Are you tired of police brutality? Are you tired of people crying wolf? The only way we’ll officially alleviate this problem is by demanding that every police officer throughout the nation is equipped with body-mounted cameras.
Your suggestion makes the assumption that our society survives because of the laws that exist.
I contend exactly the opposite.
I contend that society survives, and individual freedom survives (to the extent that it does) precisely because most policemen and most people use their personal judgment as to what laws or actions are applicable to the specific situation and what are not.
It seems that there is much truth in the old adage “the law is an ass”.
And it also seems true that the maximum amount of individual security and freedom can be gained in any system to the degree that the members of that system make conscious effort to support the needs and freedoms of all others.
It seems clear that individual prosperity and individual freedom requires of us that we transcend the values of markets, and transcend our reliance on laws, and move to a more general set of principles that value all sapient life forms and their freedom above all else.
When one considers that evolution, viewed from a systems complexity perspective, can be seen as new levels of complexity emerging from new levels of cooperation stabilised by attendant strategies that prevent systemic cheating, then such an emergence as described above is simply the next logical phase of the evolution of complexity.
Lin Ostrom’s work is interesting, and is a limited subset of my own investigations, though her detailed experimental work and write-up far exceeds my own. I am operating at a far more intuitive level.
I class Lin’s work as a small subset of the more general and potentially infinite classes of more abstract conceptual strategic spaces. Think Wolfram meets The Matrix and you won’t be far off.
I still have too many interesting areas to explore to spend much effort in trying to communicate any of them. Database theory suggests that the most processor efficient search is a fully random search – seem like that may in fact be so – though it does lead to some interesting experiences.
All interesting, and true to a point.
The big dangers lie in cloud computing and the use of centrally mediated networks – both are very vulnerable to central control.
Security comes from decentralisation of communication, computation, and storage. These are completely counter to current developments, and the incentive structures supplied by markets.
At every level – markets are pushing us into ever more dangerous territory (efficiencies in terms of time and space, loss of much needed redundancy – optimisation for averages without adequate consideration of the extremes). Security requires a major transition. Most people have such a poor current outlook (so little material security that they have a very high discount rate on future values – very short term thinking – very poor outcomes) that they value money over human life. We need to improve the security and prosperity of all, in a virtuous cycle, and markets are antithetical to that. Security concerns require us to develop post scarcity technology with urgency, and to move beyond scarcity based market thinking as quickly as possible. Many transition paths are possible – not attached to any in particularly, I just see an urgent need to move in that direction, at as many levels as individuals are capable of.
It seems to me that all “rights” are inventions.
The logic of rights is totally dependent upon the value set and value hierarchy one chooses.
It seems to me that once one transcends the impositions of genetics (likes and preferences) then rational choice must put survival as one’s highest value, and considered on the longest possible time-frame, that requires that one adopts a value hierarchy of Sapient life, followed by the freedom of sapient individuals, and beyond that everything is a matter of individual choice.
Jonathon essentially has it backwards.
From a systems perspective, all major advances in complexity are characterised by new levels of cooperation. Cooperation requires attendant strategies to prevent cheats from exploiting the co-operators.
From this perspective, morality is a relatively simple strategy based in simple binary distinctions. It is a relatively low level strategy.
At higher levels, there appear to be an infinite array of possible strategies, and the most stable of all seems to be simple long term self interest.
It is really simple logic. Any central point of information passage or information storage or information transformation (Activities Channels Pools) is a relatively easy place to impose transformations. Any such points are places that a sufficiently advanced technology could impose control (magic points using AC Clarke’s thought forms).
Real security only comes with complete decentralisation, and massive redundancy of all essential systems.
So many problems.
Most people are still using market based values.
Markets are fundamentally based in scarcity.
Real abundance can be completely automated and decentralised.
All biological life is based in replicating neucleic acids.
Next level it is all based on cells – containing vast collection of molecular systems with massive redundancy.
Next level is entities made from vast collections of cells.
See a pattern – replication and redundancy.
We can achieve redundancy of all essential systems. Security demands we do, all levels of market based incentives work against such universal abundance of anything (including many levels of market influenced systems within our deep cultural systems – that few have distinguished).