Allow me to persuade you... (On Ethics/Psychology)

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Kylesa, May 23, 2010.

  1. My first point, is psychology, and it's role in political theory/ethics. Many people fail to realize that psychology is an inherent part of an individual's intellectual conquests. And when I mean psychology, I mean genuine psychology, or your individual ego, and the reasons behind your choice. Not that watered-down bullshit they teach you community college. You must first realize that psychology is the driving factor behind politics, economics, philosophy, etc.

    Anyways, since you were a child, you've been taught by your parents, your teachers, your mentors, etc., that your behavior was wrong. I'm sure as you read this, you're saying to yourself, 'of course, all kids need rules, or else they'll become bad kids!'. My contention, is that, while certain behavior is objectively 'wrong', when you're a kid, the last thing you need to be learning (sub-contextually) is that your actions are wrong. That's what happens when someone tells you not to do something. You're being told (on a subconscious level) that what you are doing was wrong.

    Studies have proven that, when any human being (of sound mind) is told something by another human being, no matter their relation, they will always believe what is said by the other person. If you're fat, and someone calls you fat, no matter how hard you try, you'll always doubt yourself, and think to yourself 'maybe they're right'. You can deny it up and down, but this is completely normal, in fact, it's part of us. We can't help it. This plays into our childhood in a HUGE way. At this stage in our lives, we are extremely easily convinced and controlled. So imagine, being told subconsciously during your most impressionable years, that your behavior is wrong. The more you're told it, the more it sticks with you later in life.

    What am I getting at? You can see this in the ethics and politics of others. I'm going to use the two majority 'schools' of thought, conservatism, and liberalism, as my examples. There are, of course, sub-sects with minor differentiations, but the underlying point is still true for both. Liberals and Conservatives have a core belief in their ideology, and it's groomed into them from a young age. They believe that humans/human nature are inherently bad, and must be controlled to make them good. When I mean 'bad', I don't mean 'evil', what I mean is--they think humans make bad decisions.

    Some contextual examples include Conservatives' fear of all things sexual. Sex for many conservatives is a very strict taboo. They rally against pornography, adultery, unorthodox sexuality (Homosexuals, bi-sexuals, etc.), etc. Their views on economics also reflect this, but it's a bit more hidden. They believe in social-darwinism to the extreme. If you were a failure, you should have to suffer. This is the 'bad' side of humanity, and all you need to do to 'fix' your 'bad' side, is to work hard enough.

    Some examples for liberals include their distrust of economics, and that humanity's inherent affinity for doing bad interferes with their ability to be fair, and therefore must be regulated. This is why they trend towards ideas like socialism and communism. Another good example, is Political Correctness. Liberals love telling people how they can, and can't address and interact with each other. You can't offend x, y, z. You can't say a, b, c. It's impolite to do q, r, s. Etc.

    Ultimately, what I'm getting at, is that, from a young age, people are taught their natural desires are bad. They are bad. The only way to make them 'right' is through control. Control contextually implies that something is wrong, and therefore needs to be fixed. What happens when kids are controlled by their parents and teachers, is that they learn their desires are bad, and they need to be controlled. When they grow up with this insecurity, they project it. If you're familiar with psychology, you're most likely familiar with psychological projection, if not, it's basically where individuals will project their insecurities outward. So when you hear an adult, or even a young-adult say that something needs to be controlled (economically/socially/etc.), what they're doing is rehashing their own self-hatred and projecting it outwards, onto others.

    This, in my opinion is the core problem in the world. I think humans are inherently good, and do not need to be controlled. I think the lack of control leads to order. I believe order is emergent, and that control is anti-thetical to order. This is demonstrated in nature. There's no control in nature. There's no rhyme or reason. No, instead, you have every living being, creature, plant, cell, every atom and sub-atom, all working together, in tandem, to seek an end to their desires. Obviously humans are the only completely autonomous species, but my point is still relevant. Order comes from the bottom up, not the top down.

    [ame=""]YouTube - Spontaneous Order[/ame]

    This is called self-organization. It arises out of the individual interactions that every individual faces. A good example, is this video of traffic in Hanoi. There are no traffic lights, no stop-signs, no traffic conductors. All there is, is a bunch of motorists who are seeking their end (Which is to transport from Point A to Point B). What you don't see are the individual actions and reactions of every single individual, which is what makes this seemingly dangerous intersection completely safe. Notice how the tourist in the video disrupts the traffic, because they presume there needs to be control. Control ends up screwing up the delicate balance of self-organization.

    [ame=""]YouTube - self-organization in hanoi traffic[/ame]

    People usually flip out when I suggest we should get rid of (most) traffic laws. They say, 'oh, it'll be chaos on the road! People will die by the thousands, we NEED laws!'. And to that, I laugh. They're projecting their self-hatred that was ingrained into their minds since the day they were born. We don't need traffic laws. We don't need traffic lights. What you need is trust in your fellow man, and the realization that you don't need to be controlled.

    That leads me to my next point. Does control even work?

    I say no.

    Have you ever had an alcoholic (or any other form of substance abuse) parent/family member/friend, that you were close with, and had daily interactions with? If you haven't, have you at least seen the show on A&E, called Intervention? I can say from first-hand experience, that control doesn't fix problems. My father was an alcoholic, and one day he was 'forced' to try and fix his illness. He became sober, but another problem arose--his anger. He was then 'forced' into fixing his anger. After his anger was 'fixed' another problem arose, he found a new drug to abuse, cocaine. You get the point? His problem was not the usage of emotional outlets (drugs and anger), the problem was something inside. Something was bothering him. Eventually he went back to drinking, and became the old person he was before we tried to 'fix' him. One day, his father got ill, and died in the hospital. I never got the chance to ask my father what bothered him so much that he drank, he unfortunately passed away a few years ago, but after the death of his father, he was a new man. Something happened between him and his father that made him what he was, and no amount of therapy, no drug, no nothing could have fixed him, unless the ROOT of his problem was solved.

    The same thing happens in that show I mentioned, Intervention. Getting people off a drug is not a solution. It's a temporary band-aid. What will end up happening, is another, newer, problem will arise. Then you get to the point where, you realize the problem is not substance abuse, but a psychological problem that needs to be addressed. It's like a game of whack-a-mole. You push one problem away, and another arises. Control is not the answer to problems, addressing the root cause of the problem is.

    What does it all mean?

    There is nothing wrong with humans.

    I think most of the problems we face in the world, are due to control. Murderers, Rapists, Psychopathic CEO's who wish to exploit every last man and woman on Earth for economic gain... all can be traced back to control, somehow, some way. All of our Economic problems, control. Imagine a world, where everyone didn't project their own self-hatred. You give me a problem, and I can probably trace it back to control, in some form or another.

    The solution, to me, is the most natural system. A system where, individuals can freely associate with each other, are free from coercion (control), and are allowed to grow up, and learn themselves the lessons of life. A system that promotes emergence, self-organization, and spontaneous order. Economically, socially, and in our Government. A society where police wouldn't be needed, because some children wouldn't grow up being controlled by repressive parents, and crime would be non-existent. A society where you wouldn't need regulators, because businesses would realize that we are all in this together, and exploiting and destroying the Earth, and others, drags us all down.

    Is it utopian? I posit that it's utopian to suggest that every 4 years we get a new 'chance' to elect 'our' guy, who will fix everything, and never does. Then, after 4 years, we try and get 'our guy 2.0 (it's different this time)' into office. What's that they say about doing things again and again expecting different results... oh right, insanity. Or, a system that tells people what to do, and exerts control over all areas of life, from your kitchen sink to your car brakes. My idea brings humans as close to nature as you can get. As Richard Feynman said, 'the inconceivable nature of nature'.

    [ame=""]YouTube - "The Inconceivable Nature of Nature" - Richard Feynman[/ame]

    Inspiration for this thread from aaron8803 (Control + My Greatest Idea) and Neilsio (One United Idea).
  2. haha, those vids were legit man. But we live in U.s.a / canada..
    Im sure the people are a lot kinder in japan or w,e
  3. :bolt:
  4. #4 Gooch_Goblin69, May 23, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: May 23, 2010
    Good post, though i disagree that humans are inherently good because thats a subjective term.

    I would say humans react based on their experiences of things. If early experiences with other humans make them happy, they will like interacting with humans, if they have experiences with humans that make them sad, or scared or whatever other negative emotion they will not like humans. This is an oversimplification but you see what I'm saying.

    I think the main point is to not let anyone control you,because inevtiably people try to control people. Economically this means only making trades that accualy benefit you, unlike people who pay absurd amounts of money for things they see advertised because it's the new fad or whatever.

    I don't think crime will ever be non-existent either. Someone will always try to steal because they are greedy or just a dick head or they need to eat. Someone will always rape you cause they are mad horny and don't give a fuck about anyone. Children will always be repressed by parents and have fucked up early experiences. That is the way of human life.

    Politically: Freedom is the only way. We can't give more control to a certain group, we should focus all of our efforts insetad at pushing back the controls over us.
  5. #5 Orgazmatron, May 23, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: May 23, 2010
    John Lennon always said the real concern is not drug use but rather what causes people to use drugs.

    I was actually going to make a thread about the nature of each ideology but then i thought to myself, liberals are known for big government and conservs for small government. That seems to contradict the statement that liberals believe man is inherently good and doesnt need control. Unless its big government in a different way?

    Edit: Nvm....your saying that both parties believe man is inherently bad. Thats a completely different ball game.
  6. great post

    control is definetley a huge factor in the problems in the world, but although i agree with you that humans are naturally good i also think that there will always be people who are too greedy, and who will lie, cheat and steal

    without a system of control what do we do with these people
  7. dude..mind blown with that traffic video.
  8. Great post...

    take a look at um

    Mimicry, Mirror Neurons and Brain-to-Brain Communication (Dr. X's Free Associations)

    or video

    VS Ramachandran: The neurons that shaped civilization | Video on

    Mirror neurons basically simulate the actions of the perceived environment, they get in everyone's shoes
    I "knew" about these guys from experience. After smoking cannabis with low THC and high Cannabidiol (I know most people don't dig that) I often experience tactile sensations of those i'm observing (synesthesia)

    To me, mirror neurons

    are like

    the foundation of symbiosis

    mimicry is how we learn from our environment...we are a very young species...we could learn a lot from nature...
  9. I don't believe that we can assume the greatest interest of every individual is to maintain the well-being of society. If a person is more interested in self-benefit, there's nothing stopping them from stealing if there is no consequence, and there's nothing stopping them from murdering someone they despise if there is no consequence, etc.

  10. Good thing there are consequences then...

    Unless, of course, you have friends in government.
  11. The underlying problem here is that we've been headed in the wrong direction for a while now. George Orwell demonstrated beautifully how scary total control can be, and we're well on our way to being in a 1984 type world.

    Spontaneous Order could never be applied to the overall scheme of law, because imagine if one day NO laws that govern our society now existed. All kinds of crazy radicals would come out of the woodwork to loot, pillage, and rape society for all that is good. However, the key lies in gradualism.

    We're gradually on our way to having totalitarian societies in America, the UK, and other "free countries." The solution simply to slowly remove less invasive laws, and introduce society to the idea that human beings can be generally good if given love and freedom. Instead the masses have been subject to the dehumanization of themselves, and the idea of intolerance and control.
  12. What I mean by 'good' is that they are inherently good if they are not fucked up by being controlled. In other words, if humans are raised properly, they are invariably a force of good.

    Yes, this is my point. Control fucks people up, and it must be avoided at all costs.


    Well, that's the thing. I agree with Lennon--if someone has a substance abuse problem, chances are their problem is much deeper than using drugs.

    As for the two parties. The liberal vs. conservative, left vs. right paradigm is false. If you understand philosophy and ethics, you'd realize that, fundamentally, what are known as 'liberal' and 'conservative' ideologies are based in an ethical position. For example, 'liberals' are guided by positivism. From their politics, to economics, they believe in positivism. Conservatives are negativists. From their politics to their economics, they are negativists.

    However, there are many different alternatives to negativism and positivism.

    While I advocate a stateless society (Anarchy) there will still be police, courts, etc. They can be privately owned and operated. Criminals will still get locked up, and all that, just, it won't be by the Government.

    What's the point of having a political, philosophical, or economic debate, then?

    I disagree. The reason why people don't care about the well-being of society, is because they don't have to. Everyone assumes the Government will take care of the everyone else's well-being. That's why everyone pays taxes. It is assumed the Government will just take care of everything, and fix all the problems.

    This makes people lazy. There's no incentive for you to look out for your neighbor's well-being, because it's assumed the Government will. If you take away the Government, you will create an incentive for everyone to care about their neighbors, and their city, and everything else.
  13. I agree that Orwell was genius in this way, but I disagree we're headed towards 1984. I think Alduous Huxley was more correct, in A Brave New World, and that we would be captivated by material possessions, rather than an oppressive state. I actually think Fahrenheit 451 was also kind of correct.

    Actually... I think it's a combination of all three. A little bit of 1984, a little bit of A Brave New World, and a little bit of Fahrenheit 451.

    Either way, we're headed for a very ugly future. The only thing that humans have not tried, is the abolishment of Government. We've come up with every solution to give Government power to try and 'fix' problems. We've come up with 'solutions' to try and prevent Government from exploiting us. We've come up with solutions to try and make Government accountable and transparent.

    The only thing that has ever come of it, is Government getting more powerful. You know how they say that trying things over and over again... and expecting different results... and what it leads to? Oh right, insanity! It's insane to think that all we need to do to 'fix' broken Government is to give it more power. I say we take away power (Government).

    I agree that gradualism is the key, but I think you're missing the point of Spontaneous Order. Spontaneous Order wouldn't dictate our laws. Spontaneous Order simply dictates how individuals can work together to achieve a common goal through rational self-interest. If we did revert Government, it's likely we'd have a more libertarian approach to law, based around robust property rights, contract law, and the Non-aggression principal.

    I wish I was as optimistic as you. Governments have already proven that they don't have to follow the laws on the books. They serve more as a general outline, rather than set in stone. Obama has the power (officially) to 'assassinate' anyone he sees fit, without due processes. I'm curious, where in the Constitution does he have this right? He doesn't. The only reason he gets away with it, is because you can't hold Government accountable. The Constitution is just a loose guideline.
  14. Kylesa - You're right on about just about everything. Especially about being headed for an ugly future. However, I feel differently in that I blame the individual people of the society just as much as the ruling government. People seem to have lost the idea that government derives its power FROM the people. We've sort of sat on the sidelines and watched through all our new gadgetry our world falling into chaos over the past 100 years. (I associate the beginning of the decline of America with the creation of the Fed. Reserve. to each their own.) We've pretended to elect officials to support what we want, only to have them turn around and further their own selfish agendas.

    Absolutely right about people becoming too captivated by material possessions as well. Overindulgence has taken over the majorities basic human values.

    Until humanity as a whole makes the stand against governments overall, we will continue to be raped by an abuse of power on the governments part.

Share This Page