posted
In Iraq, when we first moved in, in what he considered a bit of justice, our man in charge ordered all "Ba'athist" members to never be allowed to hold public office, professional license, and to basically disappear.
They didn't. They couldn't, and a large chunk of the insurgency was born.
Hundreds of children in Texas are removed from their parents. Their parents apparently practiced cult-based pedophilia, so the children's homes were broken up, and the children were sent to Foster Homes. The politicians were happy because the children were sent away from the bad place. The fact that they did not end up in a good place, that more funding and oversight is needed in the Foster Care Program were unimportant. The kids were taken out of the spot light, so they disappear.
Crime is a problem. Get tough on crime is the favored solution. Crimminals and dangerous drug users are taken off of our streets and warehoused out of sight in prisons. The US now has the largest % of population in prison than any country.
All three of these problems were caused by the same breaking of a fundamental rule of the universe. It is these rules that I believe we must embrace to really solve problems, not create political sound-bites.
Here they are:
1) People can be neither created nor destroyed, except through sex or violence.
This is what each of the above forgot to factor in. And others, from Hebron to the Democratic Party keep forgetting it to. No matter your majority, your philosophy, your religion or your goals, you can not order people to disappear.
You can not solve the problem of Gay Marriage by ordering homosexuals to not exist. Nor can you solve it by ordering Evangelical Christians to cease to be.
When ever I see anyone making an argument that basically deprives someone of existence, I'll accuse them of breaking the 1st law.
2) For every action there is an equal, but not necessarily opposite reaction. The more violent, or more total the action, the more violent the reaction.
If strides are made in one area, expect people to disagree and organize strides to take it back.
If you attack an opponent, do not expect them to cower. Expect them to attack back.
3)Pressure applied will result in explosive decompression at the weakest point. Despite our best efforts, we rarely know where that point will be.
So when Israel tried to put pressure on Gaza with a total blockade, the pressure resulted in the breaking of the walls on the Egytian borders, not the crushing of Hamas.
posted
I think you can add a sort of entropy law as well, but red tape is the waste product of any governmental system.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:You can not solve the problem of Gay Marriage by ordering homosexuals to not exist. Nor can you solve it by ordering Evangelical Christians to cease to be.
You could however order them to cease to be homosexual, or evangelical. And with a sufficient amount of force you could even make yourself obeyed.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: You can not solve the problem of Gay Marriage by ordering homosexuals to not exist. Nor can you solve it by ordering Evangelical Christians to cease to be
The solution is simple. Make Gay Marriages Legal, but not Required.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think two or three are absolute rules or laws. They are things that people would do well to remember, but they aren't guaranteed by any means, and I can think of at least one example of them not being true, or of the exact opposite being true in the case of the third rule. Pressure applied in the right way and place can bring about great results. In the wrong way it can be disastrous.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even better - make Gay Marriages required for EVERYONE! We're all a little bit gay, some of us are just more gay than others.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:You can not solve the problem of Gay Marriage by ordering homosexuals to not exist. Nor can you solve it by ordering Evangelical Christians to cease to be.
You could however order them to cease to be homosexual, or evangelical. And with a sufficient amount of force you could even make yourself obeyed.
Did you even read the post? Expect a rebellion if any of that's done, with homos or 'gelicals. Or terrorists.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:For every action there is an equal, but not necessarily opposite reaction. The more violent, or more total the action, the more violent the reaction.
Could you clarify what it is you mean? If I take an action there is not necessarily an opposite reaction but rather another action of less power in another direction?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have my own interpretation that, if you take an action there is a reaction of equal power, possibly, but not necessarily targeted back at you.
Some recent examples, attacks on the Olympics torch bearer in France were not responded in equal force on the attackers, rather the majority of the force went into a boycott on Carrefour, a French company.
Another example on the opposite side, Chinese government oppression of foreign 'Free Tibet' sentiment is not countered by equal force aimed at the Chinese government, or even Chinese people. Rather, the majority of the effort seems to be aimed at a foreign audience. Notable example: Free Tibet banner unfurled on the Great Wall in English with Chinese scribbled on as an afterthought link
This is not an assessment of whether reciprocal or misdirected reactions are more probable, merely an observation that reactions can often be unpredictable and directed in unintuitive ways.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can add a couple 'modeling principles' for international politics, which I expect to be somewhat contentious. I hesitate to call them laws because I think of them as being more similar to statements of high probability (which naturally have exceptions).
1) People are rarely Evil in their own mind
Even accounting for Godwin or its relatives, people, no matter how much you disagree with them, no matter how twisted you may think they are, never wake up one day and think 'Hey, I feel like doing some evil today.' This may sound cliched, but they always have a reason, a motive, and in their mind they are almost always doing the right thing.
Babylon 5 is probably the most vivid fictional example that comes to mind. Whether Londo, Bester, the Shadows, they always have very good reasons (to them) for doing what they're doing.
Thus, it is almost never helpful to label a person or movement as 'Evil', an 'Axis of Evil', or whatnot. Such a statement has little predictive power and even less utility in dealing with the problem, if not exacerbating the problem.
2) Theories of behavior that require uniform brainwashing or conspiracies are rarely correct
First corollary to 2) Never ascribe to conspiracies or brainwashing what can be adequately explained by stupidity or incompetence/lack of knowledge
Second corollary to 2) "the most unsuccessful way to win a person over to one's point of view is to start out by telling him he's brainwashed - second only in effectiveness to telling someone that she is part of a grand conspiracy."
quote: Lots of Chinese people now view the Western media, human rights groups, and Western leaders' criticisms of their country as part of the Racist Western Conspiracy to Stop China From Being Successful. Many Westerners continue to harbor a wishful missionary fantasy that the Chinese people must naturally welcome outsiders to help "save" them, and that all expressions of the opposite can only be the product of brainwashing and fear.
I like your first rule. Painting a foe as some implacable enemy devoid of reason other than innate evilness leads to ruin in my mind. Nuance is key in the current realm of world politics. That isn't to say that I think there are no black and white fights any more, I think there are, but the contest of our time, whatever it may be, is never that easy.
You can easily see it in the difference between McCain and Obama's foreign policy ideas. McCain is sliding into Bush's rhetoric about wholly evil enemies that can never be dealt with, they can only be fought and defeated. It'd devoid of nuance. There's never any reason for why they do what they do, they just do it because they are evil and hate us and we should kill them. That's the kind of simplistic argument you use to whip up a frenzied fervor of stupidity. It's an argument you use on an uneducated mass that you desire blind support from. I think even if that application of sway works, it should still be avoided for the effect it has on the population, to say nothing of the fact that it's just a bad idea. Consequences don't disappear just because you get your way.
I guess if that were to be phrased as it's own rule, it'd be that healthy debate only leads to better decisions, and shutting down debate increases the odds of a bad choice being made. If a course of action can't stand up to scrutiny, it probably isn't the best course of action.
This upcoming election is going to be a battle over that rule. McCain, despite his past and his image as a straight talker, is I think going to take on Bush's mantle and deal in black and white platitudes and zero nuance on important issues, whereas Obama is by and large going to challenge him on details, roots, causes, specifics, and the nuance of every policy issue to try and pick apart his arguments. McCain might win by doing what he'll do, by appealing to our baser instincts, or it might be that Obama will win by appealing to our reasoning and logic, I don't know. But it's going to be an interesting fight.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
mucus: You forgot the second part of that...
"Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this in mind, it may offer a way to make him your friend. If not, you can kill him without hate--and quickly." -RAH
Funny thing, when I went searching for this quote, most people left off the second sentence.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I didn't forget it so much as I've never actually read that specific particular statement of the idea. Nonetheless, I agree and that is related to what I was getting at when I noted "Such a statement has little predictive power and even less utility in dealing with the problem, if not exacerbating the problem."
If you can't understand your opponents, you cannot predict them. If you can't predict them, it makes it harder to either subvert them and turn to your side or to counter them and if necessary, defeat them.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
