From WikiWorld

Jump to: navigation, search


Human Rights

references on this Wiki

Clearly we must police those who would take our property, destroy our environment, or deprive us of our rights. But we infringe on the rights of others if we compel them to collaborate. (See PoliceForce)

Decentralised self government should go all the way to the individual. We must trust our brothers to govern themselves if we want freedom for ourselves.

Oh and... WHAT? What a hypocrit! No way! First, you say we need to police (meaning, force others to behave), then you say live and let live! Those are diametrically opposing principles! Either you police all societies (ala PoliceForce), or you police none (ala SkinnersLaw). Which is it? Doesn't policing and enforcing one viewpoint over another (Bully of EvolutionaryGameTheory) go against all the behavioural science stuff you believe in (ala SkinnersLaw, again). Come on, you cannot have it both ways.--StarPilot
'Clear limits on police action are defined above. Are you suggesting there should be no such limits? Shouldn't WE choose to live in a world where police action is thus limited. Isn't that the policy WE should advocate?'
I'm saying any PoliceForce at all is an admission that you don't really think SkinnersLaw is supreme, as you need to force at least 25% of the population to conform to your behavioral standards. And we know that the PoliceForce does not work at forcing another 25% to conform, and is questionable about how much conformance we get out of the 25% that if force, will collaborate. That leaves the lawful 25%, which would obeys/collaborates anyways. So what is the PoliceForce really getting us? It definately contributes to the UsAndThem mentality... creating at least 3 Thems... the Lawful, The Police, and the Unlawful. And the Police will see many Lawful people that remind them of the Unlawful they see the most often of automatically as the Unlawful, and will treat them accordingly. (This is basic pattern recognition in action.) This contributes to the UsAndThem mentallity, and as the Police interact with their Lawful friends, that CollectiveKnowledge rubs off, further splitting people into UsAndThem. In addition, as stated in PoliceForce, being members of PoliceForce creates a group differentiation, which further contributes to a UsAndThem mentallity. If there are no UsAndThem in the WE, there cannot therefore be any dedicated PoliceForce. That leaves either no PoliceForce, or a shared duty PoliceForce. And as long as there are over 50% of humanity will not collaborate at anything without force being threatened or used, a shared duty PoliceForce cannot work. Ergo, no PoliceForce under current Humanity behavior. --StarPilot

See Also: SocialContract

People should have AnimalRights

People are magnificent animals, they should be granted AnimalRights as well as human rights.

No rights for the government

The government has no right to regulate what I can eat or the medical treatment I can receive. It may tax that which involves a social cost (education, treatment, etc)

It's not the government's business

The government has no business regulating morality. It may tax that which involves a social cost (education, treatment, etc). If something interferes with our rights the government has a responsibility to regulate it. What individuals choose to do amoung themselves is nobodies business.

The government does what we tell it to

Oh, please. Our government does exactly what we want it to. I know this might be shocking to some people that have followed what I've been saying, but it's true. We want it to make sure our neighbors are doing what we find acceptable, and if not, to force them to do so.

'Indeed, much of our freedom has been lost to the tyranny of the majority. But that is not acceptable to me or to many others. Together WE can claim stake to the freedom guarenteed by our constitution.'

At all levels of government, from the smallest local home owners associations for a few square blocks, to the city, county, state, and federal levels. There's never been a more Government of The People, By The People, and For The People in modern times.

'Let's do something about that.'

We want the Government to leave ourselves alone (no sane person ever thinks they really need to be told what right from wrong is, or how to act accordingly, after all), but to meddle in our neighbors affairs. And that's what it does (whether it's Massachussettes jailing a man for having consenting anal intercourse with his wife in the privacy of their own bedroom but was spied upon by a neighbor using a stolen ladder to peer into their upper story bedroom to see what they were doing, or the local police keeping those people that cannot handle their alcohol from driving on the roads by use of checkpoints, or the majority of states keeping marijuana illegal even if a few rogue states want to legalize it, etc). We want the government up in everybody elses business... just not in our own.

'That's why we need a new SocialContract.'
Make all the Social Contracts you want... people have already shown they have no honor. Remember, only 25% of all people will behave or collaborate on their own. The rest have to be forced, and even then, you still don't get 100%. --StarPilot
'Our SocialContract should not be one people are enslaved to, it should be one that allows people to be themselves. It is simply a statement of a live and let live principle where you can be free as long as you don't step on my freedom. It is simply a basis for collaboration. It does not force anyone to collaborate, it only forces them to not interfere with my freedoms.'

We want the government to keep us and our children safe, just don't involve us in it. (Keep it out of sight.) Again, that's just what it does.

'it protects my freedoms generally, if you steal from me, i can call a cop, but also restricts them.'

The problem isn't so much in our government. The problem is in who we send to be our leaders (politicians), and the culture formed by the government's bureaucracies in doing what we want it to do for us. That and us forgetting that we are building a CollectiveStupidity in making a government in the first place.

'WE have ways of reducing collective stupidity including advanced group systems, application of principles, and objective criteria.'
Then lets apply them! First priority goes to Congress, that supreme reigning CollectiveStupidity. After that's done, we can debate what CollectiveStupidity next needs to be refactored and refined. ;) --StarPilot
'There are a lot of little things we can do to help transform the AdministratiumAtom into usefull compounds. These are a matter of employing best practices in group processes. But before WE can be really effective WE need to succeed here first. WE must agree to a social contract and then apply objective criteria. Once our CollectiveIntelligence is manifest WE will elect ourselves :)'

The Government has every right to do anything it wants.

'wrong. It might think it has the power, but we have guns. Government have constitutional responsibilities enforced by the Supreme Court. The balance of power does provide some checks on CollectiveStupidity.'

There was a time when your rights as a citizen was paramount. That was in the Federation of the United States. That failed horribly. Our forefathers learned from that horrible experience that for a government to succeed, it must be the supreme authority. Abraham Licoln destroyed all remaining rights and privilages of the citizen during the Civil War. This latest round of the government using the Constitution for toilet paper is nothing new. Just be glad there is enough media around to make you aware of it. Or not... ignorance is bliss, after all.


Change is constant StarPilot, and it is not always for the worst. We create the future by the choices we make. WE are creating our future here now. WE can choose a SocialContract that is fair, you get to live the way you want and I get to live the way I want. I for one, will not settle for less. -- JimScarver

I don't fear change. But this isn't a change. The American Citizen wants the Government doing what it is doing. To change what the Government is doing long-term, WE need to change the American Citizen. That's done through educating the youngest of the American Citizens, and waiting for the outdated, outmoded Citizens to die. Good examples of this is the change in racial bias in American Citizens. It has dropped from a majority of Citizens to a minority of Citizens, and it continues to drop, despite goverment attempts at preserving and emphasising racial bias. --StarPilot

Special Interest

I just answered much on this in SpecialInterests:

  • I think we agree StarPilot. But sometimes you talk about the current social order as if it is set in cement. I am happy to see you loosening up a bit. Things change, and WE can accept random change, and possibly be destroyed, or WE can create a vision of the future WE can live with. What I am talking about here is how we can create a better social order.
  • I am a special interest for self-goverance. I won't agree to anybody elses idea of TheGoodLife and by joining with all others who feel the same I can be a powerful special interest for myself.
  • In so far as we can collaborate effectively I will not be subject to the tyranny of the majority(public opinion), the mob, or the money interests. I will defend my freedom with my life. Our CollectiveIntelligence must deal with me, and the priciples of freedom and self-determination america proclaims but does not obey.
  • Special interests are indeed a part of any organization and can not be eliminated. If you can't beat them, join them, be a special interest. WE have power. I am a special interest for a free humanity creating great value and populating the galaxy and beyond. If you are too, WE can do anything.

The average citizen may want to control me, they may want to control the social habits of monkeys also. That does not mean WE should allow them too.

There are basically only 3 laws that WE should allow secular goverment to inforce.

  1. Thou shall not kill.
  2. Thou shall not steal.
  3. Thou shall not restrict the rights of others.

Or in short, we collaborate to insure each others freedom to create value in our own way. It is simply the right to be ourselves rather than someone elses idea of what we should be.

Most of the law books just complicate life and should be burned. But change is evolutionary, not revolutionary. All other law should be the responsibility of the church or locality(town, community, household, individual), not the state. We have no separation of church and state if we regulate morality. It is not a matter of what people want, it is a matter of what is right. WE are the CollectiveIntelligence, WE have the responsibility to promote what is right, not what is popular. Our SocietalLeadDogs may be dead, but their dreams are alive in US. -- JimScarver

You should know me well enough to know that if you are walking outside the bounds of the group, I'll tell you that you should be walking closer to the group... and if you are all for staying dead center of the group, I'll be preaching about getting out and walking on your own. It is difficult to have dialog without an opposing side. And we cannot meet in the middle, unless someone is pointing out where the middle is.

Please remember, I've stated several times before... I'm all for improving our CollectiveCollaboration that is the HumanWorld. :D I want to bring out more CollectiveIntelligence and lessen our CollectiveStupidity. (Raise that Signal to Noise ratio)

Churches should not be involved directly in determining and regulating legal morality. That's what the Law is, the LegalMorality. And that's just your CollectiveIntelligence of the various layers of the community... from your personal house all the way up to the WorldGovernment. Why shouldn't churches be directly involved? Churches are organizations. Organizations are entities. And churchs are entities/organizations that deal in money and regulating individual morality already. That's a horrid combination, as they will naturally think they have the superior line on the GreatestTruth, and it's their duty to lead the ignorant and less intelligent to their Proper Place. More IllogicalWars have been fought because of churches/groups of churches, and more humans, animals, and resources have been wasted, then for any other reason. Churches influences will be indirectly felt, like any guide, mentor, or teacher, but it's better for all if there is a layer of the People themselves in between the Government and the Church. And that's what we have now.

'The separation of church and state and freedom of religion guarentee that you choose your own religion. You live according to your own moral laws. Organized churches can help people select acceptable right action. There is a lot I don't like about a lot of churches, but that is a separate issue. People need moral guidance but it should not be legislated by government. We do not have freedom of religion if government legislates morality, that not part of our social contract. I for one, demand separation of church and state and freedom of religion and will die for it if necessary. Fortunately our government generally treats me okay generally, but am angered by law where the government has no business. Fortunately WE can go to the Supreme Court if WE can agree.'

I agree with your 3 laws, JS. But the 'Don't Steal' isn't something at least 25% of humanity agrees with. That's why theft is so common...

'Those who interfere with my property rights, are violating our social contract. We should not regulate anyone who keeps the contract, but we must protect ourselves from those who would.'

So what's that leave?

  1. Don't Kill
  2. Don't Mess With Me.

And even then, some 10 to 25% don't agree with 'Don't Kill'. That leaves...

  • Don't Mess With Me.

The HumanAnimal revealed... that person you were at 1 and a half years of age. The Universe's Center. This is the basic person. Self Centered and Selfish.

'Cool. Let us let them be as they are. But they must obey our SocialContract.'

Oh, we have our moments. Of pure selfless acts of sharing. But these are the true exceptions. And most of these are thanks to our ability to empathise with our fellow HumanAnimal. Something we needed to survive as a group, and help us overcome our selfish nature. And it's still selfish... by feeling empathy so that we help, we form a social and emotional bond with people (friendship/respect), which, when we need something, will help motivate them to help us, thereby improving our own survival and state. Biological selfishness leads to a selfless society that helps its members through Collective Debt and 'I'd do it for you, so you are suppose to do it for me'. :D It's the founding rule of most societies... Treat me like you want to be treated. Help me, and I'll help you.

'It amazes me how many people give gifts they would want rather than what the receiver wants. I am guilty myself. But people do rise above self, to friendship, family, community, church, nation, species, and everything. We can rise to WE.'

We collaborate so I don't have to spend 99% of my time trying to feed myself. The same for you. We play the game of Industrialized Society. The better we play the game, the more we are rewarded. Money is nothing but some ink and paper... it wouldn't do a very good job as shelter, clothing, or helping me hunt or gather food... but we've all decided to play the game, and as a consequence, we don't spend 99% of our time, as a society, just trying to get food. What isn't in our self-interest in doing that? It wasn't a hard sell to even the Native American people to move up from their sustenance living... it was being told they had to surrender their culture in doing that, and play entirely by Westerner rules that prevented many of the Tribes from trying. (That and many of the common Westerners wouldn't accept the Native Americans that did try to play as actual players of the game.)

Collaborating with the group does help offset the chances that the group will just out of hand tyranize you. But it's not guarantee against it. If it was, everyone would always collaborate.

'Communism has not worked yet, but communes are sometimes successful and are not incompatable with our SocialContract as long as you can resonably get out if you wish.'

Remember, there is no such thing as right. There is just what the CollectiveCommunity considers right. But each group can be broken down to smaller groups until we reach the individual. As a sum total Collective of all Humans and their beliefs, we know there is good magic and bad magic in the world, and it is perfectly acceptable to kill anyone we do not like, because we do not like them. That's the current state of the total CollectiveCommunity, and what I think 'we' need to change in the 'WE'.

'Right is defined by logical context, it is not absolute but is defined in a context such as our SocialContract, the constitution, modern physics, whatever. Killing someone clearly violates our SocialContract, but if they are violating others they may be times when no other choice is appearent.'

There is the you and I 'we' and then there is the sum total CollectiveCommunity of 'WE'. 'WE' is one ignorant thing right now. And 'we' need to correct that, if everyone of the 'WE' is to live TheGoodLife.

'Hum, I've been using WE mostly as our CollectiveIntelligence which I only dream may be our collective community replacing our CollectiveStupidity. I think WE used here should imply CollectiveIntelligence, sorry for the confusion..... Yet it is clear, by your statement you agree, WE share the dream, and WE are born. Too cool.'

Our SocietalLeadDogs aren't dead. They just aren't as noteworthy to you as some of the greater SocietalLeadDogs of the past. :-D ---StarPilot

Yes but we can still follow our great leaders of the past, their words still speak to us. I have not found the men of today who are following their lead.


How to implement?

-D Jim, sometimes I am not sure exactly what you mean when you say CollectiveIntelligence. When you use it, it often seems to have more meaning attached to it than just the decision paths of a group of people. Something more along the lines of TotalSumHumanKnowledge with a touch of HiveMind added.

When I said CollectiveCommunity above, I was speaking of the specific aspect of the collection and overlapping entities formed by the network of Communities formed by humans. I believe that is part of your CollectiveIntelligence, but I was only speaking of that aspect, not the total sum.

The basic SocialContract is: 'Do not do to others what you would not find acceptable if done to you.' That's it. The 'Golden Rule' of behaviour in most of HumanAnimal's moral codes.

I'm just going to point out once again, that you are arguing for a stance counter to SkinnersLaw. You say we need to enforce (via a PoliceForce) the SocialContract. Yet you acknowledge that doing so is counterproductive, and a waste of resources here at WikiWorld. Which is it? We cannot use a PoliceForce to enforce. Intelligence is supposedly only the degree people can hold conflicting/opposite ideas as a logical system together, and I think you are showing off yours at the moment.

Now, applying a little logic to SkinnersLaw, we find that we should reward the behavior of HumanAnimals that are in compliance with our desires. That means we should give out, what, Good Samaritan bonuses? You want people to help and protect each other, each other's property, and what else? You preach SkinnersLaw... so get your SocialContract in line with it. :-D {Although, being the StarPilot, I must of course chart the possible hazards along that course.}

  • Find a lost article of property? Turn it in, get a reward (such as a tax break, or even better, a Good Samaritan check from the Gov'mint). {Hazard: People steal stuff that is identifiable/traceable just to turn it in and get the reward. Oops: SkinnersLaw as implemented is raising the crime rate. Wrong implementation?}
  • See someone being harmed, call it into the Life-Savers and get a reward. {Hazard: People call in things that look like people being harmed, but are not, flooding the system.}
  • Participation in the Life-Savers is rewarded. {Hazard: People become full time members, but do nothing. Name on a role getting a basic check for nothing...}

Since we cannot have a PoliceForce, we need to have someone doing some of the jobs they do... and I suggest the Life-Savers. They could be a volunteer force that are similar to volunteer fire-fighters and EMTs, rendering first assistance and help to distressed individuals, until the professionals have managed to respond.

Humm... oh, and communes only work so long as everyone involved contributes, or at least do not work against the system. If you are talking the failures such as the USSR, remember that China is still a Communist government. But the USSR failed because not everyone was equal, and not everyone contributed, and they overburdened their economy playing Keeping Up With The Jones with the USA.

Our capitalistic society succeeds because we use SkinnersLaw to our advantage. We give out the Ultimate Tool as a reward for behaviour we like. We just have it off-kilter... our society says that being nice to each other isn't as valuable as screwing over your fellow man. That the Here and Now is more important then the long range future... Change this, so that the CEOs don't get paid 20,000x+ more then the fire-men, EMTS, and police officers that help people everyday. That's the basic problem of our society.

Other then that, our society really is a Live and Let Live one... or... 'Don't mess with me'. With the wise people realising that if they don't mess with other people, other people are less likely to mess with them.

And, a last side issue... how can we have objective criteria? We are HumanAnimals. We cannot be truly objective. We are subjective, emotive feeling beings. We can define as a group what the majority feels is reasonable... note that. 'feels' We are not logical beings, and presuming we will act so is similar to assuming a disk drive will never fail when you try to access it. Eventually, you are going to find out that reality does not agree with what you planned. ;)


Personal tools