The problem with utopia, Fukuyma says, — csalisbury

Do you have the page number where he said this? Not ringing any bells yet.

those who do have the right view can't get the kick of explaining, scolding and berating those who don't. — csalisbury

Don’t be so hard on yourself. I don’t take your anti-totalising rants to heart. My only complaint is your failure to make a case to match your scolding and berating. Explaining would in fact be good.

So, for you the legal answer just is the ethical answer. Incredibly subtle of you! — Janus

I see you are pretending to take seriously the ironic answer so as to run away from the actual answer which followed.

Not so subtle. Quite transparent in fact.

Stop being an idiot. Why is carbon dioxide stable? Because one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms collectively form a lower energy state than the same three atoms wandering around by themselves. — apokrisis

It's you who is being an idiot, talking about things like "atoms wandering around by themselves". I was comparing one type of molecule to another, we never mentioned independent atoms. The reason why one type of molecule is more stable than another is due to the nature of the chemical bonding . It makes no sense to say that one type of bond is a lower or higher "energy state" than another. It's simply the case that the electron arrangement of one molecule renders that molecule as more precariously balanced than the electron arrangement of another molecule. These are known as different "energy levels". And, using "energy" in this way borders on nonsensical due to the contradictory nature of wave/particle duality. In reality, "energy level" refers to the misunderstood phenomenon of discrete quantized units of energy which are supposed to exist within a continuous wave field.

So out of spite, you will spread your arms, step off the cliff, and thus demonstrate your contempt for the constraints of gravity? — apokrisis

Many people have done that. I'm not one of them. I don't tend to act out of spite, but many people do. And you cannot dismiss the actions of others, as impossible actions, just because they seem unreasonable to you. That's a problem with ethics, we cannot simply say that such and such actions are unreasonable, therefore no one will do them. In fact, that's a principle part of ethics, trying to get people not to do unreasonable things.

We are the end-point. Our world has already been shaped by a succession of increasingly specified constraints that start at the brute physical level, work their way up through biology, sociology and culture, and right on through in terms of our community, our family history, every other aspect of our world that is shaping out habits of thought. — apokrisis

You are ignoring, and denying observable facts. People do unreasonable things, things outside all the familiar, cultural, biological, and whatever other terms of constraint which you use in your description. There are human acts which are outside the constraints of any type of habit, just like there are so-called random genetic mutations. And that's why these acts are seen as unreasonable, in all senses of the word. Because of the reality of these unconstrained acts, we cannot look at the individual human being as the end point, the individual must be apprehended as the beginning point. The nature of free will forces this conclusion upon us. And so, in all respectable forms of ethics, the interest of the individual is higher than the interest of the society, culture, or state, because this is necessary in order to establish consistency with reality, and agreement from the freely choosing individuals. Without consent, all your constraints are for naught.

The free world is losing it’s meal ticket. The elites are watching their power wane. No more free rides. — NOS4A2

I had to reread what you wrote to catch what you meant.

Because even as the powers wane, those who have chosen to care for them, most of them are still standing.

I’m indifferent to the degree it doesn’t impact on my freedoms. That is the “personal” answer anyone would give who is unable to talk about a wider view. — apokrisis

The health and safety of all Americans is not at all a concern so long as it does not impact on your(one's own) personal freedoms?

That's the mindset that is common, as you've hinted at, that is a part of the unraveling. The overvalued notions of individual freedom and liberty at the expense of the community.

It's all about enshrining narratives. It is ironic that the sacrifices and community-oriented nature of WWII are seen as patriotic, yet by some of the same people, will not be applied in any other realm of time, space, and governance. It is also interesting how the idealized post-war years of the late 40s-70s were run by mainly moderate to liberal policies with upwards of 90% tax rate for wealthy.

Thus the narratives of sacrifice and community are only revered when crystallized in nostalgic times and never to be actually implemented in the present. The narrative of individualism at all costs and opposed to government-mandated community action reigns supreme at all times for some folks. Why then and not now? People need to have something to rebel against? Even if it is themselves and their fellow citizens they are rebelling against in the bigger picture? Narrative of individualism and falsely associating it with a form of "freedom" is too ingrained for many people, even though their own narrative of exceptions in the past that worked say otherwise (WWII, post-war moderate-liberal consensus, etc.).

creativesoul
8.5k
I’m indifferent to the degree it doesn’t impact on my freedoms. That is the “personal” answer anyone would give who is unable to talk about a wider view.
— apokrisis

The health and safety of all Americans is not at all a concern so long as it does not impact on your(one's own) personal freedoms?

That's the mindset that is common, as you've hinted at, that is a part of the unraveling. The overvalued notions of individual freedom and liberty at the expense of the community. — creativesoul

Allow me a loud AMEN! Especially for that last sentence.

It's all about enshrining narratives. It is ironic that the sacrifices and community-oriented nature of WWII are seen as patriotic, yet by some of the same people, will not be applied in any other realm of time, space, and governance. It is also interesting how the idealized post-war years of the late 40s-70s were run by mainly moderate to liberal policies with upwards of 90% tax rate for wealthy.

Thus the narratives of sacrifice and community are only revered when crystallized in nostalgic times and never to be actually implemented in the present. The narrative of individualism at all costs for government-mandated community action reigns supreme at all times for some folks. Why then and not now? People need to have something to rebel against? Even if it is themselves and their fellow citizens they are rebelling against in the bigger picture? Narrative of individualism and falsely associating it with a form of "freedom" is too ingrained for many people. — schopenhauer1

Indeed.

A representative form of government acts on behalf on what's in the best interest of all it's citizens, each and every time it can do so. That is what makes it a representative form of government. The US is exactly such a system, or at least it is supposed to be. It is in the best interest of all Americans(and the world for that matter) for us to do whatever we can do as a means to contain Covid19 in such a way that most minimizes the harm to all Americans(and by extension non Americans alike). We are not doing that. We are more than capable of doing so. The question is why not? Look to what's needed...

Putting our everyday normal lives on hold is necessary. Wearing masks in public(when we must go out into public) is necessary. Practicing social distancing is necessary(when we must go out into public). Testing at a rate much higher than we currently are is necessary. Contact tracing and isolation is necessary. Ensuring that people do not suffer personal injury(health or financial) as a result of Covid19 is necessary. For many, perhaps most, this course of necessary action would mean no longer having a steady source of personal income. For others, the negative financial aspect is inconsequential, for they've more than enough to survive a few months without a steady stream of new income.

There is nothing stopping the US government from exercising it's power to contain Covid19, except where and/or how to adequately fund the much needed process briefly outlined above. From where do we get the funds to do all this? It is expensive after-all.

From those who have it to spare.

The problem, of course, is that those who have it are either in control of those tasked with the responsibility of writing and enacting public policy on behalf of all Americans, or are those who write and enact the laws. Those who could fix the problems either do not know how, or do not care enough about the citizens they're supposed to be acting on behalf of.

Neither is acceptable. The latter, sadly enough, would be a better situation.

Press pause. Defer all debt. Contain the virus. Get back to normal.

Restore some much needed trust in the American government.

That's the mindset that is common, as you've hinted at, that is a part of the unraveling. The overvalued notions of individual freedom and liberty at the expense of the community.
— creativesoul

Allow me a loud AMEN! Especially for that last sentence. — Frank Apisa

Yeah. I was very disturbed when I saw and heard people beginning to speak as if doing what's necessary for containing Covid19 was somehow infringing upon personal liberty and freedom. That narrative began several months back along with sewing the seeds of doubt about the actual severity of the pandemic. This was also accompanied by efforts to discredit anyone who attempted to rightly inform the public about the dangers of Covid19.

This continues to this day.

Another part of the unraveling is the sheer amount of falsehood and/or ridiculous conspiracy theories being perpetuated by the president and his close supporters/followers about this virus(amongst many other things). What this country needs right now, as much as ever, is a clear set of shared true belief about the situation at hand and leaders who care about the lives and livelihoods of those over whom they wield such tremendous power.

That's the mindset that is common, as you've hinted at, that is a part of the unraveling. The overvalued notions of individual freedom and liberty at the expense of the community. — creativesoul

That’s the bind. If you aren’t free to be unaffected by things then you aren’t really free. But there is no point to freedom unless it is so as to be able make choices in forming your communities - your social interest groups.

Isn’t the US unravelling in the sense that two opposed interest groups are forming more strongly - the woke against the rednecks? And aren’t both of these something like coercive tyrannies if you don’t particularly care to get involved with them?

What is natural is for human affairs to be in a flexible state of ravelling and unravelling in ways that optimise a general state of adaptedness to the world. When it comes to the pandemic response, what strikes the outsider about the US is its social confusion.

But as I have also argued, many think it is clear that folk are ready for a shift from the neoliberal order that has prevailed for the last 30 years - the era of peak resource extraction with no care for the environmental consequences. So great social confusion in the “world leader” is to be expected.

And the US may still be the most likely to lead the way into whatever follows as the next stage in world history. Even just by turning inwards, becoming a regional empire, that could be a key change. The US is also well positioned if it suddenly decided to go green in serious fashion. It has the tech creative advantage as well.

What could hold it back is that while it is a highly creative nation in terms tech and economics, it seems very poor at rewriting its political institutions to fit the times. The constitution and federation of states locks it into the past. The political sphere has long been captured by billionaires, industry lobbies and elite interest groups.

A modern state is constantly updating its political framework to better meet the needs of tomorrow. The US is strangely sclerotic on that score.

If you aren’t free to be unaffected by things then you aren’t really free. But there is no point to freedom unless it is so as to be able make choices in forming your communities - your social interest groups. — apokrisis

Ah, the fantasy of unfettered freedom. A myth, at best. A weapon to be used against others, at worst. No one on the face of this earth is unaffected by things.

To the second point, you've summarized the general idea underwriting the laws(now defunct) that forbade black people from buying property in some community or another because they wanted to exercise their freedom to choose their own community members.

Isn’t the US unravelling in the sense that two opposed interest groups are forming more strongly - the woke against the rednecks? — apokrisis

This is much too broad a brushstroke.

No.

To quite the contrary, I think that that is the opposite of unraveling. It's creating a much more cohesive understanding of racial relations in the states. It would be unraveling, perhaps, to someone with racist beliefs and/or tendencies who saw and/or interpreted these changes as things falling apart at the seams. However, it looks - to me anyway - much more like the stitching together of different American lives into the fabric of community, understanding, and caring...

There are many people in the US who have a lack of knowledge about the history of the country as it pertains to how minorities have been treated, particularly blacks. Due to the easy access to these stories and this information, many people have become aware of the facts, and as a result have altered their opinions accordingly. When one actually integrates knowledge of the history into their own worldview, they cannot help but to have an increased understanding of the plight of black Americans.

Assuming they care...

And aren’t both of these something like coercive tyrannies if you don’t particularly care to get involved with them?

I have no idea whether or not we're talking about the same individuals.

When it comes to the pandemic response, What strikes the outsider about the US is its social confusion. — apokrisis

Indeed.

Freedom to believe that it's all a hoax, or it's not as bad as they make it out to be. Freedom to believe whatever one wants, and for that freedom to continue to be unfettered, unabated, and/or otherwise completely unaffected by things like facts.

Freedom to place other lives at risk by running stop signs, drinking and driving, and/or refusing to wear a mask in public.

What could hold it back is that while it is a highly creative nation in terms tech and economics, it seems very poor at rewriting its political institutions to fit the times. The constitution and federation of states locks it into the past. The political sphere has long been captured by billionaires, industry lobbies and elite interest groups. — apokrisis

That's part of the unraveling.... and a big one.

To the second point, you've summarized the general idea underwriting the laws(now defunct) that forbade black people from buying property in some community or another because they wanted to exercise their freedom to choose their own community members. — creativesoul

You are being terribly literal. But yes. Liberal democracy would mean being free to fight for such arrangements and free to contest such arrangements. If the political system actually works, the right balance results. And the outcome isn't determined by some Platonic moral abstraction, or even "a feeling". It is based on some rational and evidence-driven grounds. An optimisation principle.

To quite the contrary, I think that that is the opposite of unraveling. — creativesoul

It would help if you actually read what I say. What I said was that two cohesive interest groups are emerging via a dialectical confrontation. And that could be a crisis which produces its resolution in some mutually agreed new social balance. Or not. Depending on the US capacity for political change these days.

I see you are pretending to take seriously the ironic answer so as to run away from the actual answer which followed.

Not so subtle. Quite transparent in fact. — apokrisis

No you don't see; you're wrong again. I didn't, and still dont, see what you wrote after the so-called "ironic answer" as any kind of answer to the question you posed, which was " what would you do with the dissenters". I thought you were honestly saying you would be happy with whatever the law prescribed. So come on then what would YOU do with the disenters?

I thought you were honestly saying you would be happy with whatever the law prescribed. — Janus

:chin:

I agree that history has a direction. — csalisbury

I wonder if you might fill this out for me. In what way does history have a direction? Or what determines that direction?

My inclination is towards a view of increased social complexity over time. The Hegelian dialectic is then an oversimplification of that process, a convenient myth that fell to Popper's criticism and subsequent work on complex systems. That is, I see history as having a direction but as being pretty much unpredictable.

Hence, I haven't read Fukuyma in any detail; the premise of the predictability of social change did not appeal at all.

In the interview with George Friedman I cited earlier, he makes the claim that the myth of the individual is comparatively recent, coming into it's own after Nixon as part of the neoconservative economic reforms of the following twenty years.

If that's the case then perhaps these myths are not as fixed as it might seem. Will the failure of the myth of individualism see the rise of a more communally oriented United States?

That's the mindset that is common, as you've hinted at, that is a part of the unraveling. The overvalued notions of individual freedom and liberty at the expense of the community.
— creativesoul

That’s the bind. If you aren’t free to be unaffected by things then you aren’t really free. But there is no point to freedom unless it is so as to be able make choices in forming your communities - your social interest groups. — apokrisis

Ah, the fantasy of unfettered freedom. A myth, at best. A weapon to be used against others, at worst. No one on the face of this earth is unaffected by things.

To the second point, you've summarized the general idea underwriting the laws(now defunct) that forbade black people from buying property in some community or another because they wanted to exercise their freedom to choose their own community members. — creativesoul

You are being terribly literal. But yes. Liberal democracy would mean being free to fight for such arrangements and free to contest such arrangements. — apokrisis

That already happened.

It would help if you actually read what I say. What I said was that two cohesive interest groups are emerging via a dialectical confrontation. — apokrisis

That is not what you 'said'. Even if it were, it's wrong anyway. Woke people are emerging. Rednecks have been with us for a very long time. Anyway, seems you've nothing much to offer that's of any interest to me. I'm not in the mood for pin the tail on the insincere and/or self-contradictory speaker.

Come back when you've decided that it's safe to believe what you say. I'm all ears then.

Be well.

Woke people are emerging. Rednecks have been with us for a very long time. — creativesoul

Armed militia would worry me. Cancel culture is being matched by online extremism.

If there is unravelling, it is happening in both its directions.

In the interview with George Friedman I cited earlier, he makes the claim that the myth of the individual is comparatively recent, coming into it's own after Nixon as part of the neoconservative economic reforms of the following twenty years.

If that's the case then perhaps these myths are not as fixed as it might seem. Will the failure of the myth of individualism see the rise of a more communally oriented United States? — Banno

I hope so, but until enough influential people start thinking, talking, and acting in(on) such terms, the masses will not follow.

My pessimism has me thinking a move to the right is the more likely outcome. Along with it, a further rejection of scientific advice and rational discourse.

The poverty of Historicism is that whatever the outcome, it will fit the narrative. Hence the narrative is uninformative.

Armed militia would worry me. — apokrisis

Those have been around for a long time as well. What worries me about them is that the president has recently been using federal officers that do not have clearly marked uniforms. One reason for law enforcement officers to have them is so they can be easily identified.

However, if the public gets used to federal agents that do not have clearly marked uniforms, and those camo patterns are readily available for public consumption, then what's stopping some armed militia group from impersonating federal agents, or from being mistaken as such?

How would anyone know the difference?

My pessimism has me thinking a move to the right is the more likely outcome. Along with it, a further rejection of scientific advice and rational discourse. — Banno

Short term? Current administration? Sure. Certainly there will be no admission of wrong doing and/or being mistaken by those people.

I was thinking more long term. For Trump the narcissist, , power is unimportant; what counts is being the centre of attention. Power was a means to that end, found by cunning rather than strategy.

But there will be those watching who aim for power, and can form strategy.

Those have been around for a long time as well. — creativesoul

You’re doing a lot of shoulder shrugging here. Sure I characterise the divide in caricature terms - woke vs redneck. But then people are caricaturing themselves in that regard. That is how you know it is identity politics rather than the real political discussion that needs to be had.

From my distanced view, that particular stand-off is just a symptom. Even a diversion.

Occupy Wall Street and Extinction Rebellion at least feel like attacks on "the system". BLM had its specific target before it all blew up into confused general posturing - the concrete aim of "defund the police" as the other way of saying "fund the social system".

The US problems of a pandemic, historic racism and economic inequality are three different things. Yet they have all be stirred into the same confused stew, at least from what Fox and CNN tell me. And then there is another problem in a president being allowed to trample over every political norm.

To me, that is what a confused nation looks like. It is why I would take a measured approach that tries instead to understand what is "really going on" as historical trends.

If we understand the logic of the thermodynamic imperative, we can see what kind of world fossil fuels needed us to create. One willing to remove all the internal constraints on maximising entropy production. Hence eventually, neoliberalism.

I offered up fracking as a concrete example. It makes no sense to burn so much investment capital to squeeze that tight oil out of the ground. So why is it happening? Well it makes perfect entropic sense. And it makes perfect geopolitical sense in a world economic system so distorted that the US can suddenly cherish an "energy independence" that isn't now renewables based. And so distorted that foreign wealth feels it has little better option than to double down on dollarisation. Any US dollar-denominated investment can lose money, but not as much money as investments in every other currency if world economy tanks.

So the US could be fixed at every level of the problems I outlined. But that is the kind of systematic political project where people are gathered around the same table as interest groups fighting their own corner, yet also bound to arrive at some mutual arrangement by the end – a new balance that could stick.

All the huffing and puffing about ethics and morality is quite pointless unless it is anchored to the reality of life as it happens.

I was thinking more long term. For Trump the narcissist, , power is unimportant; what counts is being the centre of attention. Power was a means to that end, found by cunning rather than strategy.

But there will be those watching who aim for power, and can form strategy. — Banno

Well, Trump has certainly shown some gaping holes and fundamental flaws in the American system.

That's the mindset that is common, as you've hinted at, that is a part of the unraveling. The overvalued notions of individual freedom and liberty at the expense of the community.

I think the opposite is the case: the overvalued (and abstract) notions of community are acted out at the expense of individual freedom and liberty. And the fact that all communities are composed of individuals makes any denial of individuals rights and freedoms all the more dangerous.

Right you are!

The point of a good morality is to encourage the individual to seek one's own well-being. Morality definitely must start with the individual. But "individual freedom and liberty" might not be an appropriate value to be assigned high priority. We observe that a good community is much more conducive to the individual's well-being than is freedom and liberty. So a good morality would inspire an individual toward producing a good community, rather than direct the individual toward freedom and liberty.