By Stephen Fontenot | While social media algorithms have become excellent at matching a user’s viewing habits with targeted, personalized content, psychologists at The University of Texas at Dallas have determined that these algorithms may have a negative influence on a user’s mental health. Dr. Alva Tang, assistant professor of psychology in the School of Behavioral […]
That is a system predicated on getting rid of the problematic, like the one it exists today, just with an added layer of distancing, to ease the rest of the population’s mind. It does not solve any problem.
The inherent problem with freedom in a society is when one person’s exercise of their freedom takes away from another person’s freedom. Absolute freedom only exists in a society of one person (and, by extension: the more people we have in a resource/space constrained society, the less free we all must be to share the common resources and space.)
If you don’t “get rid” of the problematic - what’s your option? Just shrug and ignore them when they rape, murder, pillage and destroy? If you “rehabilitate” the problematic, how is that respecting their freedom?
Back in “the Australia Project” (Manna story) - the development of the overall project was kind of vague, but implied access to a lot more “space” in which people could choose to live with others in ways that each group chose to be “acceptable society.” If you are more at home in one society than another, you are free to migrate. If a particular society chose to cap its size at 200, or 2000, or however many members, you were free to organize another modeled on it… The key aspect of behavior was: respect. Whatever the size of your social interaction: 2 million down to 2 people - respect the others in that society within the boundaries of local societal norms. The availability of virtual reality expanded the available “living space” many orders of magnitude.
I am going to repeat my point as many times as necessary until it gets through: your example is only a punishment system with an extra layer to be more palatable to the society where it is inserted.
Being free does not imply in any moment an individual can do whatever they may concieve or desire; freedom requires and demands constraint, precisely because the freedom of the other is the boundary of my own. Life in society predicates on this. There is no society of one; the individual often finds a swift end if insisting on it, by its own actions.
A society that simply represses or discards individuals because they engaged in destructive behaviour is not doing anything to in fact solve a problem. A society is as responsible by its individuals as the individuals are by their society. And a society that so simply and easily opts by fractioning itself just to allow more (blatantly artificial) freedom to its elements is not a society. It is something I lack the word to describe but a society it is not.
And I am going to repeat my real-politik question to you explicitly:
What’s your grand non-punishment solution for members of society who actively harm other members of society? What to do with those who are non-compliant with “freedom requires and demands constraint”?
A society that simply represses or discards individuals because they engaged in destructive behaviour is not doing anything to in fact solve a problem.
I considered it to be implicit that society would do everything reasonable and appropriate to “solve” the problems of individuals engaged in destructive behavior, but experience has shown: the best efforts in these areas still fail to achieve 100% success. Certainly current societies all over the world (the U.S. especially) could try harder and do better, but 100% success has been historically elusive all over the world.
And a society that so simply and easily opts by fractioning itself just to allow more (blatantly artificial) freedom to its elements is not a society.
And should the entire human race be confined to a single society? Irrespective of our present predicament of cheap instant global communication I would submit: no, there is no one answer for how people should live in society. The one “basic human right” I would proffer to a universal collection of human societies is that: when someone wants to leave one society, they should be free to do so into any other society which is willing to accept them. No society should be under obligation to accept all applicants, but all societies should be required to let people leave whenever they want to, to wherever will willingly accept them.
That is a system predicated on getting rid of the problematic, like the one it exists today, just with an added layer of distancing, to ease the rest of the population’s mind. It does not solve any problem.
The inherent problem with freedom in a society is when one person’s exercise of their freedom takes away from another person’s freedom. Absolute freedom only exists in a society of one person (and, by extension: the more people we have in a resource/space constrained society, the less free we all must be to share the common resources and space.)
If you don’t “get rid” of the problematic - what’s your option? Just shrug and ignore them when they rape, murder, pillage and destroy? If you “rehabilitate” the problematic, how is that respecting their freedom?
Back in “the Australia Project” (Manna story) - the development of the overall project was kind of vague, but implied access to a lot more “space” in which people could choose to live with others in ways that each group chose to be “acceptable society.” If you are more at home in one society than another, you are free to migrate. If a particular society chose to cap its size at 200, or 2000, or however many members, you were free to organize another modeled on it… The key aspect of behavior was: respect. Whatever the size of your social interaction: 2 million down to 2 people - respect the others in that society within the boundaries of local societal norms. The availability of virtual reality expanded the available “living space” many orders of magnitude.
I am going to repeat my point as many times as necessary until it gets through: your example is only a punishment system with an extra layer to be more palatable to the society where it is inserted.
Being free does not imply in any moment an individual can do whatever they may concieve or desire; freedom requires and demands constraint, precisely because the freedom of the other is the boundary of my own. Life in society predicates on this. There is no society of one; the individual often finds a swift end if insisting on it, by its own actions.
A society that simply represses or discards individuals because they engaged in destructive behaviour is not doing anything to in fact solve a problem. A society is as responsible by its individuals as the individuals are by their society. And a society that so simply and easily opts by fractioning itself just to allow more (blatantly artificial) freedom to its elements is not a society. It is something I lack the word to describe but a society it is not.
And I am going to repeat my real-politik question to you explicitly:
What’s your grand non-punishment solution for members of society who actively harm other members of society? What to do with those who are non-compliant with “freedom requires and demands constraint”?
I considered it to be implicit that society would do everything reasonable and appropriate to “solve” the problems of individuals engaged in destructive behavior, but experience has shown: the best efforts in these areas still fail to achieve 100% success. Certainly current societies all over the world (the U.S. especially) could try harder and do better, but 100% success has been historically elusive all over the world.
And should the entire human race be confined to a single society? Irrespective of our present predicament of cheap instant global communication I would submit: no, there is no one answer for how people should live in society. The one “basic human right” I would proffer to a universal collection of human societies is that: when someone wants to leave one society, they should be free to do so into any other society which is willing to accept them. No society should be under obligation to accept all applicants, but all societies should be required to let people leave whenever they want to, to wherever will willingly accept them.