Anacyclosis - cycles of society/government

[mrcash02]

After watching that Snowden's movie it's clear no one can be hidden nowadays and privacy is already gone. There is indeed someone somewhere that can have a detailed report about you in particular anytime, if wished. And there is nothing to do about it, technology brings accessibility, facilities, but also gives more power to those who control/develop it, and what do these powerful people want? To be on control. Consequently they need to watch us closely.

That is one more reason to not do anything wrong in life. If you start bothering a "big guy", a powerful group, their interests, these people will collect enough evidences about you, the mistakes you committed in the past (or any other aspects they know about your life), and will use it against you in the present time, until you aren't a threat to the established system anymore.

In my opinion that is the main issue. Powerful groups of interest use the lack of privacy to take advantage of you, to affect you negatively, unscrupulously. If they were just "curious" about people's lives I think it wouldn't be a problem at all...

Facebook scandal opened this reality to the public, but even without this social media there are another and more efficient methods/technologies that can be used to watch people's movements, I suppose. One another problem nowadays is that anyone who starts talking about this subject is called crazy, conspiracy theorist by the majority, as said above in another post. So the voices are silenced, as no one wants to be seen as crazy.

The variables about what can happen are many and change from place to place (country to country).

[1713988597]

1713988597

[1713988597]

1713988597

[1713988597]

1713988597

[1713988597]

1713988597

[1713988597]

1713988597

[Krsps]

I've also been getting increasingly worried about that possibility. What worries me most is a 1984-style scenario where the game is constructed such that even the people "in charge" can't escape. If someone is in charge, then there's some hope, since I think that almost everyone is at least a little decent, and even most tyrants would not want to completely crush all freedom and virtue. But with technology, I could see humanity trapping itself utterly in some perpetual machine with no freedom or progress of any kind.

Two hundred years ago, a man called Henry David Thoreau wrote: "Men have become tools of their own tools". And thus, in resume, is the idea I`m going to explain...


1984 wasn`t supposed to be a manual, and yet it is. But I believe the world is taking two different paths (but I don`t mean those paths to be in different countries, they can coexist in one country at the time). The first, an Orwellian one, in with the people is controlled (overcontrolled) by the government, at the same time as afraid due to an invented war. An example of that is Mexico, where the population is living under the false impression of democracy ("the tyranny of the ignorant people", as Platon used to say), but where the tyranny is the real statement: they live under the police tyranny, the corrupted government; they live in a nightmare of deceased ones and disappearances... But, yet, they stay in silent, for the false image of a democracy, and the continuous message of fear is really effective. Thus, an Orwellian panorama is happening in many places, but the common feature of this situation to succeed seems to be poverty.

We have the other path: the Huxley`s one, where the people is so distracted they don`t even care. In "A Brave new world" Huxley described how a society can be happy by being ignorant and programmed, by being distracted all the time, by evading insights, thoughts and profounds feelings. Just take a walk on any capital in the world. Go to London, Paris, Madrid, even the "nice" part of Mexico City; go anyplace with some commodities granted. What will you discover?? Huxley`s descriptions: human relationships are cold; people worried about how they look, where they go to take a coffee, what colour they should wear in their hear; what`s trending; how many likes they got today...

Meantime, both paths come together into something terrible: surveillance. I think another user wrote about that in a previous quote. He said something like people is nicely sharing anything, they share their faces, their lives, their personal information, the name of their cousins, parents, sons; they share where they went the last week, where and with who were yesterday hanging out; they share everything, their routines, their medical records, almost!! Because here is where the paths come together: Huxley and his society being occupied, distracted, and Orwell`s surveillance. Neither Huxley nor Orwell couldn't have foreseen the reality: people are willing to do this, to share to renounce to their freedom, to put on the public table all their dreams, their activities and -the worst part- their relative's ones.

This is the world we are building? People are now being conditioned to share everything, so don`t have even an identity. In the world I live, at least -which happens to be in Europe-, all I can see is children growing up in the society of the "sharing", the "likes" and the "trending topics". Will this children understand in a future how damaged it is? No. We are creating a whole new concept of "freetyranny", where the world is taken those mixed paths and drawing a terrible future. Is the society going to change, to evolve? No, I don`t think so. It has happened before, and it will happen again, and again, and again: people willing to believe anything in order to get some public recognition.
All of them are implied. You see, the Congress in the US asking Mr Zuck their questions, is an amazing example. We live in a Facebook world, with all that that implies. A FACEBOOK world, where there is nobody in charge anymore. The society has changed into this facebook world nightmare, and it has been done voluntarily. All the congressmen and women have a Facebook account, every day they share what the people must see of them; every day they use it as a tool, but, surely, every day they also worried about the "likes" and the "views". They are trapped in the game.

How in the hell can humankind come into this? How can be THIS the chosen path?
I can`t answer that question, but, I`m sure, that`s a fact, sadly.
 


 

I have also been concerned about this for some time. I was sub teaching in high schools in South Florida last year, including Douglas, which was close to my home. This was about 9 months before the shooting, And for the record, the kids at Douglas High were exceptionally polite and intelligent, and subbing was a delight. I remember telling a friend how thr kids gave me hope for the future.

That day picked up the book 1984 in the teacher's lounge and read it again after many years. As it described, the mechanism of misinformation, and how easily it was to mold the minds of the public to anything that the powers that be have in mind, it was shockingly similar to the barrage of news, and information, entertainment distraction, etc.we are exposed to every day, and painfully exposing surveillance.  But you're right. It is even worse with us today because this exposure is so voulantary and self-generating. And, yes, it is up to us to use all these amazing tools wisely. Social Media gives us the opportunity to connect worldwide and exchange ideas, but mostly it is used and misused in such a discouraging way. But if anything is  giving me hope, it is just reading the thread in this group. There is consciousness and awareness here,  so not all is lost. Sure it is not the majority on btc forum, but enough to get a few ethical leaders. So thanks again for a great topic and an education and discussion that is worthwhile.  I think we do have to look out for more and more mob rule.

[CoinCube]

The post below is a discussion on an entirely unrelated topic. Interestingly enough it actually intersects quite substantially with the discussion in this thread on  Polybius' cycle. I have copied it below for those interested.

1.   Do you believe God exist?  What lead you to this conclusion?

Yes I do. Here is how I reached this conclusion.

Claim #1 There are things in this universe that are True yet even cannot ever be proven True no matter how much knowledge or technology advance.

This first step has nothing to do with God but is a general statement about the possibility of truths that can never be proven and it can be derived from mathematical deduction.

Gödel’s theorem proved that any generated system capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. What this means is that in any created system that determines basic arithmetical truths/answers, there is at least one statement that is true, but not provable in the system.

The universe is a non-trivial computational system. We know this from the Church-Turing thesis which tells us that physical systems can express elementary arithmetic. It is a system capable of expressing elementary arithmetic.

Thus we can conclude that the universe is incomplete.

There is at least one thing in the universe that is True but cannot ever be proven from inside the universe. Optimal understanding of the universe necessitates we develop a way of evaluating concepts that are possibly true yet forever unprovable.

We know that we can prove some truths and we know that we cannot prove all truths. Therefore we must develop a theory of truth that allows us to prove the truths we can and infer the truths we cannot.

See: The #1 Mathematical Discovery of the 20th Century

Claim #2 The Coherence Theory of Truth is the best known system that allows us to prove the truths we can and infer the truths we cannot.

The Coherence theory of truth provides us with a mechanism for testing both provable and unprovable truth. Coherence theory holds that a belief is true if we can incorporate it in an orderly and logical manner into a larger and complex system of beliefs or, even more simply still, a belief is true when it fits in with the set of all our other beliefs without creating a contradiction.

Coherence theory holds that a statement is true when it can be fully integrated into a group of complex ideas, the whole set of which is then tested against reality. Similarly an idea is false when it cannot be integrated into a group of complex ideas or if upon integration the set fails when tested against reality.

Another and more common word for an unprovable truth is an a priori truth.

See: The Coherence Theory of Truth

Claim #3 Metaphysical truths are unprovable/assumed/a priori truths. They can only be verified with a systematic approach such as The Coherence Theory of Truth and their verification or falsification is important due to their dramatic impact on human society, human action, and human institutions.

Nihilism leads to very different conclusions then Theism. Varying conceptualizations of reality lead to varying conclusions.

All knowledge ultimately traces back to assumed axioms of this type. Without knowledge, scientific inquiry including empiric inquiry is meaningless and we can’t analyze the world around us. Choosing sound metaphysical first axioms is therefore a critical part of the formation of a sound empirical model of the universe and our place within it.

See: Metaphysical Attitudes

Claim #4  Human progress and civilization requires the growth of knowledge and is ultimately cooperation dependent. Our first premises and axioms directly impact the degree of cooperation that the system can support.

Ultimately progress is maximized when voluntary cooperation is maximized. Another way of saying this is that progress is maximized when superrationalality is maximized.

Superrationality (or renormalized rationality) is an alternative method of reasoning. First, it assumes that the answer to a symmetric problem will be the same for all the superrational players. This sameness is taken into account before knowing what the strategy will be.

Superrationality occurs when individuals have perfect rationality (and thus maximize their own utility) but can assume that other players are also superrational. Superrational players for example can escape Nash’s prisoner’s dilemma.

See: Superrationality and the Infinite

Claim #5 Defection is the fundamental challenge humanity must overcome. Without the suppression of defection we cannot solve the coordination problem. The removal of defection allows superrationality to manifest and thus maximizes cooperation.

Cooperation involves a mutually beneficial exchange that improves the well-being of both participants. Defection is an interaction that benefits one party at the expense of another. Defection always implies violence, the threat of violence, ignorance, or forced interaction.

The greatest obstacle to human progress is not a technological hurdle but the defection inherent in our nature. All forms of law and government are ultimately collective attempts to limit this defection. Instinctively we know that defection must be suppressed so we form laws and governments to do this. Government is expensive and inefficient. These inefficiencies are less costly then unrestrained individualism, however, because of pervasive human defection.

The utopia of limited to no government would only be possible for a population in which all individuals were constantly striving at all times to always be superrational. Such a utopia would require all individuals to always act cooperatively, honesty, and transparently. We lack the required moral fiber for anything like this to work at our current juncture in history. Defection ultimately can be viewed as a manifestation of evil.

See: Religion and Progress

Claim #6 The state is incapable of suppressing defection/evil over long time horizons.

The nation state, police, and laws suppress physical violence and obvious defection but it is composed of many individuals who inherently wish to defect. Over time the functionality of the state must inevitably fail as the habits and virtue necessary to sustain it are undermined by the defection of its citizens and leaders. When this occurs the internal integrity of the state itself fails.

Collectivism limits some avenues of defection while opening entire new possibilities. New opportunities for defection arise along the entire economic spectrum. Everything from special interest lobbying, to disability scammers, and on a larger scale our entire fiat monetary system are essentially forms of defection allowing the few to profit at the expense of the many. Nation state collectivism has allowed for the creation of great civilizations and yet it is entirely unsustainable in its current form.

This failure is not a new observation. Polybius described this about 100 years before the fall of the Roman Republic. It was also well articulated by Henning Webb Prentis, Jr in the 1940's.

"The historical cycle seems to be: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependency; and from dependency back to bondage once more." - Henning Webb Prentis, Jr

See: Faith and Future

Claim #7 The a priori truth of God is capable of suppressing evil and limiting defection.

Genuine belief in God especially individual belief in God coupled with a genuine fear of God’s judgement is world changing. It is a well-known empirical fact that humans are much less likely to defect if they know their behavior is being observed. This has been documented in study after study in both children and adults.  

A society where all individuals genuinely believe their actions are being observed by God and fear God’s judgement would all else being equal have much less defection then an otherwise identical society where individuals feel their actions are secret.

A society where all individuals are genuinely striving not to defect would dramatically transform the landscape of the possible. In such a society defection would be minimal and the defection that did occur would be the result of ignorance not intent. Errors of ignorance themselves would rapidly decline with time as knowledge progressed.

Proverbs 9:10
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom"

See: The Beginning of Wisdom

Claim #8 God and the attendant superrationality that accompanies God is the only pathway forward that does not lead to permanent tyranny or utter ruin.

Freedom is the right of the individual to choose how he controls himself, so long as he respects the equal rights of every other individual to control and plan his own life. Freedom is thus not the ability to do whatever you want. It is self-control, and self-government, no more, no less.

Thus "freedom is self-control" leads to the conclusion that as acting individuals, we must respect the rights and boundaries of others. In other words, every individual should control his or her actions such that they do not aggress or invade against other individuals. A free society is a superrational society. It is one where all individuals are able to live their lives without being subjected to violence, the threat of violence, ignorance, or forced interaction.

Human nature is deeply flawed. That ultimately is the common theme in each stage of the cycle highlighted by Polybius and Prentis all those years ago. As human knowledge progresses we as individuals are rapidly growing ever more powerful. One man with a knife can only do so much harm one man with a bioweapons lab quite a bit more. This trend will only accelerate in the years to come.

Without a matching growth in moral behavior technological progress must inevitably lead to ever growing omnipresent state control as a logical necessity. Freedom requires self-control if the people’s self-control does not grow to match their power it is inevitable that the state will dramatically grow in a necessary attempt to control the people.

Yet as discussed above the state cannot suppress defection/evil over long time horizons. The more powerful the state becomes the greater the opportunity, temptation and profit that results from defectors corrupting the state itself. The very growth of the nation state will lead to its accelerated corruption.  

The cycle of governmental collapse highlighted by Polybius and Prentis is mostly accurate but it has three basic requirements for progression to occur.
 
1) There has to be moral corruption that those with power are susceptible too.
2) There has to be a means by which the corrupt can be overthrown.
3) There has to be survivors following the collapse who are able to continue society.

If we ever reached the stage where there was leadership without corruption the cycle would cease. If we ever reached the stage where tyranny was absolute omnipresent with no viable way to ever overthrow it the cycle would also cease. If we reach the stage where we are so powerful that government collapse leads to utter loss of control and the destruction of all human life the cycle would cease.

Unfortunately of the three possible ends to the cycle the path of freedom from corruption appears the least likely one. We are a perhaps only a single generation away from the time when technological advances will make overthrowing a tyranny nearly impossible once it is established. Whatever small hope there is of attaining a moral leadership without corruption requires we establish both a leadership and a population that is superrational. This in turn requires God.

Our forefathers understood that it is morality, virtue and ultimately God that allows for freedom. It is a lesson many of their descendants have forgotten.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Benjamin Franklin

“Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks, no form of government, can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men; so that we do not depend upon their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them.” - James Madison

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” - George Washington

See: Freedom and God

Claim #9 Ultimately the a priori claim of God requires genuine faith in God or it is hypocritical.

To accept something a priori means to accept it on faith axiomatically and without doubt. The Christian Pastor, the Jewish Rabbi, and the Islamic Imam are ultimately correct.

You have to believe. That is the only viable pathway forward for humanity. That is my view having thought about this issue for a very long time.

A worldview that leads only to extinction or permanent tyranny is not one I am interested in entertaining. I define any such worldview as evil as false.

God is the very narrow very difficult road that leads to life.

I believe in the a priori truth of God. I have faith in God.

Now you know why.

[NadiaHel]

<...>

I`m sorry, I can`t agree with that in any way.
The fear of God, under my perspective, is one of the biggest problems in humanity right now. To believe that something is controlled by a divine-force, including your life, your desitions, and than everything can be forgive at your last moment...

Let`s talk about how religion is seeking mind-control. When human kind appeared in the face of the earth (more than 150.000 years ago) there where some common beliefs, as something magic related to rain, life itself and so. In the prehistoric art before the first cities in the world it is virtually impossible to find any scene of people fighting other people, but people hunting animals and such. I`m talking about a period in history in which there where few humans, small groups of them, walking in the earth, nomads seeking their haunt and in a total balance with the nature. Then, possibly due to a climate change, the humankind begun to build cities. Soon in the ancient cave-art they begun to paint human vs human fights, grupal rituals and such. It happends arround the 9.000 B.C. (notice how huge period it is). So, when humans come togheter, there is war, bounderies problems and, the most important of all, unequal distribution. Now we have specialists in so many areas: we have agriculture from the first time, walled cities to protect their reserves, war, and religioust specialist to convince people to work. Yes. To convince them. Since the very beggining, fearing a god means too many things:
1.- There are a few knowing (and somehow having) the world of God in them. So they get to have a privileged status and to dictate the norms, because they are the chosen ones. If you make the people to believe that, then they will live forever under the fear and they will believe whatever you want them to believe.
2.- Governments were chosen, as well. So your succeed in life is not longer related to your abbilities, but the kind of blood you have in your veins.
3.- The first tyrant government appeared based on religion status. Only by the fear of something supernatural you can have all this power. Just read the Old Testament.
4.- The legitimacy of unfair power. By explaining everything that can`t be controlled by human kind under the supernatural explanation, and by giving all the possible communication between those supernatural forces and humanbeings to a few, you can make anything legit.
Why the rain is destroying everything? Because you don`t give enough money to church. Why my son is dying? Because you are a siner. How can we stop this to happen? By maintaining a church, a monument, a faraon, a cesar...

 

[CoinCube]

I`m sorry, I can`t agree with that in any way.
The fear of God, under my perspective, is one of the biggest problems in humanity right now. To believe that something is controlled by a divine-force, including your life, your desitions, and than everything can be forgive at your last moment...

Let`s talk about how religion is seeking mind-control. When human kind appeared in the face of the earth (more than 150.000 years ago) there where some common beliefs, as something magic related to rain, life itself and so. In the prehistoric art before the first cities in the world it is virtually impossible to find any scene of people fighting other people, but people hunting animals and such. I`m talking about a period in history in which there where few humans, small groups of them, walking in the earth, nomads seeking their haunt and in a total balance with the nature. Then, possibly due to a climate change, the humankind begun to build cities. Soon in the ancient cave-art they begun to paint human vs human fights, grupal rituals and such. It happends arround the 9.000 B.C. (notice how huge period it is).

If you want to look for a time when humans were in equilibrium with the environment you have to go back much farther then 9,000 year ago. You probably have to go back at least 50,000 years. That appears to be when the human species breached our equilibrium with nature. This period has been described as the Great Leap Forward. It was a fundamental technological, social or evolutionary leap that allowed humanity to break the prior constraints which had kept its population small and limited to Africa.

http://blog.23andme.com/news/the-first-population-explosion-human-numbers-expanded-dramatically-millennia-before-agriculture/

The authors found genetic evidence for a surge in human population size about 40,000 to 50,000 years ago. This period, just after humans first set foot outside Africa, is of great interest to archaeologists because it coincides with a dramatic increase in the sophistication of human behavior. People began crafting tools from bone, burying their dead and fashioning clothing to keep themselves warm in cool climates. They developed complex hunting techniques, and created great works of art in the form of cave paintings and jewelery.

The archaeological record also shows that during this time, humans began hunting more dangerous prey and more easily exploiting small game like rabbits and birds. They traveled farther than they had before, perhaps due to the growth of long-distance trade routes – the first of their kind. Jared Diamond, author of The Third Chimpanzee, calls this period “The Great Leap Forward,” when humans burst forth culturally – finally separating themselves from their evolutionary cousins.
The exact cause for these changes in human behavior may never be known. Some believe a simple genetic mutation or that the evolution of language could have sparked such a dramatic change. But what we do know now, thanks to this new genetic research, is that like the (much later) invention of agriculture this explosion of innovation was accompanied by population growth.

A primitive mankind was in a natural competitive equilibrium with nature. We breached this equilibrium with knowledge. Sometime around 50,000 years ago our ancient ancestors acquired the knowledge needed to explosively overcome the constraints that had previously kept our numbers and progress in check. We ceased living as a part of nature and began to dominate it. This breakthrough led to the spread of humanity throughout the world.

It may also have started a countdown to our extinction. Having acquired enough knowledge to breach environmental equilibrium we are now compelled to acquire sufficient knowledge to reestablish some kind of new equilibrium at a higher level. The development of agriculture was likely inevitable. Once a species develops culture and that culture can retain new knowledge and transmit it further development is inevitable.

It was the advance in knowledge that opened areas previously closed to humanity. It opened the entire world to our domination. At the very beginning in world empty of humanity with newly opened lands just over the next hill there would have been less violence. As the population inevitability grew to fill these lands, however, mans new mastery of the world would have made fellow men rather then the environment the greatest thread to his survival. Thus organized armies and war. Indeed there are reasons to believe war played a larger role then agriculture in spawning large and complex societies.

DATA GEEKS SAY WAR, NOT AGRICULTURE, SPAWNED COMPLEX SOCIETIES
https://www.wired.com/2013/09/cliodynamics-war/
  

So, when humans come togheter, there is war, bounderies problems and, the most important of all, unequal distribution. Now we have specialists in so many areas: we have agriculture from the first time, walled cities to protect their reserves, war, and religioust specialist to convince people to work. Yes. To convince them. Since the very beggining, fearing a god means too many things:
1.- There are a few knowing (and somehow having) the world of God in them. So they get to have a privileged status and to dictate the norms, because they are the chosen ones. If you make the people to believe that, then they will live forever under the fear and they will believe whatever you want them to believe.
2.- Governments were chosen, as well. So your succeed in life is not longer related to your abbilities, but the kind of blood you have in your veins.
3.- The first tyrant government appeared based on religion status. Only by the fear of something supernatural you can have all this power. Just read the Old Testament.
4.- The legitimacy of unfair power. By explaining everything that can`t be controlled by human kind under the supernatural explanation, and by giving all the possible communication between those supernatural forces and humanbeings to a few, you can make anything legit.
Why the rain is destroying everything? Because you don`t give enough money to church. Why my son is dying? Because you are a siner. How can we stop this to happen? By maintaining a church, a monument, a faraon, a cesar...
 

You are saying that religion was and is used as a tool of control and oppression. This is true. It is fact that many ancient societies and their "gods" were used as systems of oppression to justify the rule of the powerful. If you don't understand that you don't understand history. Here is another article that highlights this well.

The ‘darker link’ between ancient human sacrifice and our modern world
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/04/05/the-darker-link-between-ancient-human-sacrifice-and-our-modern-world/?utm_term=.ad86596e364a

There are only two ways to build and sustain a large and complex society. The first is oppression and slavery. The second and far harder path is to build a free society.

Religion and Progress

The greatest obstacle to human progress is not a technological hurdle but the evil inherent in ourselves. Humans have knowledge of good and evil and with this knowledge we often choose evil.

Collectivism exists because it employs aggregated force to limit evil especially the forms of evil linked to physical violence. Collectivism is expensive and inefficient but these inefficiencies are less than the cost of unrestrained individualism. Collectivism aggregates capital for the common good and we are far from outgrowing our need for this.

1.   Prehistory required the aggregation of human capital in the form of young warriors willing to fight to protect the tribe.
2.   The Agricultural Age required physical capital in the form of land ownership and a State to protect the land.
3.   The Industrial Age required the aggregation of monetary capital to fund large fixed capital investments and factories.

A farmer in the agricultural age could achieve some protection from theft and violence by arming himself. He could protect himself against a small hostile groups by forming defensive pacts with neighboring farmers. To defend against large scale organized violence, however, requires an army and thus a state.

In 1651 Thomas Hobbes argued for the merits of centralized monarchy. He believed that only absolute monarchy was capable of suppressing the evils of an unrestrained humanity. He described in graphic wording the consequences of a world without monarchy a condition he called the state of nature.

In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. - Thomas Hobbes Leviathan

There may well have been a time in human history when the absolute monarchy of Hobbes was the best available government but Hobbes was writing at the end of that era. England had been transformed from a nation almost completely conquered by the Odin worshiping Great Heathen Army of 865 to a country that protected the legal rights of nobles in the Magna Carta of 1215 to a devoutly Christian nation that formalized the rights of judicial review for common citizens in the 1679 Habeas Corpus act. Hobbes had failed to appreciate the growth of moral capital that allowed for superior forms of government with increased freedom.

The Beginning of Wisdom

Top-down control fulfills its mandate when it maximizes cooperation and minimizes defection. Top-down control also uses fear, violence, and forced interaction. Top-down control is thus only morally justified if the use of those things results in an overall increase in cooperation and a reduction in defection.

The amount of top-down control required to maximize cooperation is proportional to the amount of defection prevalent in the population as well as the capability of individual defectors to do harm. Humans are morally flawed resulting in recurrent excessive concentrations of power and a general refusal to cede power. The recent human condition has been notable for the gradual progression of moral progress with either no accompanying change in top-down control or a counter intuitive increase in top-down control. When this happens the top-down control itself limits cooperation and becomes a form of defection. The situation is like a pressure cooker that eventually explodes in a rebellion resetting the top-down control to more appropriate levels.  

Defection and rebellion are thus entirely separate phenomenon. The first is evil and always morally unjustifiable. The second is not only just but a moral obligation once a superior solution to top-down failure becomes available.

Decentralization paradigms are useful and necessary when resetting top-down control to more appropriate levels. However, decentralization paradigms must always be accompanied by a top-down control that maximizes cooperation alongside the decentralization paradigm.

The reality is we will always need top-down control. This may be a bitter pill to swallow for an anarchist. The need for top-down control does not go away just because we don't like it or don't want to think about it.

Religion is also top-down control, but that statement is meaningless without context. We both need top-down control and will always need top-down control. Thus ultimately the relevant question is what kind of top-down control is religion.

That answer of course varies depending on the religion we are talking about. The primitive idols worshiping pagans had horrific gods. These religions were tools of extreme top-down oppression and their extinction is welcome. See: Pagans and Human Sacrifice.

However, belief in God especially individual belief in God coupled with a fear of God is something else entirely. A society where all individuals genuinely believed in and feared God would have very little defection. What defection did occur would be the result of ignorance not malice and even that would decline with time as knowledge progressed. An individual restrained only by a genuine belief and fear of God has complete operational autonomy he would willing choose only cooperation and never defection limited only by his knowledge of what actions constituted genuine cooperation.

Belief in God is top-down control. It is the purest manifestation of such control enabling a maximization of freedom. Rejecting God leads ultimately to higher levels of defection and consequentially less freedom.

[CoinCube]

Thousands In Sweden Have Implanted Microchips Under Their Skin

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-18/biohack-thousands-sweden-have-implanted-microchips-under-their-skin

More than 3,000 people in Sweden have implanted tiny microchips beneath their skin to replace their credit card information, identification, keys, train tickets, among other everyday items, Agence France-Press announced Sunday.



The implant, which is about the size of a grain of rice, utilizes Near Field Communication (NFC) technology, also found in credit cards, debit cards, key fobs, and smartphones. This technology is considered “passive,” which means the microchip stores data that can be read by other devices but cannot read data themselves.



This might resemble an Orwellian nightmare to many, but in Sweden, residents are flocking to get these implanted microchips by “convenience over concerns of potential personal data violations,” AFP explained.

Governments in Europe quietly experimented with embedding the small chip in humans in 2015 in Sweden, and several other countries in the region, before the recent rollout.

“Swedes have gone on to be very active in microchipping, with scant debate about issues surrounding its use, in a country keen on new technology and where the sharing of personal information is held up as a sign of a transparent society,” AFP notes.



Ulrika Celsing is one of 3,000 Swedes with a microchip implanted in her hand — a process called “biohacking.” The 28-year-old told AFP, “It was fun to try something new and to see what one could use it for to make life easier in the future.”

Celsing explained that the microchip has turned into an “electronic handbag” and has even replaced her gym card.

She can even book a train ticket online, and then use her hand like a ticket to board a train.

While the tiny microchips can store personal data that can be extracted by other devices, they are considered passive — which means the chip cannot read data themselves. Meanwhile, some still have concerns that the progression of this technology could jeopardize personal security.

“I don’t think our current technology is enough to get chip hacked,” Celsing told AFP. “But I may think about this again in the future. I could always take it out then.”

” Sweden has a track record on the sharing of personal information, which may have helped ease the microchip’s acceptance among the Nordic country’s 10 million-strong population. Citizens have long accepted the sharing of their personal details, registered by the social security system, with other administrative bodies, while people can find out each others’ salaries through a quick phone call to the tax authority,” AFP said

There are still serious privacy and security concerns associated with biohacking Swedes. Regarding privacy, corporations will have unprecedented access to personal data of consumers and or employees.

In the fast-approaching dystopic future, corporations and government could soon be collecting private data on their citizens via implanted microchips...

What could go wrong?…