DISQUS

chuckie · 7 months ago

you still need to punish people because the punishment itself constitutes an experience which could make them less likely to commit a similar crime in the future. it may be unjust, but it's all we have and better for society as a whole.

Michael S Black · 7 months ago

Who decides who is part of the ultra-secretive third arm, or the second arm or even the first?

Who decides who is "the noblest and smartest among the society", when by the very definition, it would be this very subset of the population who decides they are qualified (i.e. if they really are the best and brightest, then it should be obvious to those being ruled that the ones saying they are the best and brightest really are, except it never quite works out that way, huh?)

D, this just seems to be a rehashing of an ideal "Utopian-style" government where you have multiple checks and balances, but it assumes that the people in their roles will fulfill them in an ideal way that is almost always pragmatically logical. It also never happens, NEVER!

People make selfish, illogical decisions based upon base desires. Show me ONE example of a governance model that humans made and run that has not been corrupted...

Besides (as an example), who determined that the elimination of strife and conflict is best for the human species, you? People who think very similar to you? Which is why you respect them and agree with their deductions, correct?

We are not capable of suppressing these drives (as a population), so how can we say it is in our best interests to do so?

You say we need to remove various "negative elements" when we do not have any way to dispassionately determine what is negative and what is positive. Not to be cheeky, but it really is all relevant. Moral and ethics will always be subjective, and are not reducible to some "magic" equation, but instead vary as the population base itself changes it's own collective boundaries.

IMHO, to many of your recent arguments use faulty logic where you accept a certain base set of observations as true, when they are merely true in your eyes...

shamansun · 7 months ago

Premises 2 and 3 are assuming we understand these complex variables. We may know a general idea (3) of what they may be, but we certainly aren't close to understanding the complex interactions between them. Not only that, 4 and 5 - humans do in fact give back to the environment which sprung them. Complex interactions do not just create by-products (people in society), the byproducts themselves can have synergistic qualities. If we were to take these premises to look at nature, then a hurricane- a complex assortment of variables, would have no influential power. Yet, it does! Synergy is born from complex interactions, but understanding people and criminals no less is a daunting task which can't be handled so simply. Look at the social sciences... I think it will take some time to help find a way to decrypt human behavior, then we will be able to prevent the 'hurricanes' of violent behavior, etc.

Mike · 7 months ago

Free will is a red herring here. The key thing you're missing is this: people don't get more trustworthy when they become government agents.

Jon · 7 months ago

along the lines of some of the other comments: your solution in part one is assumes that a subgroup of humans, a government, can eradicate disease, promote peace, etc. for all of humanity. Government is a monopoly on the use of aggressive force. Everything it does involves the use of force and flies in the face of voluntarism, peace and prosperity. It is impossible for it to achieve the ends you stated.

cooperati · 7 months ago

"Government is a monopoly on the use of aggressive force. Everything it does involves the use of force and flies in the face of voluntarism, peace and prosperity."

Here, here!

-=T=-

Daniel Miessler · 7 months ago

You know in all these comments I've yet to hear anything resembling a better idea. Pretty sad.

You guys are all caught up on the idea of corrupt government, but I wasn't even talking about anything like OUR government. In case it wasn't clear, I was talking about the pretty distant future. Perhaps I should clarify that.

So does anyone have a better way?

Jon · 7 months ago

Liberty and markets. Let enterprising inventors bring to market better ways to improve our lives, help "criminals" and keep us safe from anti-social behavior (true crime).