One vs. the Many

[Dioscuri]

Mr. P, people have a deep, deep need to believe that somebody is in control. Deep as in it goes all the down. It's not just part of who we are, but what we are.

"Need to believe"? This is not a matter of belief. Someone is in control. This is a matter of acceptance. That this is not perfectly clear is an indication that people have not been listening to us.

Someone is always in control. Do not doubt it. I could even give you specific names if you haven't figured this out yet. No, not Ben Bernanke.

When we agitate for less dependence on government, that's what we're up against. So it goes beyond a few policy changes or a rational argument. At this level, you are talking directly to the central nervous system. You can't change people's need to believe that someone is in control. When you try to deprive them of that, most people will hate you for it. You have to give them something else to lean on for support, and don't say "themselves" because they're not interested.

Deprive people of the Master? Not only is this not possible, neither you nor Mr. P nor anyone else has even tried it, nor have you even advocated trying it. If you had actually considered what it would entail even to think about attempting to advocate the goal of living with no Master, this conversation would not be occurring.

The operative mode of a huge number of people today is that the government's work is never done as long as there is one person suffering, but this naive and idiotic idea has done nothing but add to wrong side of the ledger.

When suffering exists, work is entailed regarding it. This is a necessity and it has never been denied for a single instant of Human history. Whose work would you have it be?

[Nonc Hilaire]

The problem is twofold.

1) The National Guard is inappropriately stationed overseas.
2) The National Guard does not have a defined role in disaster relief.

[Taboo]

Anyway, it looks like Mr. Perfect has successfully destroyed this thread. I'll stop posting in it since the argument before was already pretty poisoned by Taboo's hystrionic OMG ENKI IS GOING TO RAPE ME!!! nonsense.

That's what you would like others to think. In fact, it revealed to everyone that your definition of "freedom" involves you having dictatorial power to fulfill your each and every whim, with no regard to the presumed freedom of anyone else.

[Taboo]

The reaction of people to the damage in New York shows what is wrong with the world, and also what is wrong with Mr. Perfect's naive hope. Everyone is appalled that someone, somewhere didn't prevent all this from happening. Nevermind that a ridiculously gigantic genuflecting storm just smashed into our most densely populated metropolitan area, if "they" were doing their jobs, I wouldn't have had my iPhone service interrupted.

Well, the question is not whether there is an impact or not, but rather how high the preparedness level is. Some areas that get lots of storms (see above) have put in place contingency plans that generally result in a quick return to business as usual even after major storm damage. The DC-NYC-Bos Metropolis have so far worked on the assumption that storms of this sort are rare enough that the investment in a full preparedness system is not justified. Whether or not that is the right call is debatable. But it's not like NYC-DC-Bos could not have been better prepared, and were completely helpless.

Mr. P, people have a deep, deep need to believe that somebody is in control. Deep as in it goes all the down. It's not just part of who we are, but what we are. When we agitate for less dependence on government, that's what we're up against. So it goes beyond a few policy changes or a rational argument. At this level, you are talking directly to the central nervous system. You can't change people's need to believe that someone is in control. When you try to deprive them of that, most people will hate you for it. You have to give them something else to lean on for support, and don't say "themselves" because they're not interested.

Sounds like religion to me. Personally, I am of the opinion that in many cases even when people think they are in control, they are less in control than they think.

Sandy was a huge storm that smashed into a settlement of several million humans. This situation involves suffering. Tomorrow, something else will happen that causes suffering. And the next day after that. The operative mode of a huge number of people today is that the government's work is never done as long as there is one person suffering, but this naive and idiotic idea has done nothing but add to wrong side of the ledger.

Sure, but the mere fact that we're not ever in complete control does not mean that the individuals and organizations can't do a better job than they do.

[Simple Minded]

The reaction of people to the damage in New York shows what is wrong with the world, and also what is wrong with Mr. Perfect's naive hope. Everyone is appalled that someone, somewhere didn't prevent all this from happening. Nevermind that a ridiculously gigantic genuflecting storm just smashed into our most densely populated metropolitan area, if "they" were doing their jobs, I wouldn't have had my iPhone service interrupted. Mr. P, people have a deep, deep need to believe that somebody is in control. Deep as in it goes all the down. It's not just part of who we are, but what we are. When we agitate for less dependence on government, that's what we're up against. So it goes beyond a few policy changes or a rational argument. At this level, you are talking directly to the central nervous system. You can't change people's need to believe that someone is in control. When you try to deprive them of that, most people will hate you for it. You have to give them something else to lean on for support, and don't say "themselves" because they're not interested.

Sandy was a huge storm that smashed into a settlement of several million humans. This situation involves suffering. Tomorrow, something else will happen that causes suffering. And the next day after that. The operative mode of a huge number of people today is that the government's work is never done as long as there is one person suffering, but this naive and idiotic idea has done nothing but add to wrong side of the ledger.

Maybe I'm reading the same stuff Tinker is (or Chris Christie's twitter feed) but the Sandy narrative I keep hearing is "the government responded well this time," "New Yorkers pulled together," and "this could have been a lot worse." Other than that the people last to have services restored, or who literally lost their homes, are complaining, but why not? Fair to complain about that.

Insofar as this is generally a discussion about colletive response via government vs. radical individualism I think the disaster once again demonstrates the value of certain government institutions, regardless of the level at which they are organized.

IBs & JN,

Excellent assessments of human nature based on my observations. The problem with determining "value" is that the payer tends to define it differently than the receiver. Paul is always convinced that Peter should pay or do a little bit more for him... Nothing is easier than demanding that someone else do more.....

Those who want someone else to be in control when they are not, or demand better emergency response today, will also complain like stuck pigs if a law is passed tomorrow to levy a premium tax on property and income earners located in 100 year flood plains to allow for better emergency response in the future, or to build more storm hardened infrastructure.

Few people want to buy an umbrella until it starts raining.

Holy crap life is unpredictable! Who knew? Why didn't someone say something?

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

Mr. P, people have a deep, deep need to believe that somebody is in control. Deep as in it goes all the down. It's not just part of who we are, but what we are. When we agitate for less dependence on government, that's what we're up against. So it goes beyond a few policy changes or a rational argument. At this level, you are talking directly to the central nervous system. You can't change people's need to believe that someone is in control. When you try to deprive them of that, most people will hate you for it. You have to give them something else to lean on for support, and don't say "themselves" because they're not interested.

Sounds like religion to me. Personally, I am of the opinion that in many cases even when people think they are in control, they are less in control than they think.

It is one of the most decisive factors in determining the structure of our religious systems, IMO.