I was thinking of this as a model of karma.
Simply put, you reap what you sow.
More complexly put, you choose your reality and a reality has various angles. So if you choose a reality (a videogame for example) where people fight, sometimes you will win and other times you will lose.
The reality of biology implies eating and being eaten. The reality of capitalism implies wealth and poverty. The reality of justice implies punishing and being punished. Etc
Or something like that.
It’s an empowering philosophy.
I saw something fitting a common description for God (in meditation). Yes, a total mystic vision.
(The creator of reality. A star (that also looks like a jewel) that emits poetry energy. And then I react to that energy by dreaming this dream that I call reality. Like contriving lyrics for an instrumental song.)
No intelligence or personhood as far as I can tell. Just a vast brainless mystico-cosmological gusher of energy.
Because fear/greed is the greatest organizer. Abandon that and we’re just a chaotic mob.
Is that harsh?
Not serious? Well argue with yourself then.
I think the brain-chip network deviates from your heroic portrayal actually.
The ability to explain the subject to the uneducated is not something we generally expect in our engineers. What we do is trust their judgment. That’s how we do it when building dams, bridges, houses etc.
Oh now it’s a question of right.
Like talking to a puddle of squishy goo.
We confer power to the dentist and the plumber because the dentist and the plumber are experts in their fields.
We confer power to our other authorities, political and otherwise, for similar reasons.
That’s how authority works.
A dentist is a pretty good authority. So’s a plumber. There are a hundred more examples we could cite.
Are we saying that running the country is an exceptional case?
But who’s gonna run it? SocialismAI?
You are clearly sealioning about sealioning.
The first can be resolved with education.
Can, could, would, should… fact is if they don’t understand the subject then they don’t understand the subject. We aren’t going to put off the vote on the new dam till everybody gets their civil engineering degree. So no.
The funny thing is that both points are related in a horrid way:
They are literally the same situation from 2 different sides.
On the other hand, don’t give unlimited power…
But we do. We give power to a hundred specialists. They know their subject, we don’t, so we trust them to do the right thing. Every day we do that.
Actually they call a doctor into the court to offer expert testimony.
I think that you have a good authority and a bad authority but just call them different things to avoid awkwardness.
Maybe we could invent a high-quality autocrat.
Perfect genetics, perfect upbringing and education. A mega-brahmin kinda thing.
Or with brain chips. A dozen suboptimal autocrats, networked together to make a more ideal autocrat.
Or an AI. Feed it with everything and then ask it policy questions.
What if it’s an authority that you trust, like a doctor?
Is authoritarianism good then?
You evaded my question.
Authoritarianism is preferred when the authority understands the subject better than the populace. Right?
Ok. Just for conversation’s sake, here are 2 exceptions. Respectively :
Democracy is bad when addressing uncommon subjects. Because if you don’t know the subject then you shouldn’t vote on it.
Authoritarianism is good when the authority knows better than the populace.
I don’t understand. What are you saying?
Yes and no.
I explain because it’s useful to do so. But no explanation ever really fits anything.
It’s like fitting a shoe to the Pacific Ocean. I mean you can toss it in and say “look, it fits”. And to a degree it does. But not really.