It is easy to point to examples where intervention seems to cause more problems than we suspect would have happened by leaving the system to sort itself out. However, I’m sure we could come up with numerous other examples where action was needed and what we believe would have been a worse situation was averted by those actions. Some are fairly clear cut; others are the grist for historians.
Unfortunately, our what-if scenarios don’t really tell us whether what in hindsight looks like success or a disaster would, in fact, have a better outcome if different action/inaction occurred.
Ken
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Kenneth Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934
7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich Cooper
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 6:08 PM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Self Interest Ontology: Emotions in animals
Dear John,
You wrote:
Things would have been far better for the Afghan people, Pakistan, the US, the Russian people, and the entire world if Reagan and the CIA had done nothing.
Yes, in generalized form, the conclusion I draw is that organizations err on the side of doing too much, especially as suggested by the ideas of Isaiah Berlin as documented by Curtis, and as supported by the numerous examples which he shows.
So more generally, the consistently human error is in doing too much when we think we are in the right. That has held true for so many examples in history that it can assumed that every organized plurality of people with a common self interest will eventually go too far if not stopped.
The notion of checks and balances is sometimes thought to limit just how far the organization can go. Jefferson was the architect of the American system of checks and balances. In Brittain, Cromwell hanged the then king for treason. There was a period of time when England did without a king, but the upper classes, I am told, wanted to cement their roles as ruling class, and reinstated the royal line after Cromwell's death. Britain's political structure of parliament and elections were intended to provide checks and balances there, I am told by historians.
Dictatorships of all persuasions seem to appeal to the self interest of the dictator and those few forces that keep him in power. The word "dictate" from Latin simply means to state, much like dictation machines in the old technologies of the fifties. The connotation is that the dictator has the power to make his statements become real. The rest of the citizens can dictate until the llamas and camels come home, but there won’t be a reality that corresponds to their dictations. Syria is the most contemporary example I can think of.
Democracies spread the base of power somewhat by letting citizens express their choice through voting within a limited set of options. That means the self interest of the electorate has a greater voice. But it doesn’t mean democracies are any less subject to Isaiah Berlin's warning. Athens warred on other city states, forcing their own self interest to be realized. The North invaded the South in the American civil war to enforce their economic interests.
So the only concept of which I am aware that can limit the power of any organization is some kind of well constructed set of checks and balances, but even that is not sufficient. It is only a step in the right direction until we can come up with a better way to limit organizations more effectively.
But there will always be zealous advocates who persuade organizations to do too much. Sad, but true. I don’t see a way to stop said organizations from doing too much. But by modeling self interest, we may be able to learn how to detect, perhaps even automate the detection, of when the organizations are going too far.
JMHO,
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 1:38 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Self Interest Ontology: Emotions in animals
On 1/3/2012 1:58 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:
> But the very righteousness that drove the revolutionaries,
> they felt, justified taking inhumane steps to force people
> to be in line with their plans, since they felt their plans
> would bring good. Instead, their convictions turned out
> to be the cause of their downfall.
Fundamental principle: never trust anybody who claims
to know the will of God or anything else that is too
complex for anybody else to understand.
> The Sandinistas, for example, which even Reagan supported.
Reagan also funneled money through the CIA to support
Osama bin Laden in the fight against the Soviet Union
in Afghanistan. He even sent money to the Taliban to
recruit and train more fighters against the USSR.
That was another example of people who thought that they
were doing what was right. Things would have been far
better for the Afghan people, Pakistan, the US, the
Russian people, and the entire world if Reagan and the
CIA had done nothing.
John
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
