Home / Forums / Freedom of Information / General Discussion /
On Orwell, Huxley and Anonymous
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Anonymous, Jan 17, 2011.
adhocrat Member
as I said earlier, I do not expect to convince anyone of anything.
I see no way that the government can force me to buy health insurance. Cars are optional, but my body is not. I have to have a body, contra Hubtard, to exist, therefore it is my right to own it. No one can put a restriction upon my right to own myself. Forcing me to buy health insurance is contradictory.
I truly hope this law doesn't stand.
And I have been buying private health unsurance for the past ten years and have seen a 500% increase in premiums. The only reason for that obscenity is the government trying to regulate.
adhocrat, Jan 18, 2011
adhocrat said: ↑
And I have been buying private health unsurance for the past ten years and have seen a 500% increase in premiums. The only reason for that obscenity is the government trying to regulate private profits.
FIFY
Anonymous, Jan 19, 2011
My HMO is non profit, so your FIFY is BS.
Ann O'Nymous Member
The following image offers a very powerful insight into the present state of civilization. The author is clearly attempting to make the case that Huxley was 'more correct' than Orwell in terms of prediction. I would like to offer an alternative thesis - but first, the image-
My thesis is this: We are presently in a Huxlian 'future' that is presently unraveling for the reasons he predicted. The way 'down' is into an Orwellian nightmare. The way 'up' is uncharted territory - and Anonymous is a pioneer into that territory. Mr. Postman's argument raises a number of fantastic points, but he clearly is not familiar with the cute cat theory, which challenges his assumption that a 'sea of irrelevance' must inherently undermine progress.
Nice. I tend to agree.
Rufus T Firefly said: ↑
What if you don't like any of the options on the ballot? What if you don't have an opinion?
The problem is that decisions have to be made. Living in a country where we vote many times a year on very different topics, I have to say that this is a difficult task. We receive official information (with pro and contra elements, the media address the issues at length, but it happened more than once that I could not make up my mind. The remaining option here is to trust someone or a party.
FTR One of the 20 something counties makes it compulsary to vote. If you don't, you have to pay a (small) fine.
Laws are ultimately enforced by a gun pointing at a head. So you seem to be saying that you would enforce your rules by a gun. Thanks, but no thanks. I don't want to be forced into doing something against my interests.
In democratic countries, governments tend to limit the use of weapons to extreme ituations, and try to convince the people to apply the rules or face a fine.
IMHO, we are all forced to do things against our interest. A good government would try to avoid it happening too often or too much.
Ann O'Nymous, Jan 19, 2011
Unanimouse Member
Our society is built in a way that encourages self-interest. The only way to get to the top of anything—be it politics or economics—is by knowing how to best take advantage of your fellow man.
The populace realized the problem early on, and tried to force altruism onto politicians and companies in the form of anti-monopolization laws, civil service exams, and government regulation of private enterprises. This is better than nothing, but doesn't address the root of the problem.
Humans are not always altruistic, but humans are not always self-interested, either. The very existence of this forum, charities, and other advocacy groups, are evidence of that.
But if we want a society of altruism, we must address the problem at its root. Instead of a society focused on accumulating wealth, let's have a society focused on garnering respect. Instead of a society where places of power are reserved for those best able to deceive their fellow citizens, let's have a society where power is in an idea, with only the will of the people requisite for its implementation.
I feel that Anonymous is the very epitome of this philosophy.
Unanimouse, Jan 19, 2011
Idealism can take many ways; pragmatism much less so.
Unanimouse said: ↑
Actually, true capitalism, as opposed to the corporate capitalism now practiced in the US, is exactly how the will of the people is expressed. The only person capable of making decisions for the person is the person himself. So the market place is where goods, services and ideas are offered in hopes of achieving the desired result, be it a ham for you eggs, or a check up with the doctor, or the approbation of your peers.
Once the prices get distorted, typically through government action, then the market gets confused and loses its efficiency. This applies to ham and eggs, medical services and the approbation of your peers.
The first two are part of the capitalist system, while the third is social contract stuff. But even here, the government stepping in in lieu of individual effort makes for the same tragedy of the commons that started this sub discussion. When the Government takes on the responsibility for all problems, it stops the people most affected from having an effective voice in the solution.
Ann O'Nymous said: ↑
Everyone is an idealist. The first democracy was an ideal, in stark opposition to what was considered "pragmatic". You can't dismiss something simply because it's considered "ideal". To do so is to say, "Stop! This place, where we are right now, is perfect. Let's never move forward."
But isn't this the same line of thinking that caused the mass corruption and poverty in the US during the late 1800s and early 1900s? Lack of government intervention led to corporations monopolizing, forming trusts, and other anti-competitive behaviors. What about the awful treatment of workers of the time? The blatant disregard for public health found in, for example, the meatpacking industry?
Ever wonder why all those people fled the farms to go to work in such conditions?
Hint, it's because what they'd been doing before was even worse.
GretaVanSucksterin Member
I call logical fallacy, the "No True Scotsman" to be precise. What you're describing was akin to how life was when the United States was primarily agrarian. With greater population, population density, and industrialization, new problems arose and, as such, new solutions had to be found. Prices are not only, or even mostly, distorted by government actions. You can thank the oil price spikes that hit its zenith on July 11, 2008 at $147.02/barrel on market forces, specifically, commodities speculation as opposed to increased demand. As for me, I think a form of democratic socialism akin to what Senator Bernie Sanders supports would be closer to resolving many of our problems. When the government stops allowing people to be rewarded for abusing their power, it helps the people most affected have greater access to the most basic necessities, which is good for everything. Sick workers are expensive, mmmkay? For the United States, I think the Swiss health care system is probably the best model, though as usual, we fucked it up because the Republicans wanted something more conservative than that which they themselves proposed in 1994.
GretaVanSucksterin, Jan 19, 2011
People moved to the cities because they saw hope there. But moving to the cities didn't solve their problems. The rich got richer and the poor got poorer. The only thing a city promised it's lower classes was to get stuck in the rut of laissez-faire capitalism. As living costs rose, the amount their bosses wanted to pay them lowered, and the conditions of their workplaces worsened.
This time period in the US was defined by its stark contrast between the conditions of the poor and rich. In the early days of the US, they said you could go from "rags to riches". But a more accurate description would be "rags or riches". It really depends all on two things: the social class you're born into, and luck.
I see the way oil prices have fluctuated over the past 37 years to be due primarily to politics, namely the inflation of the dollar, a government only function, and on war, again a government only function. For the US, it was Vietnam, which started the most horrific bout of inflation in our history. Excepting the Continental and Confederacy.
I came to the satori recently that the opposite of war is not peace, but trade. Free trade.
And people assert that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. If that were true then poor people wouldn't have TV sets, cars, tennis shoes, etc. The US got a lot richer, whether rich or poor, so no more ahistorical examples. Stick to facts, bitte.
Herro Member
anon8109 said: ↑
Adam Smith was wrong because game theory had not been discovered yet, and so he did not know about it.
To answer your objection, please tell me in whose selfish interest is it to work towards the creation of the park?
Let's assign numbers to the costs and benefits. Let's say it costs $9000 to get the law for the park passed. Also let's say
each person can choose to spend $10 (of their labor) or not to. Also let's say each person gets the equivalent of $100 of benefit from the use of the park.
I work and 899 others work: my reward = 100 - 10 = 90
I don't work and others work: reward = 100
I don't work and others don't work: reward = 0
I work and others don't work: reward = -10
If I work there are two possible rewards, 90 or -10
If I don't work the possible rewards are 100 or 0
Whatever the others do, I get a greater reward by not working.
So it is in my selfish interest not to work, assuring the outcome that everyone gets a reward of 0, where the optimal outcome
would have been a reward of 90 if everyone ignored their selfish interest and shared the work instead.
By the way, you do realize that this isn't how people think right? Rational choice theories have never been supported empirically because they're founded on completley bogus assumptions.
Herro, Jan 19, 2011
Market = good; State = bad.
Market = bad; State = good.
With such simplistic ideologies, discussion will not go far and won't solve much. But feel free to go on.
That's all well and good when you have a small group of people focused on a specific task (ie Anonymous.) now try and apply that to maintaining a modern society. Shit's just not going to work. BTW, your whole sentiment about power being an idea and only the will of the people requisite for it's implementation? That's the philosophy behind the American and French revolutions. Philosophy has a funny way of being annihilated when it comes into contact with reality...
Herro said: ↑
Substantive rationality is often out of reach; procedural one is achievable.
I was not saying that in today's world the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, or that in the general scheme of things that this was the case. I said "in the US during the late 1800s and early 1900s", and it is well documented that this was the case. Please do not accuse me of making "ahistorical examples" and please do not insinuate that my claims were not factual.
And not only is it factual that the gap between rich and poor during this time period widened, it's also factual that during this time period laissez-faire economics were prevalent. You'll also notice that during the Great Depression, our economy improved after Roosevelt's introduction of the New Deal, economic programs based on reform and regulation of corporations and the market.
You tell me my ideology is too idealistic and simplistic, yet you don't explain how it is too simplistic nor what exactly is wrong with it. It's a logical fallacy. Furthermore, it's actually "Market = bad; State = bad" for me. I argue for regulation because if there has to be a state and there has to be a market, I'd prefer that that state be democratically elected and that that market be as fair as possible.
the tragedy of the commons as I was taught is that unowned goods becomes worthless from over exploitation. The point being that it is unowned. When a resource is owned, it is no longer subject to the tragedy. Problem solved, without force.
"Problem solved"? How do we get to decide of who will own what was previously "unowned"?
I am not saying the state is bad, I'm saying it's the most dangerous weapon known to man, the only one capable of suppressing human rights on a systematic basis. It is sadly necessary--when all men are angels.... I am saying the less it can do outside of its basic mandate of providing a structure that can be relied upon, the better off all of us will be.
bAnon Member
The people who put in the work and money do not get to enjoy the park any more than those who sat back and let others do the work.
Ever build a park? Can you imagine the 'individual' satisfaction you would feel? Take a minute and imagine it.
But of course if everyone acted in their selfish interest, nobody would do any work, and the park would never get built.
Believe it or not, doing work can be considered a 'selfish' act. Selfish is not a negative word. Many 'selfish' people change the world each and every day.
bAnon, Jan 19, 2011
Hence the need for much increased transparency.
Note: I'm not sure what you mean by "structure."
It is the self interest of people that make it happen. ... Not altruism.
Sounds like quite an absolute statement. Surely if you try a bit, you can find examples where altruism made things happen.
Short hand I suppose for the laws of the land, along with the courts, and military. I don't want a government that decides for me, For example, Santa Clara County decided unilaterally to ban Happy Meals. I feel this is absurd, and the logical result of the government as parent. I don't need nor want a parent, I want a level playing field.
And transparency is a lot easier when the government is strictly limited in its scope.
I don't think altruism exists, period.
the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others
I don't think there is such a thing as disinterested and selfless concern. I think it is good that humans can be so generous. But I do not use a word coined recently to describe it. I think we make our decisions on many factors, including economic, social, moral, and personal. But it is in my own self interest to be nice. Games theory says tit for tat, so I always assume the goodness of people until events convince me otherwise. A rare occurrence.
In this regard, companies are a model...
Ok, I see the problem here: You focus strictly on a aspects of altruism which is essentially irrelevant to economics, the deep and real motivation of individuals. With this kind of definition, you make it impossible to integrate altruism in economics.
A definition relevant to economics, a more pragmatic one is simply, "giving goods/services" -- while trade is simply defined as "exchanging goods/services."
Whereas in trade, the prices are ideally set by offer-demand, in altruism, the price is set at zero. Defining it this way allow to integrate the concept into economics.
Now it become easier to find examples, and for one to realize altruism can be a significant part of the economy. Just take the open source community (ask Steve Ballmer.)
Le Revisor Member
The following image offers a very powerful insight into the present state of civilization. The author is clearly attempting to make the case that Huxley was 'more correct' than Orwell in terms of prediction. I would like to offer an alternative thesis - but first, the image:
I don't think Orwell was wrong; I think Orwell was warning us about one possible outcome. There are many nations on this planet that have fallen into the hell Orwell described. Huxley, however, was wise enough to see the dangers of the 'next level up.'
We live in that 'next level up', and - as Huxley claimed - it has proven to be unsustainable. We are now in a period of instability and upheaval. The economy is in shambles, there is poverty all around, and less privileged outside groups are perceived (rightfully or not) as 'threatening' our society (through terrorism, illegal immigration, 'unfair' economic competition, etc).
Vous avez du talent, qu'il me soit permis de vous le dire. Il me semble qu'il manque toutefois un détail:dans le projet totalitaire, la dimension "religieuse" est centrale. Il s'agit d'abord de transformer la foi en escroquerie à l'instar des scientologues qui prétendent vendre la sagesse, des pseudo-pasteurs "évangélistes"qui pratiquent la multiplication des dollars en chaire ou des sectes pseudo musulmanes qui décrivent le paradis comme un film pornographique qu'un "croyant" pourrait rejoindre en se faisant exploser au milieu d"infidéles".Il y a dans tous ces phénoménes, de nombreux points communs, dont certains sont objectifs. Le projet totalitaire, à mon sens, ne peut exister sans avoir pensé une"religion" mondiale. Apologies, but i can't discuss with you in english, my english is not so fluent. Hello and brotherhood.
Le Revisor, Jan 20, 2011
Furthermore, what if you're opinion is uneducated?
Hello and brotherhood to anarchists
I am not a Marxist, but this book is an interesting read. It's interesting to consider a lot of things that Anonymous does in terms of detournements.
(from Wikipedia)
Sure, guy debord is in my point of view, one of the most important revolutionary theoricians of the last century, i mean, with felix guattari.
But, both of them, were not strictly"marxists"
Medical care follows the same supply and demand dynamics that corn or toilet paper do. Moveon doesn't understand this simple and plain fact.
Competition makes medicine better and more affordable. A simple place to look is plastic surgery. This is not supported in the normal health insurance practice, and contrary to most medical prices, plastic surgery prices have not had the same obscene inflation that HMOs and other forms of standard care has. That's because it is paid for by the person getting the surgery.
Debord was so paranoid, he really believed some conspiracy theories.He was right.
Sounds like your basic argument here is that medical care would be better and more affordable if no one had any health insurance.
French revolution is based on "laicité"(you can't translate it in english), it means that political power can't tell you to believe or not in god.I think, that's a good idea.
subgenius Member
we can only perceive and understand with the instrument we have
i can't understand you
in space no one can hear you, there's no air
sometimes i think i'd really like that
other times i think i'm already there
subgenius, Jan 21, 2011
I think that you misunderstand me. By contrasting "power in an idea" to "power in a politician", I'm advocating direct democracy, not spontaneous order.
(I missed your post before, thus why it took so long to respond.)