Scaling up communities

December 16, 2008 — xanthippa

This is a series of posts which are part of The Big Picture – or what is happening in our society.

We can only care – truly care – about a limited number of people at any one time. 

Yes, we can ‘care’ about ‘all of humanity’ and ‘all on Earth’ and ‘all existence’ – but this type of caring is very philosophical, because we cannot possibly know every human being, or every being, or every ‘thing’ around us!  But, we care about all these issues in a more detached way than we care about our parents, kids, or closest friends.

Why?

Perhaps the answer is in how our brain is structured:  the Dunbar number is just about the limit of our ‘Monkey Sphere’ – the better we know someone, the deeper inside our Monkeysphere they get.  This is the reason why the death of a loved one affects us more than the death of someone we have never heard of before – and whose name or specifics we do not know.  My take on this is in Scaling up communities – Part 1. 

As our small, primitive communities grew to larger ones – culminating in our current political structures, called states.  These are much larger than our original communities, so we have had to find new ways of administering our societal structures.  I explored this in Scaling up communities – Part 2.

Yet, our modern ‘states’ are just social and philosophical constructs – and are unable to ‘affect’ anything without the aid of people who act on their behalf.  In Scaling up communities – Part 3, I look at the general concept behind being ‘an agent of the state’.

What happens when the state contracts a class of citizens to perform a certain collection of tasks on its behalf?  Scaling up communities – part 4 looks at what happens when a whole class of citizens who deem themselves ‘independant professionals’ are contracted by the state – as in the case of physicians in a state which provides socialized medicare – and how these professionals are not free to act according to their conscience while they are forced to be nothing other than ‘agents of the state’.

The story is ‘to be continued’ – and updated as it is continued.

Posted in human nature, philosophy, politics, society. Tags: , , , . 2 Comments »

Scaling up communities – part 4

December 12, 2008 — xanthippa

As part of capturing The Big Picture of our society, I have been examining the benefits and costs of scaling up of our communities.

In Part 3, I looked at the establishment of governance structures as a necessity to administer our societies which have scaled up to become states.  The people who enable the governance structures are, in the core meaning of the term, ‘agents of the state’.  (The lead-up posts can be found here:  Part 1 and Part 2.)

The moral dilemma which agents of the state face is simple in its mechanics, but complex in its resolution.  Perhaps it cannot really be satisfactorily resolved – only ‘put up with’, or managed, in one way or another.  And, in a way, this dilemma is also the ‘last check’ on the power of the state…

There is an inherent dichotomy between being an individual – with individual moral views and opinions – and being an agent of the state whose very purpose is to carry out the will of the state.  This cannot be easy, as it is unlikely that every agent of the state will agree with every single policy of the state – yet, it is their job to implement them all.

An ‘agent of the state’ is anyone who is directly hired by the state (civil servant) or who is officially licensed (contracted) by the state to deliver a service on behalf of the state.   (In this series of posts, I use the word ‘state’ in its core meaning:  it could mean provincial, municipal, federal, state, or whatever other political unit has sovereignity of a specific geographic area within a specific sphere of influence.)

This is not the ‘licensing’ – as in certification, where the state accredits someone to practice in a specific field on their own – like, say, plumbers or electricians.  Plumbers and electricians (etc.) may be ‘licensed’ by the state, but their clients contract them privately, not to deliver a government-mandated service.  (There are exceptions, where the state may hire private contractors also licensed to practice by the state, but that is ‘special case’.)

It is a different kind of ‘licensing’.  This kind of licence contracts the licencee to perform services on behalf of the state:  it is this ‘on behalf of the state’ which makes such a licensee an agent of the state. 

When delivering services to its citizens, the government is bound by a different set of rules than a private citizen, or a private business, is (or, at least, it ought to be).  A private contractor may bid on a job – but is not obligated to enter into a contract to pave someone’s laneway in pink interlock brick, if pink annoys him. 

The government already has a pre-existing contract with each citizen to deliver certain services in return for the taxes already levied upon its citizens.  Once a citizen chooses to exercise their part of the contract, the government is obligated to deliver such services.  And, the person who has accepted to be the government contractor is obligated to deliver this.

To put it into different terms:  if I run my own soup shop, I may need a business licence – but it is my shop and I pick what is on the menu.  If, on the other hand, the government got elected on a promise to provide 5 specific kinds of soup in soup kitchens, free to every citizen once a day, and if I get contracted by the government to run a soup kitchen, I cannot then turn around and say I will not make pea soup (that being one of the 5), because it is against my convictions or conscience or whatever!  Either, I open my own shop, and run it pea-soup-free – and get paid by my clients.  Or I accept to be paid by the government, in which case I will indeed be serving pea soup. 

This, of course, translates into areas much more controversial than pea soup….which, by the way, I rather like. 

Socialized healthcare, for instance, is one such area:  each and every physician who does not hand a bill directly to the patient (or their insurance company), but is paid by the state – each one of these physicians is an agent of the state.  And, each and every one of them is obligated to serve pea soup – or prescribe ‘the morning after’ pill, or perform abortions, or whatever other medical procedure the government has agreed to provide to its citizens, as long as the physician is profesionally qualified to perform such services. 

Yes, I know – many of my conservative readers may not like this.  It seems repugnant to many of us that a physician who is opposed to abortion on demand may be forced to prescribe ‘the abortion pill’…. 

I agree – it is WRONG. 

But it is not wrong because the government is forcing the physician to ‘act against their conscience’.  The government is doing no such thing:  the physician had agreed to abdicate his or her personal convictions or beliefs when he or she accepted to act as an agent of the state!

So, the fault does not lie with the demand that agent of the state actually deliver the services they are contracted to. 

The fault lies in forcing physicians be the agents of the state in the first place!

If a physician has a private practice, there is no way a government should be able to compel him or her to perform a procedure the physician does not want to – whether through moral convictions or because the doctor is having a bad hair day.  Independant professionals ought not be compelled to perform services against their will.  

But, it is a completely different situation if the physician is an ‘agent of the state’ … 

If the agents of the state refuse to carry out the very tasks the state has mandated – ones necessary for the state to fulfill its contract to its citizenry, that state will cease to function.  If not remedied, the state will cease to exist. 

This is the ‘last check’ on the state which I mentioned earlier:  by refusing to carry out the will of the state, should the action be too abhorrent, its agents can indeed bring about the end of such a state!

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in freedoms, human nature, opression, philosophy, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Aqsa Parvez – we remember you

December 10, 2008 — xanthippa

jijabvictim.jpg

Aqsa Parvez – a martyr of ‘official multiculturalism’

One year ago today, Aqsa Parvez, a girl on the cusp of womanhood – was brutally murdered by her family because she dared to make a choice:  to be herself.  Now, her body lies in an unmarked grave – no name, no picture, just #774…

The story of Aqsa Parvez touches me very deeply.  I am an immigrant who successfully integrated into the mainstream society – despite the disaproval from some members of my cultural community.  December 10th is the anniversary of when I arrived in Canada.  Aqsa and I both desired freedom.  The date which marks the beginning of my life in freedom is the very same as on which hers ended- what a tragic irony! 

Aqsa’s tragedy reminds me of probably the smartest, most intelligent person I had ever met.  She went to University with me and my husband – and graduated with the highest marks in her Engineering class.  A year or so after University, she met up with my husband and me and told us she just got engaged to a distant relative in the Pakistani community in England. 

She had met him once, for about an hour, and they talked.  She said thay both shared similar background:  growing up in a traditional family, needing to always be trying to balance their expectations and their desire to be part of the mainstream culture.  She thought this would be a good common ground from which they could build a relationship which balanced all these pressures.  So, both of them told their families they will agree to the marriage.

That was the last time we saw her or heard from her.  I was no longer allowed by her family to communicate with her – even to give her a wedding present my husband and I got for her.  Nor would they accept the present from us and forward it on to her.  We have no idea what happened to her.  Back then, we did not really understand it – so we were puzzled, instead of frightened for her.  Now it is too late to find her.  So, when I see Aqsa, I see my friend, too, and wonder what her fate is.

What happened to Aqsa – and my friend – and what continues to happen to many other men and women and children – is a scathing denunciation of our official multiculturalism, because this is where the road of official multiculturalism necessarily leads.

Aqsa Parvez was murdered because she dared to cross the boundaries of multiculturalism’s cultural apartheid!

The difficulty with ‘official multiculturalism’ is that is actively works to prevent the integration of immigrants into mainstream culture (or between different groups within one culture).  It is difficult enough to integrate as it is, but when there are official, semi-official, or, ‘officially tolerated’ barriers added, overcoming these real and artificial barriers becomes very difficult to achieve.  In Aqsa’s case, it proved impossible!

In effect, multiculturatsm introduces something very similar to a caste system.  A  ‘cultural cast’ system, if you will.   If you are in one pidgeonhole, then you are judged according to these rules, if you are in a different pidgeonhole, a different set of rules applies!  And never the two shall meet!

I have criticized this in the past, because it gives the leaders of the immigrant’s ‘cultural community’ power over the newcomer – and impacts how the integration will happen.  It often traps people into the same cultural norms they had fought hard to escape from!

And while I do not advocate ‘assimilation’ – which would require an immigrant to abandon who they were before coming here – it is essential that we ensure successful ‘integration’ of new immigrants!  Without learning how to succesfully interact with people in the mainstream culture, without the opportunity to create social bonds outside of their narrow ‘cultural community’, the new immigrants will, in fact, become ghettoized!

Policing in a multicultural society becomes difficult, too.  Each ‘cultural minority’ is taught not to identify with the over-arching state and its structures.  Many of the people within these communities are victimized by their neighbours – but seeking police protection has come to be seen as a betrayal of one’s own cultural community…  So, immigrant communities become not just socially isolated – they become legally isolated, too.  And very, very vulnerable…

It is time to call ‘official multiculturalism’ by its proper name:  CULTURAL APARTHEID!

Equal, but separate! 

We were not willing to tolerate this bigotry when the divisions were based on skin colour!  Does a person control the culture into which they are born any more than they control the colour of their skin? 

So, please, can someone explain to me why should we now be bullied into tolerating apartheid based on culture?

Because, at both its philosophical core and in its practice, that is exactly what multiculturalism is!

Political Correctness be damned – I will say it, true and direct, because if I do not, my fellow Canadians will continue to suffer.   (I apologize for my rough language, but I really get worked up about this!)

Wearing a headscarf has nothing to do with Islam.  There are plenty of good Muslimas who choose not to wear one!  We must get this straight, because wearing a headscarf is not a religious custom, it is a cultural one.  Yet, some people truly believe that it is part of Islam – and if we ignore this connection, we can never hope to improve this situation! 

This needs to be addressed:  both the role of the scarf (hijab) and the relative roles within the family, whatever the religious or cultural background.  We are all citizens, with certain rights that must not be taken away from us.  Regardless of my belief  (cultural, religious or anything else) in my rightness in doing something – if it is against our secular laws, no amount of ‘religious tolerance’ or ‘cultural tolerance’ can excuse such an action! 

I am very happy to say, Canadian Muslim leaders – from the moderate and brilliant Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress  to the ultra-conservative and extremely controversial Imam Syed Soharwardy – have spoken up to openly condemn what happened to Aqsa Parvez…. from robbing her of her life to the dishonour of burrying her in an unmarked grave!

 

It is time for all of us to have a critical, realistic look at  what are the practical results of official multiculturalism?  Has it helped our society?  Has it helped immigrants?  Has it helped anyone but the bureaucrats who make a career out of administering it?

The data from the experiment of ‘multiculturalism’ is in – let us see how the numbers add up!

It seems pretty clear they add up to #774!

 

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in freedoms, human nature, immigrants, opression, politics, religion. Tags: , , , , , , . 3 Comments »

Scaling up communities – Part 3

December 9, 2008 — xanthippa

We, humans build communities.   As our societies grew, since the dawns of history, so did the size of our communities – and we reaped a lot of benefits from this.  Yet, the ‘scaling up’ process -while raising our standard of living – has some costs associated with it, too…

Part 1  of this series looked at the significance of Dunbar’s number (about 150):  the number of people who comfortably fit into our Monkeysphere (that is, the people we relate to as individuals, rather than statistics).  This is about the maximum size of our community, before we start ‘scaling up’ by perceiving ‘others’ as concepts, rather than individuals….the reason why the suffering of our parent or child ‘touches’ us more than that of a stranger.  

In Part 2 , I tried to demonstrate how scaling our communities up meant heaving to sacrifice some of our individuality (having to interact with more people than can fit into our Monkeyshpere – and whose Monkeyspheres we cannot fit into) but that the benefits of this,  specialization and greater productivity, benefits us by allowing us to reach a higher standard of living.  The side-effect of this scaling up of communities is the emergence of governance structures.  

Here, I would like to look at one of the many implications of scaling governance structures up – and the emrgence of a specific group of people to administer them:  the ‘civil servants’.

I cannot remember which king is said to have uttered:  ‘I AM the State!’ – perhaps there were many.  Yet, most ‘states’ (and here, I use the word state to mean a political association with sovereignity over a defined geographic area) today are not ‘a person’. ‘State’ is a concept which only exists when real flesh-and-blood people act as its agents. 

In other words, a ‘state’ cannot ‘do’ anything ‘physical’, because it is not a corporeal being in and of itself.  A ‘state’ cannot pick up a stapeler, or a gun – or write a constitution.  It is individual people, the agents of the state, who act on behalf of the state:  they carry out the actions necessary to establish the state’s existence and perform the physical actions needed to fulfill the obligations of the state in the social contract between it and the the polulace which created it.

As we have already seen in the earlier parts, as we, humans, get more successful at ‘community building’, our communities get bigger and we can no longer decide each ‘common position’ in the same way we used to:  we no longer know every other member of our society personally, so the methods of the ‘smaller scale community’ are no longer applicable. 

By ‘scaling up’ our communities, through our social contract, we have chosen to give away some of our individual decision-making choices and agreed, in certain areas of our life, to abide by the decisions that ‘the group’ has arrived at.  The group may choose to accept the decisions of its leader, or each citizen may be able to vote on every desision, with the majority opinion becoming binding on the group – or any number of other methods…but that is not the point of this post.

The point I am making is that once this ‘group decision’ is achieved on a specific topic, it becomes the ‘law’ (OK, I am simplifying the process – but not the principle) or ‘policy’ of the ‘state’.  This ‘group decision’ is implemented/enacted/put into practice/fulfilled through the governance structures of the state – with ‘the civil servants’ acting as ‘the agents of state’ who carry out the actions necessary to enact (enforce, fulfill, etc.) it.

In democratic systems – and I am specifically referring to our ‘Western Democracies’ – it is not likely that every citizen will agree fully with every ‘law’ or ‘policy’ of the state.  And, in our Western systems, that is a good thing, because it is through open debate that we grow.  (OK, so this bit is more theoretical, lately, than most of us would like, but in principle…)

And this is where we run into a real problem, a bit where the ‘scaling up’ of our community creates a moral dilema:  what happens when the civil servants – the very agents whose actions are the only means for the state to act in order to fulfill its social contrats with its citizens – what happens when these agents of the states personally disagree with what they are obligated to implement?

While they are ‘off the clock’ as private citizens, they have every right to be the individuals they truly are.  Yet, while they are acting as agents of the state – what should govern their behaviour?  Their inividual views and opinions, or the policies/laws the society has agreed to accept? 

Difficult question, to say the least.

IF they should follow the ‘social contract’ mindlessly, they risk becoming the very agents of injustice, of ‘tyranny of the majority’ – and atrocities like the Holocaust could NOT have happened without ‘agents of the state’ refusing to enact immoral policies, blindly putting into practice the unthinkable.  Never again!

On the other hand – what happens if the majority of the citizens approve a just law, yet one which is not favourable to the civil servants?  What if it is designed to protect a minority – but not a minority that (for some unknown reason) the majority of civil servants do not respect?  Or, what if it is meant to curb the intrusion of civil servants into citizens’ lives?  It is not unprecedented that most of the agents of the state would be morally opposed – or, at least, personally unwilling – to bring these policies/laws into practice…

So, where does the balance lie? 

At which point should the civil servants set aside their individuality – and their morality – in order to perform the will of the group?

Difficult question, to say the least.

Without the civil servant’s denial of their individual morality, while acting as agents of the state, the state cannot effect its will – and so it will effectively cease to exist.  Yet, without applying their ‘morality’ to their actions, the civil servants may be empowering immoral laws or policies.

Where does the balance lie?

In my never-humble-opinion, the civil servants are the ‘last check’ on the state:  they cannot but evaluate their own actions based on their personal morality.  Yet, while they are acting as agents of the state, they may not act upon this personal morality.  It is up to them to weigh the balance between continuing to act as agents of the state – or not.  If they choose to no longer act as agents of the state, they must abdicate their role of ‘agent of the state’….

In other words, if enough civil servants resign over moral objections by refusing to enact the will of the state, the state will cease to exist.  This must be a heavy weight on the conscience of each and every civil servant!

Return to ‘The Big Picture’

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in freedoms, human nature, opression, philosophy, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , , . 1 Comment »

REAL cultural tolerance!!!

December 8, 2008 — xanthippa

A few days ago, I had an experience that proved to me something I think most of us already know:  the ‘official bureaucrats’, ‘brave and steadfast guardians of multiculturalism’ (in the name of which they are ready to oppress us) really have no clue what ‘being multicultural’ is all about!!!

Having arrived a little early for my son’s ‘parent-teacher interview’, I walked around a little, admiring the pictures and poems posted in the school hallways.  Unusually, in front of the library door, there were a couple of chairs and a desk.  In these chairs sat two girls, I’m guessing about 12 years old.   They were supervised by one of their Mom’s (sitting off to the side) – their smiles betrayed the heritage.  Both mother and daughter wore a hijab – so I am making a presumption that they were Muslim.  The other student, the daughter’s friend, did not wear a hijab. 

Yet, the two of girls were obviously good friends – and they made an awesome team.  These two girls decided that it was important to help kids less fortunate then they – and they figured out a way they could make a real difference in the world!

In order to raise money for a charity helping kids in Africa, they focused their creative efforts.  Taking up card-stock, delicately ornate origami paper, glue and calligraphy markers, they made a whole slew of Christmas cards to sell to parents coming to the parent-teacher interviews!

When I asked, they told me they came up with the idea together.  Their eyes shone with pride of ‘doing right’!  And, they were justly proud – their cards were beautiful!  At a $1.00 a piece, I saw every parent passing them (including myself) dump all the change from their wallets and walk away with a stack of Christmas cards.

The Mom was the ’empowering parent’:  not only did she agree to supervise the ‘sales’, she was the one to buy the supplies, too.  The Mom was happy when other parents stopped and asked questions, and she looked downright ‘parentally proud’ when someone complimented the two girls or their Christmas cards – or their greater goal! 

And the girls deserved every compliment they got!  Many young people have awesome ideals, but these two girls had actually figured out a way they themselves could have an impact in making this world a better place for others.  My deep respect goes to them!

Now, I would like to repeat the reality of this:  I (an ignostic) have just bought a whole pile of the most beautiful Christmas cards ever from 2 very young people, one of whom wore the hijab (and, thus, was presumably not a Christian).  And the adult supervisor/enabler was (in my best guess) a Muslima.  I have no clues as to the cultural or religious thoughts of the third person.  Not one of us found anything in the least offensive in making, selling and buying cards wishing everyone to have a ‘Merry Christmas’!

To me, that is a perfect example of the way that people – without government imposed ‘official multiculturalism’ and the bureaucrats who force us into cultural apartheid – will do that most human thing ever:  build communities! And it proves we can do it without regard as to our background culture, religion, or any other superficial means of labeling us, classifying us and dividing us! 

That whole ‘divide and conquer’ will only work if we allow ourselves to be divided!  And if we allow ourselves to be divided, we will be conquered and our rights and freedoms will be taken away!

We must not be hiding our cultural icons from each other, for fear giving offence!  If we hide them, we cannot share them – nor can we rejoice in them!  We can learn from each other by sharing in each other’s festivals, ideas and thoughts.  That is the most human thing ever – and we must not allow those who wish to rule us by dividing us into ‘cultural solitudes’ to succeed!

We can understand that anything which celebrates the human spirit and the beauty of caring and sharing can help us build our community and grow as human beings.  And, at times, our young people can even teach us how sharing in each other’s celebrations can help people whom we do not even know!

That, in my never-humble-opinion, is REAL cultural tolerance! 

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in freedoms, human nature, ignosticism, immigrants, opression, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . 3 Comments »

Dangers of online journalism

December 5, 2008 — xanthippa

This article might be of interest to the online community we call the blogosphere:

CPJ’s 2008 prison census: Online and in jail

Reflecting the rising influence of online reporting and commentary, more Internet journalists are jailed worldwide today than journalists working in any other medium.

…

China continued to be world’s worst jailer of journalists, a dishonor it has held for 10 consecutive years. Cuba, Burma, Eritrea, and Uzbekistan round out the top five jailers from among the 29 nations that imprison journalists. Each of the top five nations has persistently placed among the world’s worst in detaining journalists.

…

“Online journalism has changed the media landscape and the way we communicate with each other,” said CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon. “But the power and influence of this new generation of online journalists has captured the attention of repressive governments around the world, and they have accelerated their counterattack.”

…

Illustrating the evolving media landscape, the increase in online-related jailings has been accompanied by a rise in imprisonments of freelance journalists.

…

“The image of the solitary blogger working at home in pajamas may be appealing, but when the knock comes on the door they are alone and vulnerable,” said CPJ’s Simon. “All of us must stand up for their rights–from Internet companies to journalists and press freedom groups. The future of journalism is online and we are now in a battle with the enemies of press freedom who are using imprisonment to define the limits of public discourse.”

Read the whole story here.

My husband has been googling for classes in how to bake a file into a cake…

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , . 1 Comment »

Finding humour in this constitutional puzzle

December 4, 2008 — xanthippa

So many intelligent and constitutionally educated people are writing interesting things about the current situation in Canada.  I’m afraid most clever things out there have already been said as everyone tries to find a solution to Canada’s constitutional puzzle.

Therefore, I thought I’d let everyone warm their cranium’s up with this fun and whimsical puzzle (along the lines of Einstein’s famous brain teaser). Before they tackle the REAL puzzle, that is.  This one is just a fun, made up one.

My version involves 5 politicians (any resemblance to real-life politicians is purely co-incidental):  Solid Steven, Fishy Gilles, Mindless May, Selfish Jack and Insecure Steph.  Each one of them has their own highest priority, has or is in control of different things, the Media (MSM) have a variety of attitudes towards them, each one is doing something different right now and each one deserves something else.  (I hope the colour coding helps – politics can be a confusing place!)

  1. Solid Steven is not afraid of looking bad in history books, nor is he barely noted by the Media.
  2. Fishy Gilles controls the balance of power.
  3. The Media protects Insecure Steph, but does not hate Mindless May.
  4. The person who is working hard to save our country is the same one whose hightest priority is the welfare of our country.
  5. Selfish Jack deserves contempt.
  6. The Media barely notes two of these people.  And, two of these people’s highest priority is power.  Yet only one of them falls into both these categories.
  7. The politician whom the Media indulges deserves contempt.
  8. The one who is in control of facts, knowledge and leadership skills deserves respect.
  9. Unlike Insecure Steph, the person who controls more liberal votes than Insecure Steph is barely noted by the Media.
  10. True to his name, Selfish Jack, along with Mindless May has power  as his highest priority.
  11. Solid Steven is the only one to have facts, knowledge and leadership skills.
  12. The person who is laughing now actually deserves a grudging acknowledgement of a political game played to his best advantage.
  13. The person most deserving of defenestration has not ooking bad in history books as his highest priority.
  14. The person holding the balance of power is laughing all the way to his separatist-loving province.
  15. The person who reminds us of Insecure Steph’s past sins deserves nothing.
  16. The Media barely notes the person whose highest priority is the breakup of our country while it hates the person who is working hard to save our country.
  17. Despite the fact that the person who is trying really hard now not to look like a complete fool (the ‘not’ is debatable), deserves defenestration.
  18. The person who controls dogmatic left-wingers – and not a leaderless, fragmented party frought with fraud – is just doning some shameless power grabbing.

So, WHO HAS THE WELFARE OF THIS COUNTRY AS THE HIGHEST PRIORITY?!?!?

(I’ll post the answer in a few days and link here to it – not that I’ll have to!  This one should be easy to solve!)

Posted in Humour, politics. Tags: , , . 2 Comments »

Scaling up communities – Part 2

December 1, 2008 — xanthippa

In Scaling up communities – Part 1, I explored the theory that we, humans, have a limit of how many people we can feel connected to as individuals – before they turn into a faceless abstraction.  This number, known as Dunbar’s number, is about 150 – but it is more popularly known as our ‘Monkeysphere’ (plus it is more fun to say ‘monkeyshpere’!).

When we ‘scale up’ the community we live in – the people we daily interact with – to be more than about 150 people, they cannot all fit inside our ‘monkeysphere’ – so we need laws in order to interact with each other.  This is an excellent coping mechanism for scaling up our communities, but it comes with a price:  we are sometimel left feeling like we are a number….because, for all practical purposes, that is what we have become.  By creating laws that are applied uniformly, we have given up much of our individuality in the eyes of the law.

This is not a complaint – rather, an observation. 

As our communities grew, we could make them more efficient by specializing in what we happen to be very good at.  Since sharing a meal together is such a universally bonding human experience, let’s return to that metaphor. 

If there are only 2 people, they may both work together to cook a soup.  But, when you are preparing a meal for 50 people, not all can aid in the soup preparation (the old adage about too many cooks spoiling the soup comes to mind).  So, some will make soup, others will make other things.  Even among the soupd-cooks – some will chop the food and only one will get to stir, so-to-speak.

In other words, scaling up creates both specialization and segmentation of the group.  This, in itself, is not a bad thing – it all depends on how it is done.

As people have larger and larger tasks that need to be co-ordinated, more rigid governance structures need to be established in order for the scaled-up activity to succeed.  Aside from Who holds the power within such a community, more complex governance structures had to evolve.  After all, the person(s) in power needed agents who made their commands happen.

In other words, we are talking about the emergence of civil servants – the agents of the state.  (OK, so I skipped a few steps along societal evolution by jumping from small groups straight to nation states – but the principle is sound.)  Because these people were not acting on their own behalf – but on behalf of the state (whether this was a king or a chieftain or a democratically elected government), they had to separate their ‘personal’ and ‘professional’ behaviour.

I know I am not expressing this as accurately as I would like – please, indulge me in another try.

When the community is small, it is usually possible to arrive at a course of action that most people agree with – and all put into practice.  We may not all like it, but this is the decision of our family (extended family) so we go along…we may not want to play pictionary, but being the only one sulking in the corner would spoil it for everyone else so you suck it up and give it your best…or help hunt down the mammoth instead of wandering off looking for apples, depending on your exteded family.

Since the group is small and every individual knows each other, it is likely that most moral issues are also approached from a common direction.  Yet, if there are some serious disagreements – in a very small group – they are settled by either dominance assertion or split of the group.  This does not scale up that easily…

As the community becomes as large and complex as a state, the variety of experiences within it is going to be much differentiated among the different members.  Therefore there will be much more of likelihood that people will not all agree with each other on questions of morality.  Different states have varying methods of arriving at a concensus (and for allowing a variation from concensus to exist), yet, they all share the need for their civil servants to continue to behave as agents of the state. 

In other words, in a large state, it is very likely that there will be a civil servant who does not think that it is a good idea to add fluoride to the water supply.  Yet, if that state decides that fluoride will be added to the water, and that civil servant happens to be working at the water plant, that civil servant must put aside his personal view and carry out the will of the state.  In a free country, there is always an alternative – the civil servant may choose to quit his job and become a tailor instead.

The point is that, while he is acting on behalf of the state, the civil servant must carry out the will of the state, not his own will – or resign. 

When you think about it, the ‘resign’ bit is a built-in control:  if the order of the state is too evil, civil servants will resign en masse because they will refuse to carry it out.  This will disrupt the governance structures to such a degree that the state will cease to exist, as nobody will be willing to act on its behalf.  Which is pretty much what happened during the ‘velvet revolution’ and similar events.

And, of course, this is one of those costs of scaling up our communities which we do not usually think about.  Yet, the more people we contract as civil servants, the more people will have to put aside their personal opinions and carry out the will of the state.

Posted in human nature, philosophy, politics, society. Tags: , , . 1 Comment »
Newer posts »