From: Arcadia (arcadia@lynchburg.net)
Date: Tue Apr 16 2002 - 17:54:14 MDT
> [ben]
> OK I'll bite :) Does that view take into account the possiblity that one
> might 'believe in' law and order but not agree with the way it is
> implemented currently? There are other judiciary systems in the world than
> the 'catch and release' methodology in vogue in western societies...
>
Arcadia:
My criticism was more that the system is too draconian, rather than not
enough.
I guess there are some rare individuals (and you may be one) who believe in
law and order as essential to 'pursuit of happiness,' or 'liberation of
desire,' whatever one prefers. But I think more believers in law and order
believe so because they are terrified of liberated desire, their own,
mainly, and anyone else's too. These folk I disagree with, but I don't
really expect them to take me seriously
> [ben]
> Isn't the point supposed to be however that the system is meant to be
> administered by people who are better than average?
A:
Is it? I mean is that the point? And, is it so?
Tweaking the education
> system to obtain better humans sound perfectly legitimate and desirable to
> me, but my tweaking would certainly not include sending my kid off to be
> educated by any random Joe off the street.
A:
Well, that's the view I'm (respectfully) disagreeing with. Well, not
exactly. I mean, clearly, it's rational to optimize any system that serves
an important function. But I am trying to say that when we discuss laws or
schools or other institutions, we are often externalizing problems that are
internal, thus taking the first step away from solving them and toward a new
permanent bureaucracy of experts to parasitize the problem for their
livelyhoods. So fine, design a good system, but don't imagine it's going to
'solve' any problem, except maybe those caused by how bad the previous
system was. The existential human problems that stuff does not touch.
> [ben]
> Truly given the choice, I don't believe that most people would opt to be
> 'good', and the few that did may well have very diferent interpretations
of
> 'good' than I hold.
It's a short jump from there to believing that some agency of violence is
the ONLY thing that stands between you and an episode of serious
misbehavior, or if not you, then some terrifying stranger misbehaving at
your expense. If you believe that deep down people are just -bad- and the
threat of force or poverty is the only thing that squeezes anything remotely
useful and good out of them, well, first off, that's how master classes have
always viewed their slaves, and this view has justified everything they ever
did to slaves, and in the second place, is there any excess of a police
state that could not be justified this way?
Beyond that, all that about different ideas of good has been way overblown.
When people are actually trying to treat one another with respect and
dignity, understandings do occur, But they are minimal, and easily smoothed
over. The real intercultural problem occurs over the question 'what can I
expect to get away with?' That presupposes you are trying to manipulate,
use, or rip off the other person. In some cultures this stance is called
'business as usual.' In others, it's called 'abuse of friendship.' If the
question really is, 'what is good?' then I think there is far less
disagreement
>
> [Arcadia]
> sold out to the corporate boss,
>
> [ben]
> What exactly does that mean, to you? I hear that phrase a lot, but nobody
> ever seems inclined to explain it.
It might mean exactly the same thing as knowing which side your bread is
buttered on. It's the negative inverse of autonomous substance. It means
that check comes regularly, and one is glad of it, and one is inclined to
oppose anyone or anything or any idea that suggests it might stop coming,
and one is likely to become furious at the suggestion that maybe it _should_
stop coming. This might be a check one works for, or a dividend, or it
might be both.
That's something most Americans and most Congresscreatures have in common.
If those people are 'above average,' as you suggest, then that would explain
a lot.
Matt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:46 MDT