Raising the bar on what to accept as humans

[PyramidHead]

I'll add another one, and I think it might be the most outrageous one yet.

When productivity increases due to technological innovations, two things happen:

1. More things can get made in less time than before
2. More things can get made with less work than before

Yet, gains in productivity are almost always accompanied by rising poverty. Instead of pausing for a second to reflect on how batshit that is, almost everybody starts imagining policies to offset this effect, such as universal basic income.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Then have a rotating body of citizens take care of enforcing traffic laws, and have all of them be subject to immediate recall by vote if they abuse their power.

What is the mechanism for ensuring violators of rules (not the enforcers) are going to make with restitution for violating rules?

Laws and rules only go as far as the populations ability to enforce them.

The question is why you're satisfied that we aren't doing anything remotely like this right now.

You'd need to be a bit more specific if you are talking about all levels of enforcement or just traffic.

Often the case? It is often the case that people think they have all the answers.

We're in agreement, then? In a scenario where it's dangerous for any person to mistakenly believe they have all the answers, which strategy is more likely to exacerbate the negative effects of this tendency: vesting authority in a pyramid-like hierarchy where the most important decisions are made by the fewest people, or giving every person an equal voice in providing whatever they believe to be the answers?

You won't like the answer, but most people are stupid about most things, including intelligent people. There is a saying about kitchens having too many cooks. If your personal experience hasn't shown you that too many voices make processes harder, I'm sorry, but you haven't really been exposed to much real world stuff.

Humans hate being ordered around by glorified babysitters who aren't qualified to give the orders. We decided that was how we were going to set up the economy absurdly recently, compared to how production was organized less than 1000 years ago. Nothing pernicious or unalterable lurks in the phenomenon of a group that makes it somehow incapable of getting anything done; human history is the history of cooperation among humans, not of rare individuals managing the incapable masses.

This seems to extrapolate dumb managers meaning the general populace can handle environmental regulation and enforcement, contract enforcement, among an infinite number of other things.

Of course we can! What is it about the general populace, innately and in their blood, that makes you think environmental regulation is beyond our ability to comprehend?

You mean other than the science, statistics, and experience in the field? Saying a group of people believe we should "have clean air" doesn't make the air clean.

Are environmental regulators born with the ability to do it? Do you imagine that the current system of placing our future prospects of living on a habitable planet in the hands of profiteers and political parties is anything but a spectacular failure?

I'd say the average person doesn't know what range of pH a river should have in order not to threaten the ecology of it, forget about what level of pollutants is "acceptable".

Humans want to do productive things, and love doing them in groups. The scourge of modern capitalism isn't laziness, it's meaningless busywork and hollow administrative tasks, most of which only exists to prop up other examples of the same.

Everybody who says that people are incapable of self-management inevitably turns out to be talking about everybody except himself.

That sounds like someone talking about home education.

There's another place where we should ask why the bar is so low: when we evaluate schools and compare them to each other or to other forms of learning, we automatically look at how prepared for the workforce each system leaves its students, as if that should and has always been the primary function of education. You're making this thread easy.

Easy for what? You haven't explained how this 'just let everyone decide about everything' is even remotely viable, I mean other than just saying it and reassuring yourself that it is viable.

 

[PyramidHead]

What is the mechanism for ensuring violators of rules (not the enforcers) are going to make with restitution for violating rules?

Laws and rules only go as far as the populations ability to enforce them.

Whatever the mechanism is, would you rather it be decided for you by people who tend to side with the enforcers, or by everybody who is affected by the rules? Given the state of the criminal justice system in America, where there is almost no democratic accountability in the enforcement or application of laws, you will have a hard time convincing me that the problem is simply that we haven't selected the right representatives to appoint the judges, hire the police chiefs, and pass laws about what we are and are not allowed to do. In America, you inject a tiny bit of your preference in one of two directions every so often at the ballot box, and everything after that is out of your hands unless you're very wealthy. Tellingly, this results in certain rules being prosecuted less diligently for certain populations, such as investment bankers, and in a more exacting way for others, such as homeless people. You have to sit back and watch that unfold because someone has convinced you that most people are stupid. Except you.

But in answer to your question, nothing about collective self-governance means there can be no agreed-upon punitive measures. There can still be speeding tickets, license suspensions, and tow zones. It would just be devised and administrated horizontally with input from the people who use public roads. It doesn't take very long or require a special kind of intellect to decide if it makes sense to have parking meters, for example. If everybody contributes to the upkeep of the roads, maybe everybody feels like they should be able to park on them without paying extra. They could directly vote on that, instead of waiting for a ballot initiative or a charismatic lobbyist to get it on the agenda. There are many possibilities, limited only by our potential as humans to solve problems.

You won't like the answer, but most people are stupid about most things, including intelligent people. There is a saying about kitchens having too many cooks. If your personal experience hasn't shown you that too many voices make processes harder, I'm sorry, but you haven't really been exposed to much real world stuff.

You mean other than the science, statistics, and experience in the field? Saying a group of people believe we should "have clean air" doesn't make the air clean.

I'd say the average person doesn't know what range of pH a river should have in order not to threaten the ecology of it, forget about what level of pollutants is "acceptable".

These comments indicate a misunderstanding of what is being suggested. Nobody is saying that there should be no specialists, or no scientific/technical experts whose job it is to investigate complicated problems and educate society about possible solutions. Right now, all of that is filtered through endless layers of obfuscation thanks to market forces and the noise of corporate media outlets. The driving forces behind what gets disseminated to the public about environmental impacts are mostly beholden to private profit and compete with each other in a sea of ad-funded clickbait, which is why it's so hard for the average person to know what's trustworthy. Would it really be worse if there was common ownership by the scientists of all the lab materials, reagents, and equipment needed to do their work, and a publicly run journalism sector responsive to the democratic concerns of society compelling them to explain their results?

You see, you're not the only person who is acutely aware of the ignorance many people have about environmental impacts. But you treat it as something that is just suddenly encountered in nature, rather than something that is the product of nobody having any control over what information they are allowed to see other than by influencing viewership of a handful of 24-hour news networks. Why are the means of discovering and disseminating vital knowledge in the hands of illegitimate authority (gained by political and monetary influence) and not controlled by legitimate authority (people with expertise in the field), and dependent on market forces subject to the concentration of wealth rather than the democratic participation of a populace educated by a transparent and accountable system of reporting? No coercion, oppression, or strongarm tactics are needed for competent minds to collaborate on a problem of this magnitude and deliver their recommendations to everybody else with all the salient details they see fit to include, and when there is enough time for everyone to deliberate, we all decide what to do about it. Only when you add the bureaucratic labyrinth of state and private ownership and insist on keeping democracy at a safe distance via representatives does this become a problem, which is why we're currently headed for a serious catastrophe that we could immediately address if everybody were educated enough to understand it and had the power to directly conduct the activity of production.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I'll add another one, and I think it might be the most outrageous one yet.

When productivity increases due to technological innovations, two things happen:

1. More things can get made in less time than before
2. More things can get made with less work than before

Yet, gains in productivity are almost always accompanied by rising poverty. Instead of pausing for a second to reflect on how batshit that is, almost everybody starts imagining policies to offset this effect, such as universal basic income.

On the practical side, how could the world ever get together to establish a universal basic income? The world can't even come together to fight climate change!

 

[Trausti]

I'll add another one, and I think it might be the most outrageous one yet.

When productivity increases due to technological innovations, two things happen:

1. More things can get made in less time than before
2. More things can get made with less work than before

Yet, gains in productivity are almost always accompanied by rising poverty. Instead of pausing for a second to reflect on how batshit that is, almost everybody starts imagining policies to offset this effect, such as universal basic income.

On the practical side, how could the world ever get together to establish a universal basic income? The world can't even come together to fight climate change!

And who pays?

 

[steve_bank]

What is not seeing covered is how Hollywood, TV, and advertising that kids are now awash in are shaping cultural norms.

Periodically someone screams we have a drug crisis. Staring in the 60s drugs became cool prompted by music, public figures, and Hollywood. Use drugs and you are a rebel sticking it to the man. Cheech and Chong. Who is it?..Its Dave man...Uhhh Davis's not here...

Media and advertising has created a culture of addiction and instant gratification 24/7.

Certainly misogyny was prompted in Hollywood movies from the start. When Clark Gable pushed a woman around in one of his first movies he became a man's man.

Connery's portrayal of James Bond was a big influence on young males in my generation.

 

[skepticalbip]

I'll add another one, and I think it might be the most outrageous one yet.

When productivity increases due to technological innovations, two things happen:

1. More things can get made in less time than before
2. More things can get made with less work than before

Yet, gains in productivity are almost always accompanied by rising poverty. Instead of pausing for a second to reflect on how batshit that is, almost everybody starts imagining policies to offset this effect, such as universal basic income.

On the practical side, how could the world ever get together to establish a universal basic income? The world can't even come together to fight climate change!

And who pays?

The answer from those advocating "equal distribution of the wealth" is usually 'those people' they dislike and are wealthier than themselves, never themselves.

 

[ronburgundy]

why should the basic necessities of human social existence be dependent on a wage at all?

Because wage is tied to engaging in productive work and productive work is the only thing that allows food, shelter, healthcare, and transportation to event exist and be available to anyone. And the quality of all these things is directly dependent upon how much productive work each person is engaging in. When combined with the fact that many people do and will always seek to take more from any system than they put into it, this means it is essential for the well-being of all that the benefits each person gets from the system of productive work system that creates our ability to satisfy our basic needs be tethered to how much productive work one contributes to that system.

If we lived in a fairytale where the only reason that every person did not put forth their share of productive work was misfortune and inability, then there would be no need to have an enforcement system that prevents cheaters. But we don't live in that system, so there is a need. That means tethering those benefits to putting in some minimal amount of effort towards productive work.

Of course, there are many who do suffer both temporary and long term misfortune, and a moral society should supply these people's with some minimal level of the benefits of the productive work system that will inherently sometimes be the cause of some of that misfortune.

The intellectual and practical challenge is striking a balance between checks and balances in the system that results in supplying that minimal level of benefits to the unfortunate, while minimizes opportunities to cheat the system by deliberate lack of effort and while maintaining incentives to contribute productive work that is at least equal to the level of benefits one expects and hopes to receive from the system.
The political challenge is getting anyone to have a reasoned conversation about this, without either denying the existence of willfully non-productive cheaters (a common assumption in leftist dogma) or without denying that their are unfortunate victims of the system (common assumption in rightist dogma), or even without arguing that we shouldn't even have an obligation to care about and for victims of misfortune (a common amoral position among pseudo-libertarians).

Is there some reason why only people who work 40 hours should have access to these things? Why 40 hours?

This is a valid point. 40 hours as a concept of "full time" is arbitrary. With increasing automation and tech, not only is 40 hours from all able bodies people unnecessary to supply everyone needs, but everyone's wants and consumer demand. We need to rework the system and our thinking to provide a mechanism by which the expected hours of productive work is reduced as each hour of productive work yields more and more of the needed and desired goods. OTOH, we do need some flexible conception of "full time" as a expectation for the effort people should put in if they are able, in order to receive the minimal level of benefits (again, the prevent inevitable and numerous "cheaters").

[*]Almost all of civilized life is dominated by the exchange of currency, and it is almost never seriously contemplated why this should continue to be the case.

This has little if any meaning unless you can propose and alternative. Currency is a measure of the productive work. It's exchange is an exchange of productive work or promise of productive work toward the end of mutually beneficial satisfaction of needs/desires. For reasoned discussed above, it not only makes sense for civilized life to be dominated by this, but is likely that civilization is only possible with some sort of system.

[*]The police force in America is committed to enforcing the law as it is written, regardless of whether the law is just or not, and monopolizes the use of deadly force to do so.

This is also meaningless in the absence of alternatives. Yes, there are good alternatives to allowing a police force to use deadly force with little oversight and recourse. However, there is no good alternative to having a police force that enforces written laws. The only alternatives are either to not have any laws in the first place, do not have a system of enforcing them, or allow people in charge of enforcement to ignore and enforce laws as they see fit. The first two are essentially the same thing and would lead to anarchy and far far greater immorality, suffering, and injustice than we have even with our current often corrupted, racist, and overly violent police force. The third alternative would mean that all those corruptions of the police force would be even worse and cause more harm by giving them more power. While written laws can be corrupt and unjust, they are by definition recorded, so at least we know what the written law is so it's injustices can be debated and corrected. Police actions are not recorded with the level of detail required to know exactly what they are, and thus any discussion of their justness or need for reform is heavily clouded by uncertainty over what those actions even are. That uncertainty makes corrections and progress far less likely when injustices are caused by arbitrary and largely unobserved actions of enforcement than by the consequences of the written law itself.

 

[Jarhyn]

I've always held that "the Overton window" is in fact a pernicious concept that is often used to justify doing the bare minimum necessary to placate the largest segment of people whom progressives are currently fighting to include fully in society, used as an excuse to justify half-measures.

It has long been understood by liberals that "black people", "women", "gays", and all the rest are really just 'people'. And whenever a movement has started with the intent to recognize the person hood of those people, the right has a sudden sea change on a single front, and with this token victory, all the others remain disenfranchised and ignored, forgotten about until an entire generation passes and new unsatisfied youth grow up to demand change from what was ALWAYS an unacceptable situation.

The last time I encountered this, was with the gay rights victories of the early 2000's. Lawrence happend, and DADT collapsed, perhaps too late to save my own military career, but it happened all the same.

And when this happened, the Overton Window was the overwhelming response I received here when I said loudly that the measures we're half-measures: "it's just not socially acceptable yet" to make things right.

The thing is, it will never be "socially acceptable" to pass laws that solve the general case. But we still need to fight for them because the right will just keep attacking the piecemeal half measures we have accomplished, and will keep finding an other to villainize, until we get the moxy to pass a law that just doesn't allow a loophole to discriminate.

We need to quit accepting half measures and start thinking forward. I'm talking laws that protect AI person hood. I'm talking laws that protect bodily autonomy. I'm talking laws that prohibit ANY discrimination for ANY reason outside the specifics pertinent to the context. We need to quit fighting battles and start fighting a war.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I'll add another one, and I think it might be the most outrageous one yet.

When productivity increases due to technological innovations, two things happen:

1. More things can get made in less time than before
2. More things can get made with less work than before

Yet, gains in productivity are almost always accompanied by rising poverty. Instead of pausing for a second to reflect on how batshit that is, almost everybody starts imagining policies to offset this effect, such as universal basic income.

On the practical side, how could the world ever get together to establish a universal basic income? The world can't even come together to fight climate change!

And who pays?

This is simple. We force the top 1% to pay. That's right. We force the blood suckers who have the audacity to live off the labor of the world and live within the top 1%. Let's knock them down a peg, raise everyone else up. The top 1% of the world in salary is currently at $32,400 a year according to Investopedia.

 

[skepticalbip]

^ ^ ^

Right, anyone advocating 'equal distribution of the wealth' may believe that people like Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, and Bill Gates would be footing the bill and they wouldn't be effected. However they are advocating that the government should confiscate any annual family income above $9,733 to be redistributed to the poor. Such a system would make everyone in the U.S. poor by what is considered poverty today.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/166211/worldwide-median-household-income-000.aspx

The current safety net systems in place in western nations insures that the 'poor' in their countries are well above the world's median household income and so a hell of a lot above the world's poor.

 

[PyramidHead]

And who pays?

The answer from those advocating "equal distribution of the wealth" is usually 'those people' they dislike and are wealthier than themselves, never themselves.

I am not in favor of a universal basic wage, I was using it as an example of the distractions people invent to avoid asking the deeper questions about why we gate the necessities of living behind wages generally, or why we take the antagonistic relationship between wage earners and capitalists as a given. Harry is correct that it wouldn't work very well without some drastic changes to how productive work is prioritized, and if we're willing to do that then we should go all the way and just prioritize production rationally from the bottom up. I don't have much to say about redistribution as anything more than a temporary fix to a systematic problem.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Moving people into and out of these roles so their power does not become entrenched removes the ability to use authority to subjugate others

Here, I think, is the crux of the issue. Not just the power, but the desire to use authority to subjugate others. This is, I would argue, about one part nature and ten parts nurture and that's the fundamental problem with anything that follows. Monsters are, for the most part, created and usually in ways so subtle and ingrained that to "correct" the problem would require deeply invasive "democratic" parenting, if you will, not just later in life group consensus/participation.

Iow, if we don't stop cycles of domestic abuse--no matter the caste--then there is no way any of these governmental bandaids will do any long term good. It's why all that we do later in life--as "adults"--can't ever truly solve the problems being bandied about itt. We're addressing the hundreds of ripples in the pond, not the initial rock that caused them.

Unless we can find a way to eradicate--in an entire generation and across the board--any and all parental abuse (no matter the form; emotional, sexual, physical, etc) then we will always have a repetitive cycle of sociopathic spectrum failure, where the abused spread their abuse, either willfully or inadvertently, as a form of exonerative behavior. It's almost autonomic, so unless and until government--which used to be tribal leaders/grandparents, btw, who were thereby part of the family; part of the parental caste, so to speak--can become surrogate parents, no amount of later-stage bandaids are going to ever change the power/abuse structure that is really at the heart of humanity's systemic problem.

This is precisely why right-wingers so often denigrate socialism/democrats, using family-centric phrases like "nanny-state" and "sucking the teat of welfare" and the like. They want to destroy any notion of government being a parent because they hate their own parents and project the abuse inflicted upon them to the whole notion of government as parent.

It's not greed; it's not power; it's not selfishness, even. It's a deeply entwined combination of exoneration and revenge that drives humanity at its darkest core and why the cycle always repeats. Or, rather, corkscrews in a seemingly never-ending horizontal spiral.

It's also why wealth redistribution always fails and "revolutions" always fail--let them eat cake begets the reign of terror--and really ANY initially altruistic movement starts eating its own tail until inevitable cataclysmic failure.

Term limits seem to be the only solution and they are stop-gap at best as we are currently seeing a tremendous amount of damage being inflicted in a comparatively short amount of time by one such abused individual, in spite of the fact that the entire world thinks he's an incompetent laughing stock.

But, of course, this kind of approach requires a dedication/intelligence/empathy that just doesn't seem to exist anymore. The tribe is too large for there ever to be a more fundamental, direct connection between the leaders and the lead. So it just makes it all the easier for the wolves to not even bother putting on sheep clothing anymore and we reach yet another critical stage in the corkscrew; the tipping point that always presages another bloodletting.

It's funny that even though I grew up under the constant threat of nuclear war, I never really feared it would happen. I guess because as a tool of war--which is all about acquisition, not annihilation--I always knew no narcissistic leader (because that's what it takes to become a leader) would ever risk their own lives when it wasn't necessary. Conventional war does all of the same work without the risk of global destruction and thereby self-destruction of the leader who orders it.

But now I'm beginning to see another use for nukes and the rhetoric for the argument not so subtly hidden within right-wing bot regurgitation. Social "cleansing." Iow, the goal now is to use them for population control so that we don't have to change any of our ways. People use resources; people cause global warming. So, since some want those resources and don't want the people, fuck em. Launch and kill billions and you've "solved" both lack of resources and global warming (so long as it's tactical). At least, that's the warped thinking behind it. The problem is too many people!

No, the problem is you weren't hugged as an infant. That's the rock that gets thrown into the pond. But of course that kind of fundamental understanding is too easily dismissed or marginalized, so, lather, rinse, repeat.

 

[RVonse]

The problem is wealth disparity. But people should still certainly labor toward some societal goal for which they are compensated. The problem is that presently that goal is to accumulate more personal wealth.

Society does require some form of discipline among its members and there is nothing wrong with a degree of wealth disparity owing to the fact that some people will labor harder than others. It's the degree of wealth disparity that is the problem.

Its not just for discipline although that is important enough. Its also to make sure the right goods and services are produced. We still havent invented a better way to encourage production (other than wealth) for what society really values.

I dont like extreme wealth disparity either though and it still represents a big weekness in the best system figured out so far.

 

[RVonse]

This is precisely why right-wingers so often denigrate socialism/democrats, using family-centric phrases like "nanny-state" and "sucking the teat of welfare" and the like. They want to destroy any notion of government being a parent because they hate their own parents and project the abuse inflicted upon them to the whole notion of government as parent.
.

Its because they honestly feel government has become too bloated and out of control. And in some ways it is easy for all to see.

For example, I just bought a new car that feels like a "nanny" car because of all the government mandated crap. This new car makes you wear the seatbelt. You cant start it unless you have your foot on the brake. The head lights go on when the car wants them to go on and not necessisarly when you tell them too. These and other safety features are all well and good intent but have gone too far for my personal taste. And they are safety features no doubt also put into place by our "nanny" state government. Because the market place would not tolerate such crap. When you drive my new car it tends to remind me of riding a horse "thats not quite broke" because it has its own idea what it wants to do. Maybe Ill get used to everything eventuality but right now it feels like the governments "nanny" car and not my car.

I honestly think thats how right wingers view the government as well. They do not see the other benefits government can provide.

 

[RVonse]

And who pays?

The answer from those advocating "equal distribution of the wealth" is usually 'those people' they dislike and are wealthier than themselves, never themselves.

Im convinced the answer is the global organization of labor. If labor has an equal footing it can reverse the declining middle class and wealth disparity.

How to get there is the problem.

 

[Harry Bosch]

And who pays?

The answer from those advocating "equal distribution of the wealth" is usually 'those people' they dislike and are wealthier than themselves, never themselves.

Im convinced the answer is the global organization of labor. If labor has an equal footing it can reverse the declining middle class and wealth disparity.

How to get there is the problem.

Yea, it's just not going to happen. We can't get the world to unite to clean the environment or any other issue!

 

[ZiprHead]

This is precisely why right-wingers so often denigrate socialism/democrats, using family-centric phrases like "nanny-state" and "sucking the teat of welfare" and the like. They want to destroy any notion of government being a parent because they hate their own parents and project the abuse inflicted upon them to the whole notion of government as parent.
.

Its because they honestly feel government has become too bloated and out of control. And in some ways it is easy for all to see.

For example, I just bought a new car that feels like a "nanny" car because of all the government mandated crap. This new car makes you wear the seatbelt. You cant start it unless you have your foot on the brake. The head lights go on when the car wants them to go on and not necessisarly when you tell them too. These and other safety features are all well and good intent but have gone too far for my personal taste. And they are safety features no doubt also put into place by our "nanny" state government. Because the market place would not tolerate such crap. When you drive my new car it tends to remind me of riding a horse "thats not quite broke" because it has its own idea what it wants to do. Maybe Ill get used to everything eventuality but right now it feels like the governments "nanny" car and not my car.

I honestly think thats how right wingers view the government as well. They do not see the other benefits government can provide.

All those thing you list above are not mandated by the US government. They are done by the auto manufacturer of their own accord. The only requirement related to your rant above by the government is to use seatbelts when driving.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

This is precisely why right-wingers so often denigrate socialism/democrats, using family-centric phrases like "nanny-state" and "sucking the teat of welfare" and the like. They want to destroy any notion of government being a parent because they hate their own parents and project the abuse inflicted upon them to the whole notion of government as parent.
.

Its because they honestly feel government has become too bloated and out of control. And in some ways it is easy for all to see.

For example, I just bought a new car that feels like a "nanny" car because of all the government mandated crap. This new car makes you wear the seatbelt. You cant start it unless you have your foot on the brake. The head lights go on when the car wants them to go on and not necessisarly when you tell them too. These and other safety features are all well and good intent but have gone too far for my personal taste. And they are safety features no doubt also put into place by our "nanny" state government. Because the market place would not tolerate such crap. When you drive my new car it tends to remind me of riding a horse "thats not quite broke" because it has its own idea what it wants to do. Maybe Ill get used to everything eventuality but right now it feels like the governments "nanny" car and not my car.

I honestly think thats how right wingers view the government as well. They do not see the other benefits government can provide.

Exactly. You're pissed off--not at the car--but at the idea that you're being forced to live by a certain set of rules. It's the exact same rebellious attitude you had as a teenager bucking up against your parents who said things like, "My roof; my rules!" It's literally a childish reaction caused entirely by you (your brain) associating/projecting the attitude you had toward your parents as a kid onto this new situation that has absolutely nothing to do with your childhood or your parents or being a kid, etc.

It triggers you, iow. When, of course, it should not, if you had a childhood where such rules were properly explained and/or your parents weren't in some way combative with you such that, later in life you would associate safety features on a car, ffs with childhood trauma (no matter how seemingly insignificant it may be compared to other more obvious or more "dire" forms of trauma).

And that's a relatively benign response/example from just one person in whatever particular situation you grew up in. Imagine the psychology involved with people who actually did grow up with nannies--raised almost entirely by them, in fact--like Trump and his fetid spawn. No wonder so many of them are narcissists and sociopaths. They grew up in an environment where their parents had little to nothing to do with their upbringing, except in a supervisory role. They dictated actions and paid for mistakes. Any physical contact--any love--was by proxy only and to the extent that a paid servant could possibly have any kind of love toward them (sympathy, more likely, than any kind of unconditional parental love).

The ones I've known in college (and later in professional life) share the exact same psychosis; always desperately seeking mommy's teat and daddy's attention, but all they ever got were checkbooks. I know for most of us that seems like a dream, but if you've ever known any trust fund babies they are seriously fucked in the head deep under that carefully polished Patrick Bateman veneer.

And--I believe--it drives their politics just as all of our own childhood experiences with our parents drives ours. I, for example, had a great childhood and a wonderful relationship with my parents, so for me, the notion of intelligent, stringent government oversight/regulations is absolutely necessary and the best way for government to function. Those safety features you are pissed off about should absolutely be standard and everyone should in fact be forced to comply with them for their own good. Exactly as my parents behaved toward by brothers and I, so I believe our government should behave toward all of humanity.

Which is why we need the smartest people in office. They need to know better than anyone else what needs to be done for everyone's own good. That notion--that principle--and all that it entails likely sickens others, however, and it no doubt just triggered them reading it, but of course it should not absent associated trauma. It's exactly how every benevolent tribal community has operated peacefully and in harmony for thousands of years (where they have existed, such as among most tribes of native Americans).

I don't think I'm exactly breaking any new ground here. But it does mean that the issues go much deeper than anything we can do later in life as a bandaid. Though what alternative we have escapes me absent some sort of fundamental event that accelerates our emotional evolution. Preferably not a "pearl harbor like" catalyst.

Right now it takes a full twenty five years for human brains to fully mature. That alone speaks volumes considering when we have placed the voting age and age of consent. Years before the brain is mature enough to even begin to fully and properly process all of the shit that it's been through previously.

If we could somehow speed that process up, maybe that's the solution? If our brains evolved to fully mature in say ten years, instead of twenty five? That or we change the voting age to 25 and stop preying on the young in our vulture capitalist society.

 

[skepticalbip]

^ ^ ^

That seems to be a rather dismal view of humanity - that we need guidance and control through our entire life from our 'betters'. It sounds like the same idea used by royalty and/or the church to keep humanity subservient to them for so long.

My view is that, when children, we need guidance and protection from our parents. When we reach adulthood we become the ones who are to give guidance and protection to our children and assistance to our aging parents. We no longer need guidance from our 'betters' because 'our betters' are only a meme used by other adults no more intelligent than us or more capable of deciding what is 'good for us' than we are.

I guess some people never feel like they reach adulthood so always seek someone to lead them, control them, and care for them.