Thursday, March 23, 2006
What IS the plan?
As a collective society, we Americans and humans have goals. Those goals may differ from person to person, and some exceptional individuals may not agree with them at all, but on a whole, there is a shared interest in bettering our nation and our world, and the majority of them align well- peace, elimination of poverty and crime, security, health, etc.
But what about other goals, such as art, diversity, technology, science, God, and freedom? By and large this is much greater disagreement as to what is a 'good' amount of any of these goals. What does this mean? Let me provide an example.
Back in the day, I thought that gun control was a great idea. Guns were designed to kill people, the second amendment doesn't specifically allow for individual gun ownership, and gun deaths in the US seem largely preventable. I thought then, and I still think now, that banning guns would lead to many fewer murders in the U.S. But gun enthusiasts all over would disagree- the NRA has a laundry list of reasons why gun bans wouldn't work, are unconstitutional, and just generally bad. But let's say that we ensured that a gun ban WOULD work- that somehow we could get guns to disappear off the street. Let's say we also assured them that the second amendment was not being violated. Would they suddenly give up? No, because they enjoy using guns, and the vast majority of gun owners use their guns responsibly. Why should they have to give up their hobby and sport because a certain gang member or Vice President of the most powerful nation in the world can't think before he pulls the trigger? What if we convinced them that it would save 1,000 lives each year? Would they give them up? Some of them would, I'm sure- but it wouldn't resolve the underlying issue, which is that they use them responsibly, so they should be allowed to use them.
I draw a parallel from this to violent media- video games, TV shows, and art. I am also convinced that if violent media were to 'disappear', the murder rate would drop. Violence in media is 'cool', and though the VAST majority of people can handle a killing or two million, there probably exist a few borderline people who are influenced to the point that they kill. But let's say that there was definitive evidence that this was true- that if we banned violence in the media, we knew that the murder rate would drop- that thousands of lives and injuries would be prevented. Would we be OK with this? I think that people would be up in arms against it. Is there any real, qualitative difference between these two situation other than the number of gun enthusiasts vs. violent media enthusiasts? I don't think so.
OK, so what point can I possibly be making here? I'm trying to point out that we have deemed a certain amount of violence acceptable in our society. We have deemed a certain amount of sex acceptable in our society. And we have even accepted a certain level of murder and death- and it certainly is NOT the standard 'if we only save one life, then it's worth it' and 'we can't put a price on human life' rhetoric that is pounded into our heads. Some people would definitely want to ban violent media- they would not see it as a restriction of freedom as much as they would see it as a safeguard. But most would not, because we want our artists and our culture to be free and diverse, because we also have a level of art and diversity that we find acceptable.
Let's compare this with two past societies- the Romans during the Pax Romana, and the Arawaks of the pre-Columbus days. The roman empire, at its height, was a tremendously successful empire- large, powerful, rich, and at times, peaceful. Their citizens enjoyed a lot of freedom, they had art, entertainment, science, philosophy, etc. But they also condoned slavery, had a stricter class system than we do. They also supported the killing of 'unfit' babies as well as inevitable deaths in military training and the transition to adulthood. I'm sure, however, that if you took a random Roman and asked him whether he thought his society was just and good, he would say yes. And though he would probably point out places for improvement, his ideal society would probably more similar to Rome than the United States.
What about the Arawaks? Their society was small, agrarian, communal, and mostly peaceful. They had very little crime, and no 'poverty'. They were not powerful, nor 'rich', but they also enjoyed freedom and equality that either Rome or the United States could not match. They owned very little in the way of material and land. They were technologically simple, and had very little to speak of in the way of science or entertainment. What would an Arawak think of as his ideal society? Would it be safe to say that it would look much more like his current society than either Rome or the US?
If you took an impoverished inner-city family from Chicago, New York, or LA, and asked them to describe their ideal society, I think they would paint a picture of the United States, only now with racial and class equality, low crime rates, ghettos eliminated, where they had access to education and a job that they wanted, access to health care, and a chance to live in a house they owned. If you took an upper class suburban family from anywhere in the US and asked them to describe their ideal society, would it be very different? Probably not. Where it WOULD differ is in the details- the secondary goals. The second family might mention terrorism as being eliminated, the first family would probably focus more on racial equality. The second family might say that environmental care was an important focus, whereas the first family might say that immigration was more important. One family might think secularism was important and one might say that the spread of churches was important and that their ideal society was Christian. And yes- one might say that in their society, anyone who wanted a gun could have one, whereas the other felt that unwise.
So I ask you this: What are we supposed to do? What happens if you think environmentalism is important, but by supporting environmental care, you're putting people out of work in Brazil because you are denying them access to their own rainforest? What if you're campaigning to stop violence, but in doing so you find out that you have to eliminate violent media? What if by instituting faith-based initiatives, you choke off religious freedom? There are tradeoffs in every solution- you'll make some people unhappy and others unhappy.
My suggestion is this. Let's do away the the very idea of equality, which is a childish, simplistic, and naive way to look at humans. No human has ever been equal to another human in any realistic way, and to suggest that everyone is born equal at the start is to ignore everything in human history. Freed slaves were not equal at emancipation. People born in Rwanda are not created equal. Someone who has genes that make them more likely to murder someone should not have 'equal' access to guns as someone who has genes that make them likely to use them for hunting. Someone who is blind shouldn't have the right to drive a car.
The problem with societies are not the rules and laws. The problem lies with the individual. Just as a parent who treats their quiet kid differently than their socialite kid, I think our society needs to embrace individuality. Maybe one person gets taxed at a higher rate, but gets to use guns and watch violent movies. Another person gets 'free' health care and food, but isn't allowed to drink any alcohol. The idea of freedom is done away with too. The idea of freedom is that we are allowed to be free up to the point where we affect other people- but everything we do affects other people, and to set up rules and limits at a societal level means you're always going to be painting with a broad brush.
I don't think we're ready for this any time soon- we don't understand what makes people tick- but I think we should work towards it. I recently went to a dog-training class, and the instructor's dogs were well-behaved to the point of being a little depressing. She told them to sit, and they sat. She told them to lie down, and they sat there the entire class without moving. Every single one of her dogs were exactly the same in personality, which is to say that they had none. As much as we'd like to think differently, humans can be programmed in the same way. Would a society of humans who were all programmed to obey the government's rules perfectly be a utopia? There'd be equality, no poverty, no crime, peace, and prosperity, but there probably wouldn't be any art, diversity, or freedom. At what point is it ok for humans to be a little bad to make the whole society better? Making our societal rules to say 'everyone can have a gun', 'no abortions' or 'no violent media' is a lot like training every dog to be the same. And I don't think we humans are really any different.
But what about other goals, such as art, diversity, technology, science, God, and freedom? By and large this is much greater disagreement as to what is a 'good' amount of any of these goals. What does this mean? Let me provide an example.
Back in the day, I thought that gun control was a great idea. Guns were designed to kill people, the second amendment doesn't specifically allow for individual gun ownership, and gun deaths in the US seem largely preventable. I thought then, and I still think now, that banning guns would lead to many fewer murders in the U.S. But gun enthusiasts all over would disagree- the NRA has a laundry list of reasons why gun bans wouldn't work, are unconstitutional, and just generally bad. But let's say that we ensured that a gun ban WOULD work- that somehow we could get guns to disappear off the street. Let's say we also assured them that the second amendment was not being violated. Would they suddenly give up? No, because they enjoy using guns, and the vast majority of gun owners use their guns responsibly. Why should they have to give up their hobby and sport because a certain gang member or Vice President of the most powerful nation in the world can't think before he pulls the trigger? What if we convinced them that it would save 1,000 lives each year? Would they give them up? Some of them would, I'm sure- but it wouldn't resolve the underlying issue, which is that they use them responsibly, so they should be allowed to use them.
I draw a parallel from this to violent media- video games, TV shows, and art. I am also convinced that if violent media were to 'disappear', the murder rate would drop. Violence in media is 'cool', and though the VAST majority of people can handle a killing or two million, there probably exist a few borderline people who are influenced to the point that they kill. But let's say that there was definitive evidence that this was true- that if we banned violence in the media, we knew that the murder rate would drop- that thousands of lives and injuries would be prevented. Would we be OK with this? I think that people would be up in arms against it. Is there any real, qualitative difference between these two situation other than the number of gun enthusiasts vs. violent media enthusiasts? I don't think so.
OK, so what point can I possibly be making here? I'm trying to point out that we have deemed a certain amount of violence acceptable in our society. We have deemed a certain amount of sex acceptable in our society. And we have even accepted a certain level of murder and death- and it certainly is NOT the standard 'if we only save one life, then it's worth it' and 'we can't put a price on human life' rhetoric that is pounded into our heads. Some people would definitely want to ban violent media- they would not see it as a restriction of freedom as much as they would see it as a safeguard. But most would not, because we want our artists and our culture to be free and diverse, because we also have a level of art and diversity that we find acceptable.
Let's compare this with two past societies- the Romans during the Pax Romana, and the Arawaks of the pre-Columbus days. The roman empire, at its height, was a tremendously successful empire- large, powerful, rich, and at times, peaceful. Their citizens enjoyed a lot of freedom, they had art, entertainment, science, philosophy, etc. But they also condoned slavery, had a stricter class system than we do. They also supported the killing of 'unfit' babies as well as inevitable deaths in military training and the transition to adulthood. I'm sure, however, that if you took a random Roman and asked him whether he thought his society was just and good, he would say yes. And though he would probably point out places for improvement, his ideal society would probably more similar to Rome than the United States.
What about the Arawaks? Their society was small, agrarian, communal, and mostly peaceful. They had very little crime, and no 'poverty'. They were not powerful, nor 'rich', but they also enjoyed freedom and equality that either Rome or the United States could not match. They owned very little in the way of material and land. They were technologically simple, and had very little to speak of in the way of science or entertainment. What would an Arawak think of as his ideal society? Would it be safe to say that it would look much more like his current society than either Rome or the US?
If you took an impoverished inner-city family from Chicago, New York, or LA, and asked them to describe their ideal society, I think they would paint a picture of the United States, only now with racial and class equality, low crime rates, ghettos eliminated, where they had access to education and a job that they wanted, access to health care, and a chance to live in a house they owned. If you took an upper class suburban family from anywhere in the US and asked them to describe their ideal society, would it be very different? Probably not. Where it WOULD differ is in the details- the secondary goals. The second family might mention terrorism as being eliminated, the first family would probably focus more on racial equality. The second family might say that environmental care was an important focus, whereas the first family might say that immigration was more important. One family might think secularism was important and one might say that the spread of churches was important and that their ideal society was Christian. And yes- one might say that in their society, anyone who wanted a gun could have one, whereas the other felt that unwise.
So I ask you this: What are we supposed to do? What happens if you think environmentalism is important, but by supporting environmental care, you're putting people out of work in Brazil because you are denying them access to their own rainforest? What if you're campaigning to stop violence, but in doing so you find out that you have to eliminate violent media? What if by instituting faith-based initiatives, you choke off religious freedom? There are tradeoffs in every solution- you'll make some people unhappy and others unhappy.
My suggestion is this. Let's do away the the very idea of equality, which is a childish, simplistic, and naive way to look at humans. No human has ever been equal to another human in any realistic way, and to suggest that everyone is born equal at the start is to ignore everything in human history. Freed slaves were not equal at emancipation. People born in Rwanda are not created equal. Someone who has genes that make them more likely to murder someone should not have 'equal' access to guns as someone who has genes that make them likely to use them for hunting. Someone who is blind shouldn't have the right to drive a car.
The problem with societies are not the rules and laws. The problem lies with the individual. Just as a parent who treats their quiet kid differently than their socialite kid, I think our society needs to embrace individuality. Maybe one person gets taxed at a higher rate, but gets to use guns and watch violent movies. Another person gets 'free' health care and food, but isn't allowed to drink any alcohol. The idea of freedom is done away with too. The idea of freedom is that we are allowed to be free up to the point where we affect other people- but everything we do affects other people, and to set up rules and limits at a societal level means you're always going to be painting with a broad brush.
I don't think we're ready for this any time soon- we don't understand what makes people tick- but I think we should work towards it. I recently went to a dog-training class, and the instructor's dogs were well-behaved to the point of being a little depressing. She told them to sit, and they sat. She told them to lie down, and they sat there the entire class without moving. Every single one of her dogs were exactly the same in personality, which is to say that they had none. As much as we'd like to think differently, humans can be programmed in the same way. Would a society of humans who were all programmed to obey the government's rules perfectly be a utopia? There'd be equality, no poverty, no crime, peace, and prosperity, but there probably wouldn't be any art, diversity, or freedom. At what point is it ok for humans to be a little bad to make the whole society better? Making our societal rules to say 'everyone can have a gun', 'no abortions' or 'no violent media' is a lot like training every dog to be the same. And I don't think we humans are really any different.
# posted by Stuart @ 1:09 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Is it correct to understand this article to mean that our laws should be tailored to each person specifically (ideally but not actually realistic in the near future )?
For one, I think that society does work this way to a degree. Criminals are not allowed to purchase handguns, sexual predators must register wherever they move (or something like that), etc. These are people who have displayed their inability to handle certain laws and thus must have other ones strictly enforced upon them.
In order to set any sort of laws, there would need to be a standard which is basically what we have now. A certain of amount of A is ok up to a point B and thus any amount of A less than B is acceptable.
Now I believe that you are saying that B would be set differently for individuals. But how would you set what B should be? You would need a standard. You might say that since different people can handle different amounts of A, B should be set at each person's threshold. But the idea of what is considered 'being able to handle' A is set against another standard.
It seems to me that what you really want is to have the current standard set to a higher ceiling (i.e. more violent movies, legal drugs, etc) but that those who we decided could not handle these excesses should not have as high a ceiling.
So what I think you are trying to say is that there should not be specific ceilings to every vice and such, but that there should be one overall ceiling C that all laws would be measured against. Alcohol consumption would not be compared to any specific number (Age, etc.) but rather to it's effect on the individual person with respect to the overall ceiling C.
I would thus say that the dog problem exists not because there are broad sweeping laws and ceilings but because they might be set too low and/or too restrictive.
For one, I think that society does work this way to a degree. Criminals are not allowed to purchase handguns, sexual predators must register wherever they move (or something like that), etc. These are people who have displayed their inability to handle certain laws and thus must have other ones strictly enforced upon them.
In order to set any sort of laws, there would need to be a standard which is basically what we have now. A certain of amount of A is ok up to a point B and thus any amount of A less than B is acceptable.
Now I believe that you are saying that B would be set differently for individuals. But how would you set what B should be? You would need a standard. You might say that since different people can handle different amounts of A, B should be set at each person's threshold. But the idea of what is considered 'being able to handle' A is set against another standard.
It seems to me that what you really want is to have the current standard set to a higher ceiling (i.e. more violent movies, legal drugs, etc) but that those who we decided could not handle these excesses should not have as high a ceiling.
So what I think you are trying to say is that there should not be specific ceilings to every vice and such, but that there should be one overall ceiling C that all laws would be measured against. Alcohol consumption would not be compared to any specific number (Age, etc.) but rather to it's effect on the individual person with respect to the overall ceiling C.
I would thus say that the dog problem exists not because there are broad sweeping laws and ceilings but because they might be set too low and/or too restrictive.
I'll admit that that wasn't the most cohesive chain of thoughts. I'll also admit that this system can't work until we fully understand human behavior.
The big difference between what we have now is a system of after-the-fact restrictions (criminals can't buy guns, sex offenders can't live near schools) and a bunch of general rules (minors can't buy alcohol, people can't use weed or coke, everyone has to wear a safety belt). These are good rules of thumb, but like any rule of thumb, there are exceptions. It's conceivable that someone could need marijuana to feel better- it's conceivable that someone could actually be killed by their seat belt.
So yes- we'd need to find out each person's alcohol consumption and say 'this person is not allowed to have any because he'll drive somewhere kill someone.' This would be ridiculously 'unfair' in the eyes of most people.
But the dog 'problem' doesn't exist at all. The trainer was perfectly happy with her dogs- which is what I am trying to show. In her mind she was not being too restrictive with her dogs. In my view, she was. Big W thinks it's ok to drop the bar on freedoms in order to catch terrorists- some disagree, some don't. But people fear the government wiretaps because of what they could (and probably would) do with all that information. But if we could somehow be guaranteed that the government would listen in on EVERY phone call and conversation (a la Big Brother) in the united states, and only catch the people who were going to commit crimes, would we be okay with that?
I don't know. Probably not, because of fears of abuse, and our attachment to the idea of free will. The freedoms in the constitution were specifically designed to protect us FROM the government. But what if we could be assured that the government was good? Wouldn't the very idea of rights be ridiculous? Why would you need to be protected from the government if the government had your and everyone else's specific best interests at heart? Like children have to obey their parents, people are supposed to obey their governments.
I guess what I just wanted to point out is that everyone has different valuations of the society they want to live in. Some people would easily give in to federal wiretaps if it meant decreased chances of terrorism, and some people would easily ban guns if it meant less murder. Other people value guns, and it's not necessarily because they don't care about people's lives.
Sure, it would seem unfair for the society to say "You're probably going to kill someone, so you can't have a gun. this guy can, though. he's not going to." And that's because it's unequal, but it's just as unequal for everyone to be banned (or allowed) guns in the interest of 'fairness'. And that's why I think we should erode the concepts of freedom and equality.
ok, see, now i made another incoherent post. and i sound like a fascist. thanks a lot, tj.
The big difference between what we have now is a system of after-the-fact restrictions (criminals can't buy guns, sex offenders can't live near schools) and a bunch of general rules (minors can't buy alcohol, people can't use weed or coke, everyone has to wear a safety belt). These are good rules of thumb, but like any rule of thumb, there are exceptions. It's conceivable that someone could need marijuana to feel better- it's conceivable that someone could actually be killed by their seat belt.
So yes- we'd need to find out each person's alcohol consumption and say 'this person is not allowed to have any because he'll drive somewhere kill someone.' This would be ridiculously 'unfair' in the eyes of most people.
But the dog 'problem' doesn't exist at all. The trainer was perfectly happy with her dogs- which is what I am trying to show. In her mind she was not being too restrictive with her dogs. In my view, she was. Big W thinks it's ok to drop the bar on freedoms in order to catch terrorists- some disagree, some don't. But people fear the government wiretaps because of what they could (and probably would) do with all that information. But if we could somehow be guaranteed that the government would listen in on EVERY phone call and conversation (a la Big Brother) in the united states, and only catch the people who were going to commit crimes, would we be okay with that?
I don't know. Probably not, because of fears of abuse, and our attachment to the idea of free will. The freedoms in the constitution were specifically designed to protect us FROM the government. But what if we could be assured that the government was good? Wouldn't the very idea of rights be ridiculous? Why would you need to be protected from the government if the government had your and everyone else's specific best interests at heart? Like children have to obey their parents, people are supposed to obey their governments.
I guess what I just wanted to point out is that everyone has different valuations of the society they want to live in. Some people would easily give in to federal wiretaps if it meant decreased chances of terrorism, and some people would easily ban guns if it meant less murder. Other people value guns, and it's not necessarily because they don't care about people's lives.
Sure, it would seem unfair for the society to say "You're probably going to kill someone, so you can't have a gun. this guy can, though. he's not going to." And that's because it's unequal, but it's just as unequal for everyone to be banned (or allowed) guns in the interest of 'fairness'. And that's why I think we should erode the concepts of freedom and equality.
ok, see, now i made another incoherent post. and i sound like a fascist. thanks a lot, tj.
But you really need to be careful with what you say there Stu, especially the "Person A with said genes is more likely to kill someone than person B," comment. Maybe you were thinking of some specific example but as a general statement it is very fascist.
You seem to be fed up with the ideology of "curing the symptoms," of American society today. Totally nuking american society: the government, the emphasis on the protection of private property, free-market economics, does not seem to be a realistic possibility does it?
Because the most important tenent of liberal philosophy (and America, despite some conservative leanings, is very liberal,) is that society is a collection of individuals. The interaction of individuals will lead to collective resolutions to the problems of human interaction. People vote, people are elected, laws are made.
Now of course, we have spent much time on this blog pointing out fallacies in the idealized system. Howard Zinn would say that the Liberal "ideal," is just a way to keep the poor in line while the rich exploit them. (Because of course, he is a freaking commie.)
Are you saying that we should have a different paradigm for looking at societies in general? One that does not build up from the individual?
The problem with sociology (and politics, at least international politics,) is that there is no unified theory of anything. Not even one. Biology, Physics, for example, have theories that can generally explain the principles of their areas of study: how bodies interact in motion. How species change over time.
But in the world of sociology, human beings cannot put their finger on how human societies work. What unifying forces underlie Americans, North Koreans, and Arawaks.
So because of this, we can't move on to the step you are trying to look at: how can we change our society to elevate the greater good. Instead we are stuck in the idea that the system we have, with it's very obvious and significant flaws is "The best we can do." And to fix the symptoms with duct tape as best we can.
How many millions of people were killed in warfare, or due to colonial explotation in the last century? How many people will die in fighting over resources in the next one? Is this progress? Is it?
You seem to be fed up with the ideology of "curing the symptoms," of American society today. Totally nuking american society: the government, the emphasis on the protection of private property, free-market economics, does not seem to be a realistic possibility does it?
Because the most important tenent of liberal philosophy (and America, despite some conservative leanings, is very liberal,) is that society is a collection of individuals. The interaction of individuals will lead to collective resolutions to the problems of human interaction. People vote, people are elected, laws are made.
Now of course, we have spent much time on this blog pointing out fallacies in the idealized system. Howard Zinn would say that the Liberal "ideal," is just a way to keep the poor in line while the rich exploit them. (Because of course, he is a freaking commie.)
Are you saying that we should have a different paradigm for looking at societies in general? One that does not build up from the individual?
The problem with sociology (and politics, at least international politics,) is that there is no unified theory of anything. Not even one. Biology, Physics, for example, have theories that can generally explain the principles of their areas of study: how bodies interact in motion. How species change over time.
But in the world of sociology, human beings cannot put their finger on how human societies work. What unifying forces underlie Americans, North Koreans, and Arawaks.
So because of this, we can't move on to the step you are trying to look at: how can we change our society to elevate the greater good. Instead we are stuck in the idea that the system we have, with it's very obvious and significant flaws is "The best we can do." And to fix the symptoms with duct tape as best we can.
How many millions of people were killed in warfare, or due to colonial explotation in the last century? How many people will die in fighting over resources in the next one? Is this progress? Is it?
I think that one of the reasons that the ideas of fairness and equality are so important to us today is specifically because we don't know what someone is going to do. It is unfair to judge someone because of actions they have not committed. I don't think most people would be against banning guns for people we know are going to kill someone.
How would we ever know what someone is going to do? It is tantamount to predicting the future.
Post a Comment
How would we ever know what someone is going to do? It is tantamount to predicting the future.
<< Home
