay the tax on some Madeira wine.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... dment.html

[Diogenes]

The consequences are not to be taken on their own in some causal vacuum. Everything else that's correlated needs to change too. Least of which is the realistic treatment of this thought experiment that demands a realistic scenario: people the world over (let's say a majority for realism/brevity's sake) come to understand and appreciate and adopt this state of mind on their own (meaning by their own will).

People would not instantaneously start crossing roads without looking nor drinking themselves comatose nor take up meth as pass time. Not if they had truly understood the agnostic universe- (not just world-) view.

Really poor examples you've picked. No, I was thinking more along the lines of offenses involving gain for themselves and possible losses for others. Stealing, Assaulting, Raping, Murdering, you know, that sort of thing. Most people don't consult their own mental God about crossing the road, drinking or doing meth.

the made up invisible man everyone is taught to fear is actually a very effective negative feedback mechanism for social self control, without which many people will refuse to suppress their self serving impulses

Maybe you fail to envision this hypothetical agnostic majority scenario because you first fail to envision Reason properly taught as all the self-control any normal human being needs.

And there will always be deviant freaks and other marginals.

---

Sure, and we try to minimize any destructive influence they might have. We lock up crazies, and we tolerate contrarians till they cross a line. Optimization does not mean perfect.

You, now and as far as I can remember ever reading your writing, do not seem to give a rat's about helping people, IOW Man, move forward to their optimum mind & body but rather enslave them in some more or less - "but mostly less, I swear!" - restrictive political state for their own good.

I am absolutely certain that this is what you remember about me. It also enlightens me to the bit of knowledge that you don't really read (or perhaps comprehend) what I write. I help people often and continuously. I am currently providing homes and food for 5 people who are not members of my family, and who have seemingly not developed the ability to fend for themselves. I cannot tell you how many people I have helped and tried to help over the years. It is actually one of my failings. Too often my family chastises me for going out of my way to help others.

I really ought to cut back.

You see Man starved because he's stupid. Or IOW, un-enlightened. You give him fish and a strict diet plan. Not a fishing pole and certainly not "education".

Boy, you REALLY don't read what I write.

You repeatedly argue that natural is optimal, but fail to recognize free is most natural, bar none.

And you fail to realize that the only person who is truly free is the King. All others must constrain their liberties to respect the rights and opportunities of others. Here, let me quote you some Burke.

Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, — in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity, — in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption, — in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.

That Reason is the ultimate state of liberty, not only in some myopic, claustrophobic sense of contemporary citizenship but in the true human sense that

The Universe is ours if only we make it "out there". Animal politics such as today's (e.g. pretending that Man is forever unconditionally incapable of taking care of himself without such authoritarian oversight) are only a transient crowd control solution. Sooner or later the true pains - the growing pains of true freedom (genetic, nano/femto tech, etc) - will come of age and the odds will be worse for Man if he hasn't done his best to rise to that challenge.


Stagnation in the politics you cling to is not the most effective training for this all-but-guaranteed future age of technological freedom. Or maybe MSimon & co have it right - it will be a passive extinction event. Those who cling to today and those who get past the hurdle, the paradigm shift.[/i]

When a signal is in resonance, tuning it further simply moves it off resonance. You argue that the culture that brought us to this pinacle of scientific achievement is stagnant and an impediment to future improvement. You think your future is Utopia. I think it is Skynet.

[Betruger]

You think your future is Utopia.

I think my future makes your candy assed dangers look like a walk in the park. No offense, in the real sense -- I really do think there are some serious dangers in the future and this stuff you argue aint gonna cut it.

Those 'poor' examples were so because I was in a rush writing. Same as now. Too much partying and too little time

[Diogenes]

You are smart enough to understand the difference between a transient and a steady state condition? I argue that you are viewing things from the perspective of a temporary transient condition which is moving from the existing Ocean of Christian based culture to that of a Secular based culture, but has not gotten there yet.

You have never experienced a society which is totally secular from the beginning. You are experiencing the left overs of culture which Christianized society has bequeathed you. Can you truly argue that once all the religious adherents are gone, and once the entire society is made up of people raised without any notion of religion, that such a society will be as moral and stable as that of the Previous Christian society?

Again, *I* am arguing about steady state conditions, you are opining from a transient condition.

Well no, I was stating observed facts about the personal correlation between an individual professing a Christian religion and having disciplined moral behaviour (none).

I didn't think I was going to have difficulty making this point. Did you grow up in a typical English home? (You know, with Anglican parents and such all about you during your formative years?)

You are advancing a speculative theory about whether societies with no religion will be more or less moral than those with a Christian religion. You have no evidence.

You are advancing a speculative theory that a society with no "supernatural" moral anchor will be a functional society.

As for evidence for *MY* theory, I must once again point to the Chinese. Do you know of a society which had lasted longer in a relatively primitive state of technology compared to what Christian society developed?

The Chinese, the Japanese, the Egyptians, the Incas, etc, all remained in a relatively primitive state until the technology developed by Christian societies was transferred to them.

Were the Christian societies just luckier? China's been around for 5,000 years, and in all that time it didn't get lucky?

I think most Atheist/Agnostics don't accurately consider the consequences to society were everyone to adopt their beliefs. Just as Simon cannot conceive that legalizing drugs might be a massive and far reaching disaster, (As Happened in China) So too can those opposed to religion not conceive of the notion that the made up invisible man everyone is taught to fear is actually a very effective negative feedback mechanism for social self control, without which many people will refuse to suppress their self serving impulses.

Were everyone to adopt my beliefs we would be highly law-abiding, truthful, and non-violent. I can't say for others, though of course T.H.Huxley, who coined the word agnostic was a person moral par excellence.

But what is the attractor to which subsequent generations will be drawn toward your moral principles? How are they passed on?

Perhaps it is just that, considering these matters, I don't see the loss of Christianity as a moral disaster?

Yes, why do we need this plug in the bottom of the boat?

On your specific arguments:
You think that people behave well for fear of a made up invisible man. Sounds like the worst type of fire and brim-stone religion which teaches fear, hatred and obedience to authority whether or not that is good. Thoroughly immoral.

There are some people who find it disgusting that future generations must pass through a male's penis. It is foolish to look on with distaste at a methodology that works simply because one finds the functionality of it personally distasteful.

It is presumptuous to argue with such an immense success.

In fact people behave well through being brought up with discipline and love and respect, learning gradually to accept more responsibility. I see no fear in this. It is a grave misunderstanding to think that discipline has anything to do with fear, except that those brought up without it tend to be afraid because of the lack of boundaries.

Some years ago, there were issues with Human stem cell lines being contaminated by Mouse feeder cells. I argue that your Atheist stem cell line is contaminated with Christian feeder cells. Isolating your Atheist stem cell line from it's Christian contamination is the only way to determine what will grow from it.

I think when you get the Christian contamination removed, you will discover it is a virulent pathogen.

[Diogenes]

You think your future is Utopia.

I think my future makes your candy assed dangers look like a walk in the park. No offense, in the real sense -- I really do think there are some serious dangers in the future and this stuff you argue aint gonna cut it.

Non of your efforts to explain them away are very reassuring. The future I see is a Skynet enforced Aristocracy with those in power having absolute and total control over every living human on the planet. They are uninhibited by any social or moral constraints.

They will know where you are at all times, if they permit you to have a vehicle, they will know where it is at all times, they will have recordings of everything you say or write, and they will direct you in the proper way to think. It's basically a cross between Skynet and 1984. THAT is the future as I see it, lest we steer it in a different direction somehow.

Those 'poor' examples were so because I was in a rush writing. Same as now. Too much partying and too little time

Party on dude!

[tomclarke]

OK, diogenes. You've just got too weird even for me.

But I'll let your last reply to me, which does not answer my points on our debated issue but instead raises a whole load of new weirdness, stand for others to read and make up their own minds!

PS - my parents were atheist and no established religion theist repectively.

[choff]

My view of the future depends on whether we get a working polywell fusor/focus fusion device/ or Riggatron in the next 20 years. If fusion power is a go utopia, if not then we muddle along laterally like we've been doing since the end of WW2.

This assumes we manage to keep on not nuking ourselves so smithereens of course. When you really look at the progress since the middle of the last century, the only noticeable difference is computers and biotech. No big quantum leaps, the only thing an alien visitor would see from a distance is the aircraft have jet engines.

[hanelyp]

The dystopian future Diogenes sees is very likely if we can't reverse the moral decay that has taken hold in much of society. The default order of human society, throughout history, is a few dominating the many. Only under the influence of a higher moral order has it been possible to climb to freedom and general prosperity in part of the world.

The availability of relatively cheep energy from practical fusion technology can't change the above.

[choff]

I'll file that and other unpleasant outcomes under blowing ourselves to smithereens.

[MSimon]

The dystopian future Diogenes sees is very likely if we can't reverse the moral decay that has taken hold in much of society. The default order of human society, throughout history, is a few dominating the many. Only under the influence of a higher moral order has it been possible to climb to freedom and general prosperity in part of the world.

The availability of relatively cheep energy from practical fusion technology can't change the above.

The #1 cause of moral decay is what it always has been. Humans thinking with the right laws and sufficient force they can control human nature in private (it is difficult enough in the public sphere). An outlook generally referred to as totalitarianism.

The disease seems to have caught a few people around here. Pity. They are bringing into being the very thing they fear. We do live on "Forbidden Planet".

When you try to force people to do something they will do the opposite. Otherwise they will do as they dam well please. So you have to ask yourself "will opposition or indifference get you more of what you want?"

[tomclarke]

When you try to force people to do something they will do the opposite. Otherwise they will do as they dam well please. So you have to ask yourself "will opposition or indifference get you more of what you want?"

here are some counterexamples:

In the Uk a law was introduced making the wearing of seat-belts in cars compulsory. It has never been enforced, indeed enforcement would be met by popular diapprobation. But within a year of two (with a few tv adverts to help) the attitude towards wearing seatbelts amongst most people had changed, seatbelt-wearing was much more common, and deaths due to car accidents down. The change appears permanent.

Personally I am somewhat conflicted about seatbelts. I can see the statistics for lower deaths (and lower injuries), and understand them. I worry that as cars become ever safer so drivers will in compensation drive with less care. I worry also about the tendency to remove risks from modern life. That means people have to go and find them. If this is climbing K9 I have no objections, but if it is having more potentially fatal drunken brawls in the local pub I'm not sure I would not personally prefer a higher death toll on the roads.

So what I'm saying is that there are many ways that government can affect behaviour without force: however working out which such changes are worthwhile is not so simple, and often politics emphasises one element at the expense of overall stupid results.

[MSimon]

When you try to force people to do something they will do the opposite. Otherwise they will do as they dam well please. So you have to ask yourself "will opposition or indifference get you more of what you want?"

here are some counterexamples:

In the Uk a law was introduced making the wearing of seat-belts in cars compulsory. It has never been enforced, indeed enforcement would be met by popular diapprobation. But within a year of two (with a few tv adverts to help) the attitude towards wearing seatbelts amongst most people had changed, seatbelt-wearing was much more common, and deaths due to car accidents down. The change appears permanent.

Personally I am somewhat conflicted about seatbelts. I can see the statistics for lower deaths (and lower injuries), and understand them. I worry that as cars become ever safer so drivers will in compensation drive with less care. I worry also about the tendency to remove risks from modern life. That means people have to go and find them. If this is climbing K9 I have no objections, but if it is having more potentially fatal drunken brawls in the local pub I'm not sure I would not personally prefer a higher death toll on the roads.

So what I'm saying is that there are many ways that government can affect behaviour without force: however working out which such changes are worthwhile is not so simple, and often politics emphasises one element at the expense of overall stupid results.

Americans are different. We have a long history of evading avoiding and violating laws. You will recall a certain King who helped establish our country by insisting the laws be obeyed even though he couldn't enforce them.

On top of that we are the children of people who couldn't get along in other places. And people who can't get along are still coming here. I like it.

[GIThruster]

Americans are different. We have a long history of evading avoiding and violating laws.

Spoken like a true criminal. Fortunately you do not speak for the majority.

This is why people take the opinions of a doper parasite with a grain of salt, because we all know your twisted perspective has been made so by decades of criminal activity and that your compelling interest is to grant some measure of respectability to behavior that is entirely characterized by your juvenile and criminal attitude.

Most people do not deliberately do what they're told not to. Emotionally disturbed children and criminal types such as yourself are in the vast minority--less than 9% of the populous. You are in no way qualified to speak for the majority who have jobs and don't collect money from others to spend on illegal drugs.

[MSimon]

Americans are different. We have a long history of evading avoiding and violating laws.

Spoken like a true criminal. Fortunately you do not speak for the majority.

This is why people take the opinions of a doper parasite with a grain of salt, because we all know your twisted perspective has been made so by decades of criminal activity and that your compelling interest is to grant some measure of respectability to behavior that is entirely characterized by your juvenile and criminal attitude.

Most people do not deliberately do what they're told not to. Emotionally disturbed children and criminal types such as yourself are in the vast minority--less than 9% of the populous. You are in no way qualified to speak for the majority who have jobs and don't collect money from others to spend on illegal drugs.

Yes I am a true criminal. In the footsteps of John Hancock.

From: http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... dment.html

The first point is that John Hancock before he became a signer of the Declaration of Independence was a smuggler. He had a famous run in with Crown officers in 1768 when his sloop the Liberty refused to pay the tax on some Madeira wine.

Of course every revolutionary is a criminal - until he gets the laws changed. Or the government. I think things are looking good for Colorado in November.

Well you see punishing emotionally disturbed children has consequences. Sometimes they do things to the majority. Like upset the apple cart. Best to be nice to them. They can be a pain if further disturbed. Especially if they no longer take the judgment of the majority to heart.

Then it is the majority that becomes emotionally disturbed. Are you disturbed yet? Well you will be.