Sacrifices

[Rezwan]

Phil’s Dad wrote:

War is not “the natural state” by any measure and I don’t know why you are so happy to claim that.

Where did I say I was happy about it?
Text and subtext.

Probably it was this: your speed to seize on Aaron’s depressing quote as “a better way of expressing” it implied joy and delight at having been proved right, rather than unhappiness about such an alleged natural state of things.

And in this post, you only want to know where you let slip you were happy about it. You have yet to question or counter your assertion. By holding on to it, it’s like you want to normalize it. If you want to normalize it, that suggests you’re happy about it.

But I could be wrong.

But come on. “War is the natural state.”????? Ridiculous. It’s like saying “Rape is the natural state.” The natural state of what?

The natural state. Are bombs raining over your head right now? Are you being raped? Call 911.

Or how about: “Lightning is the natural state.” What does that mean? Lightning occurs in nature, true. At any given moment, somewhere on the planet, there is some lightning. Yet, for most of this year – I have hardly encountered any lightning. And even though it occurs from time to time, we’ve figured out that if you place handy lightning rods, you can pretty much avoid the damage they cause.

And that’s a pure, regularly occuring force of nature. Not something that’s a combo of biology and artifice. The lightning is mindless. Wars are initiated by people with minds, and property, and we must find a way to sue the hell out of them and otherwise devise a lightning rod for war. Take those warmongers and ground them. Discharge their stupidity into the ground.

Not that it happens all the time.

The irony is you say you want to keep the videos “positive”! What’s wrong with the video showing oil spills (the natural state of oil extraction accidents, certainly) and wars for oil (war being the natural state, after all)? It has a happy ending. And it strikes me as far less negative than your continued assertions about war.

[Rezwan]

emmetb wrote:
The most important social skill is altruism. The ability to identify with others that are far removed from yourself. How wide a circle are you willing to draw?

That’s true. At the same time, the Almighty, in his infinite wisdom seems to have generated a lot of self-interested people and this has very practical results.

Have you ever wanted to do something and the people around you are all trying to be accomodating. “No, what do YOU want to do?” “No, YOU!” “I’m happy with whatever YOU want to do.”

What I like is to know true preferences of the people around me, and I’d like them to be responsible for expressing that. Then we can negotiate the best outcome.

I think what’s going on is each person has within then the instinct for individual self-interest and meta-collective-interest. These manifest in each person in different ratios. Both have practical value.

‘s the way I see it.

[Rezwan]

Brian H wrote: “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”

I’m surprised. You’re advocating outsourcing the violence to some rough and ready men standing around outside. Is this a privatized army? I would have pegged you for someone who advocated each person have their own means of protection right there by the bed.

[Added 7/26: Not that I’m not turned on by the idea of some rough men standing ready to do violence on my behalf. Who doesn’t romanticize heroic, primal, capable figures? It’s good to know there are such people. What bothers me is civilians making irresponsible statements like war is the natural state and terrible policy decisions which trigger events which require the rough men to go and clean up after them. That’s where the failure is.]

[Brian H]

Rezwan wrote:

“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”

I’m surprised. You’re advocating outsourcing the violence to some rough and ready men standing around outside. Is this a privatized army? I would have pegged you for someone who advocated each person have their own means of protection right there by the bed.
It’s a well-known adage, a modified version of something Orwell wrote. It refers to both armed forces and police, basically. So you unfortunately don’t get to revel in paranoid fantasies of private armies. Which seems to be a scare tactic much beloved of those who want everyone to ‘jest get along’ and do as they’re told by their social planning betters, or get put away by the gubmint for their own good. :coolsmirk:

[Rezwan]

Brian H wrote:

“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”

I’m surprised. You’re advocating outsourcing the violence to some rough and ready men standing around outside. Is this a privatized army? I would have pegged you for someone who advocated each person have their own means of protection right there by the bed.
It’s a well-known adage, a modified version of something Orwell wrote. It refers to both armed forces and police, basically. So you unfortunately don’t get to revel in paranoid fantasies of private armies. Which seems to be a scare tactic much beloved of those who want everyone to ‘jest get along’ and do as they’re told by their social planning betters, or get put away by the gubmint for their own good. :coolsmirk:

Really? You feel safe because the police and armed forces are protecting you? I thought you were more, y’know…you surprise me.

Aren’t the “social planning betters” the ones calling the shots of the armed forces and police? Don’t the police and army represent the States’ monopoly right to violence? Brian, you’re shaking my faith! What happened to you. Thought you were a John Lott fan.

So I’m the only one advocating personal responsibility here? 2nd Amendment anyone? I think people need to get better at resolving their own conflicts rather than outsourcing and escalating upward to the benevolent state police and army.

And yo: You lack imagination. The quote does not preclude private armies. Of which this country has a long and glorious tradition.

And of course I can revel in whatever fantasy I want. Like you have any say.

[Brian H]

Rezwan wrote:
…

Really? You feel safe because the police and armed forces are protecting you? I thought you were more, y’know…you surprise me.

Aren’t the “social planning betters” the ones calling the shots of the armed forces and police? Don’t the police and army represent the States’ monopoly right to violence? Brian, you’re shaking my faith! What happened to you. Thought you were a John Lott fan.

So I’m the only one advocating personal responsibility here? 2nd Amendment anyone? I think people need to get better at resolving their own conflicts rather than outsourcing and escalating upward to the benevolent state police and army.

And yo: You lack imagination. The quote does not preclude private armies. Of which this country has a long and glorious tradition.

And of course I can revel in whatever fantasy I want. Like you have any say.

Since my post was a mixture of humor and seriousness, I guess I shouldn’t complain when it was so seriously misconstrued.

But it is true we have very different political and global-social pholosophies. Let’s leave it at that.

[dennisp]

Boy, I hesitate to jump into this thread! But as for the “Third Industrial Revolution,” I prefer Harry Stine’s version: get into space and put your resource extraction and manufacturing out there. Fusion will make that a lot cheaper.

Will it stop war? Not forever. But will it make war more expensive than just going to a different asteroid? Maybe. The resources of the solar system are so enormous that conflict over them will be nonsensical for quite a while. I guess we might still fight over prime beachfront property Earthside, but those sorts of conflicts don’t tend to escalate to violence.

We don’t have to hope for altruistic leaders. Selfish bastards will do fine, if peace is most profitable.

[Brian H]

dennisp wrote: Boy, I hesitate to jump into this thread! But as for the “Third Industrial Revolution,” I prefer Harry Stine’s version: get into space and put your resource extraction and manufacturing out there. Fusion will make that a lot cheaper.

Will it stop war? Not forever. But will it make war more expensive than just going to a different asteroid? Maybe. The resources of the solar system are so enormous that conflict over them will be nonsensical for quite a while. I guess we might still fight over prime beachfront property Earthside, but those sorts of conflicts don’t tend to escalate to violence.

We don’t have to hope for altruistic leaders. Selfish bastards will do fine, if peace is most profitable.

‘ear, ‘ear! Well spoke, guv!

But FF should do fine for quite a while in wealth-generation even before tapping the asteroidal bonanza.

[Rezwan]

Brian H wrote:

Since my post was a mixture of humor and seriousness, I guess I shouldn’t complain when it was so seriously misconstrued.

But it is true we have very different political and global-social pholosophies. Let’s leave it at that.

OK, we can leave it at that. For the record, you’re leaving me confused. I’m sure we have different philosophies, I’m just not sure what your philosophy is. The line was:

“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”

I’m curious – does this mean you like having a strong army and police force? Yes or no? Was this line where you were joking? Being ironic?

What I seem to have misconstrued is that I took you for more of a libertarian with your strong anti-government anti-interference stand, and I was confused that you were suddenly pro-army/police.

I associate police and army with government control. For the record, I do appreciate and admire them when they are working in the public interest – control rods are a great safety feature – but stand (rough and) ready to criticize and oppose them when they go against that interest – they have a lot of temptation.

On a practical level, army and police represent the State right to use force. The very State you see as overrun with flaming eco-whatevers. I.e., it’ll be the police that arrest you when you don’t comply with the draconian environmental laws.

So…any clarifications?

FYI, I’m also trying to help y’all see a bigger picture. You are just amplifying one small sliver of human experience and making it dominant. The line could also be,

“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night because the world largely operates on trust and collaboration, and on those occasions where opportunistic people resort to violence, men and women of various skills and approaches stand ready to stop their violence with various means, a few of which include violence, but less and less as we figure out better means of dealing with these breakdowns.”

I’m trying to imagine Iraqi people try to sleep peaceably at night knowing they are surrounded by armies of rough and ready men ready to do violence – all of them claiming it’s on their behalf.

And I hear the soldiers themselves are having a hard time sleeping. A lot of sleeping pill abuse out there. A lot of bringing home the violence and not sleeping well when they get back. But even that I would like to hope isn’t permanent – or their natural state. Something they can work through to get to a better state.

I guess I see the presence of all these rough folk (armed people) as a sign that something went wrong somewhere back in the process. The concentration of “rough men ready to do violence” is an indicator of sorts.

It’s like after you have an ecosystem breakdown, all these thorns show up all of a sudden. Deadly-force plants. Somewhere back down the line, somebody put a dam in place, or cut something else down, or set up a “divide and conquer” policy and drew up some stupid map, or happily exercised double standards and contrived a coup against a democratically elected leader or – OH so many things. And then you get this choking algal bloom and call it natural.

[AaronB]

I see the police and military in the same way as I see doctors. While I don’t routinely go in for invasive surgery just for the fun of it, if I need a heart transplant or if I develop cancer, I want someone there who can take care of the problem. Doctors shouldn’t be running my life any more than the police or military (or bankers, lawyers, electricians, etc.) should. Everything has its purpose and place, and problems develop when any sector or segment of the population oversteps its bounds. That’s what cancer does in the body. Also, the military is a profession that specializes in the application of physical violence. The profession of arms is as important as any other profession, but it is a specialized tool that shouldn’t be used in place of diplomacy. A hammer is a great tool, but it is no substitute for a wrench or a knife. Likewise, military forces are to be used sparingly and only to take out malignant parts of society that can’t be dealt with humanely and in generally pro-social ways. Like with open-heart surgery, a surgeon wants to do minimal damage to surrounding tissue, and prevent infection. The military must exercise its power with minimal collateral damage, and in such a way that encourages a healthy society after the operation is over. Too many times throughout history, politicians and profiteers have sought to use the military for their own selfish ends, and they misapply military forces to try to affect certain outcomes. It *ALWAYS* fails, but the temptation is always there, and when in a bind, desperate people do desperate, short-sighted things. It’s called sacrifice, and sometimes we sacrifice what we want most for what we want now. Some sacrifices are justifiable and wise, while others are foolish and damaging overall.

The same can be said about the oil spill in the gulf. We want energy to maintain our lifestyle. We have to go farther and deeper to get new supplies. Deep ocean drilling is difficult, dangerous, and risky, but we choose to do it anyway to support our energy habit. Companies and countries try to minimize environmental damage, but it happens when things go wrong. I think that’s what the original poster had in mind by posting the comic. It’s not just soldiers who are dying to support our energy habit. Entire species and ecosystems are paying the price too, as well as unborn generations. Maybe someday we as individuals and as a society will not be so prone to making foolish sacrifices. In the meantime, we struggle on. Focus Fusion is one of those smart sacrifices worth supporting.

[Brian H]

The epitome of trust and co-operation is a sanctuary city, like Maywood, CA. Which just went bankrupt and cancelled all services and dissolved itself.

A game or society without agreed and enforceable rules is just a playground for cheats and users.

[Brian H]

AaronB wrote:
…

Focus Fusion is one of those smart sacrifices worth supporting.

In what way is FF a sacrifice? By whom, of what?

[Brian H]

As a relevant aside, I offer the following which I wrote up elsewhere 3 years ago; it makes it easier to understand the behavior of the Chicago Cabal now in power:

Check out de Mesquita’s podcasts here; he presents and applies the lessons from research which shows the decisions of politicians and rulers, throughout history and currently, are explained by the size of the Selectorate and the “ruling coalition”, which may be a few generals, a nomenclatura, an aristocracy, property-owning males, or a large chunk of the voting public. Idealism and statesmanship are rewarded only when there is a large pool benefiting from Public Goods whose support is necessary. Fake elections without freedom of information and association don’t count as democratic rule.

The World Bank and foreign aid ministries in general have been drawn into a system in which loans, grants, and aid funneled through corrupt governments actively suppresses growth and freedom.

In this system of analysis, corruption is the essential method of distributing spoils to the “ruling coalition”; it ceases to pay off when the coalition gets large enough that general societal improvement results in prolonged power for the “rulers” — it’s the only win-win formula. But even democratic rulers have the welfare of their closest associates and coalition at heart; lame-duck presidents are famously profligate in passing out goodies to friends and relatives.

In the case of dictators, once they get past the first 18 mo. or so and get the payola rolling, they stay in power for life — or until they are diagnosed with a fatal condition, like cancer. Then the wolves gather, deposition follows, and a new regime arises. (The Shah, e.g., fell only when he was diagnosed with incurable cancer.) The gravy-train coalition suddenly sees the end of the guaranteed payoffs, and everything goes up for grabs.

The system, whether in autocracy or democracy, efficiently filters out genuinely ethical and altruistic leaders: they simply would not be able to assemble a sufficient inner coalition’s support to compete with those who hand out keys to the vault. In unusual emergencies, a power structure desperate for legitimacy might pluck someone like Vaclav Havel from outside the power pipeline to lead, but this is rare.

As an aside, I note that we ALL want power, in the fundamental sense of capacity to make stuff happen. It happens that political power depends on agreement and cooperation and compliance from others, so the tools used fit the context.

[Brian H]

Here’s a bit more complete explanation of the terms and dynamics of Selectorate Theory:

Encyclopedia > Selectorate theory

The selectorate theory is detailed in The Logic of Political Survival, authored by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita of New York University (NYU), Alastair Smith of NYU, Randolph M. Siverson of UC Davis, James D. Morrow of the University of Michigan. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita is a political scientist, professor at New York University, and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

The theory operates on two fundamental groups, the Winning Coalition and the Selectorate, both drawn from the overall populace in a state. The Winning Coalition is a subset of the Selectorate, and the Selectorate is a subset of the overall population. The Selectorate is simply those within the state that have a say in policy outcome (in the United States, for example, it would be all citizens over the age of 18 eligible to vote). The Winning Coalition is a proportion of the Selectorate sufficient to choose and sustain a leader in office.

Distribution of goods

A public good is such a good that everyone non-exclusively enjoys, such as national defense. The public good in this example would be the security provided to citizens of a state. A private good is a good that is enjoyed exclusively by a select few (usually within the Winning Coalition) and cannot be shared. An example of such a good would be anything exclusionary, such as food surpluses.

It can be said, then, that everyone in the Selectorate (including the Winning Coalition) reap the benefits of public goods while only those within the Winning Coalition enjoy private goods.

Government types, leaders, and challenger threats

According to the selectorate theory, a leader has the greatest chance of political survival when the Selectorate is large and the Winning Coalition is small (an autocracy). This is because those who are in a winning coalition can easily be replaced by other members of the selectorate who are not in the Winning Coalition. Thus, the costs of defection for those members of the Winning Coalition can be potentially large—namely the loss of all private goods. Similarly, the chances of a challenger in replacing the leader are similarly smallest in such an autocratic system since those in the winning coalition would be hard pressed to defect. Private goods are highest in such a system vis-à-vis public goods.

In a monarchy, where the Selectorate is small and the Winning Coalition is even smaller, provides the challenger with a greater opportunity to overthrow the current leader. This is because the proportion of Selectorate members who are also in the Winning Coalition is relatively large. That is to say if a new leader comes to power, chances are a given member of the Winning Coalition will remain within the coalition. The incentive for defection in order to attain a greater amount of goods offered by a challenger is not, in this case, outweighed by the risk of not being included in the new Winning Coalition. Here, the proportion of private goods in relation to public goods is seen declining.

A scenario where both the Winning Coalition is large and the Selectorate is even larger provides the least amount of stability to a leader’s occupancy of power (such a system is a Democracy). Here, the proportion of public goods outweigh private goods simply because of the sheer size of the Winning Coalition; it would be far too costly to provide private goods to every individual member of the Winning Coalition when the benefits of public goods would be enjoyed by all. Because of this fact—that the leader cannot convince Winning Coalition members to remain loyal through private good incentives (which are in turn cost-restrictive)—the challenger poses the greatest threat to the incumbent. Furthermore, this degree of loyalty to the incumbent leader—whatever the government structure may be—is called the Loyalty Norm.

A scenario where the Winning Coalition is large and the Selectorate is small is theoretically impossible since the Winning Coalition is a subset of the Selectorate.

Reference

Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce; Alastair Smith, Randolph M. Siverson and James D. Morrow (2003). The Logic of Political Survival. The MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-63315-9.

[Rezwan]

Thanks Aaron, the medical/military metaphor works for me. And eloquently put, as usual. What I see happening in this society is that people don’t take responsibility for themselves and go running to a doctor when things get bad for them. They overeat, don’t exercise, smoke, whatever. And then demand surgery.

That, to me, is similar to people saying that “war is the natural state” and demanding military intervention. It’s disrespectful to doctors to take your obese, self-destroyed body to them and demand they fix it, and then sue them when complications arise during surgery. It’s disrespectful to soldiers to mess up on the policy level and make a string of calculated decisions and then expect the military to go in and restore order for you. And it’s disrespectful to yourself to think you can’t do better.

AaronB wrote: Too many times throughout history, politicians and profiteers have sought to use the military for their own selfish ends, and they misapply military forces to try to affect certain outcomes. It *ALWAYS* fails, but the temptation is always there, and when in a bind, desperate people do desperate, short-sighted things. It’s called sacrifice, and sometimes we sacrifice what we want most for what we want now. Some sacrifices are justifiable and wise, while others are foolish and damaging overall.

The people who do this are hardly ever in a bind. They’re sitting in comfortable chairs overlooking splendid views, sipping their gin and tonics, what what. The people making the sacrifice are further down the line.

The same can be said about the oil spill in the gulf. We want energy to maintain our lifestyle. We have to go farther and deeper to get new supplies. Deep ocean drilling is difficult, dangerous, and risky, but we choose to do it anyway to support our energy habit. Companies and countries try to minimize environmental damage, but it happens when things go wrong.

Alas, countries and companies don’t try to minimize the damage.

[Author]

Posts