5 ms·

Open Society: "Its ideals include commitments to the rule of law, freedom of association, democratic institutions, and the free use of reason and critical analy

Open Society: "Its ideals include commitments to the rule of law, freedom of association, democratic institutions, and the free use of reason and critical analysis." Interesting that this set doesn't include the one thing that seems to be required for Civil Society: high trust. In other words, an general internal locus of control and set of shared morals that essentially allows you to leave your doors unlocked. If a classic sociopath can completely agree with your set of ideals, perhaps you shouldn't complain about the outcomes?

abeppu 2y ago
> internal locus of control Can you expand on that? It seems potentially but not necessarily consistent with "democratic institutions" but the "control" must be limited to preserve the various freedoms required for openness. > shared morals But the degree to which two people's moral views need to overlap is minimal. Yes, I shouldn't invade your home, but I also don't need to approve of what charities you donate to, what happens in your bedroom, how you worship, etc, all of which some people will perceive as part of their morality.
hnbad 2y ago
Also the idea that "commitment to the rule of law" should be a virtue assumes high trust. It's entirely rational not to be "committed to the rule of law" in a society where law enforcement faces less scrutiny or risk of consequences than those on the receiving end of the enforcement. It also ignores that laws can be unjust and defiance of unjust laws can be a political driving force - although I guess in this ideal society unjust laws would just be discovered by thinking really hard and agreeing that they're unjust. The article also throws the term "democracy" around without ever defining it. "Freedom of association" implies a direct democracy, possibly allowing for delegates, but "democratic institutions" and "politicians" implies a representative democracy at which point the distinction between democracy and technocracy becomes less clear. Lastly, the article is very much begging the question by idealizing the "disinterest truth seekers". This implies there is an underlying truth that is orthogonal to ideology and social norms. Even in the natural sciences this is hardly a given. Mathematics famously is the only science that can claim absolute correctness but such "truths" are only relevant within their respective systems, e.g. the obvious statement "1 + 1 = 2" is only true if we agree to submit ourselves to the underlying assumptions, many of which are ultimately arbitrary. Physics is probably a close second but the consensus on what might currently be the closest approximation of a model perfectly describing empirical reality is so complex that most applications instead use models that are known to be wrong but are simpler and ultimately good enough for the given purpose. At this point in science it is functionally impossible for a single person to have a holistic understanding of any given field, let alone the renaissance man ideal of a holistic understanding of a broad range of fields. So all views of "truth" are ultimately filtered through biases (e.g. discarding information as "irrelevant" or "unrelated") and often layers of abstractions. Imagining that this alone can result in a functioning society is the ultimate folly of liberalism: the total blindness to its own ideology. Ideology is not a flaw. Ideology is a lens through which we can understand society and a value system which informs us in how we want to progress as a society. If you don't take the time to build out a coherent ideology or at least a coherent value system - and understand it as such - you'll just be left chasing an inconsistent and often contradictory assortment of "virtues" and ad hoc preferences like those 85% of people who are not "politically engaged" (and arguably being politically engaged is neither necessary nor sufficient to having a coherent value system or else we wouldn't have the widespread problem of very vocal Lions Eating People's Faces Party voters).
- pjkundert 2y ago
  The set of underlying assumptions implied by the phrase "commitment to the rule of law" is astounding. Most people blithely assume it means something like "acceptable behavior is defined by these laws, not by arbitrary edicts of men". But, it means no such thing. First, any "rule of law" can only operate in the assumption that law-breakers can be easily captured and sentenced. This is so clearly impossible (witness the almost complete inability of law-enforcement to interdict drugs entering prisons) as to be laughable. No, unless a group of free people basically agree, internally, not to do something -- of their own free will -- you aren't going to have a civil society free of that thing. Basically, the "rule of law" is a guard-rail that allows a civil society to expel individuals who choose to not abide by the "high trust" commitments of members of that society. Which is fine -- they just have to pursue their behaviours elsewhere. And this is where it becomes sticky. Most people want the benefits of "high trust" and "rule of law" -- as long as it enforces behaviors on others and not themselves. Which is also fine, so long as they are living with others, of like mind, in their own society. Just let us know in a generation or two how that works out for you! Furthermore, they also demand not just Reasonable Accommodation, but full Mental Assent to their (fill in the blank) beliefs. Which, also, is fine -- so long as they are living in a society of their choice, with others who (also, presumably) have the same demands on each-other for Mental Assent to (whatever). But, for whatever reason, people are generally not OK with a society that says: "Well, you are clearly not in agreement with these constraints that we believe leads to Civil Society, so we'd like to you to go somewhere more amenable with your beliefs. And, no, this is not a request." Which I don't understand.
em-bee 2y ago
exactly this. what is also missing (although maybe this will be included in the follow up article) is education. education is a powerful tool to change peoples attitude and create this high trust. it will take time, but it is achievable. same goes for the problem raised in the article. if people are to flawed, ignorant and tribal, then we need to change how we educate our children so that the next generation will be less flawed, less ignorant and less tribal. the earth is but one country and mankind its citizens.

abeppu 2y ago

> internal locus of control Can you expand on that? It seems potentially but not necessarily consistent with "democratic institutions" but the "control" must be limited to preserve the various freedoms required for openness. > shared morals But the degree to which two people's moral views need to overlap is minimal. Yes, I shouldn't invade your home, but I also don't need to approve of what charities you donate to, what happens in your bedroom, how you worship, etc, all of which some people will perceive as part of their morality.

hnbad 2y ago

Also the idea that "commitment to the rule of law" should be a virtue assumes high trust. It's entirely rational not to be "committed to the rule of law" in a society where law enforcement faces less scrutiny or risk of consequences than those on the receiving end of the enforcement. It also ignores that laws can be unjust and defiance of unjust laws can be a political driving force - although I guess in this ideal society unjust laws would just be discovered by thinking really hard and agreeing that they're unjust. The article also throws the term "democracy" around without ever defining it. "Freedom of association" implies a direct democracy, possibly allowing for delegates, but "democratic institutions" and "politicians" implies a representative democracy at which point the distinction between democracy and technocracy becomes less clear. Lastly, the article is very much begging the question by idealizing the "disinterest truth seekers". This implies there is an underlying truth that is orthogonal to ideology and social norms. Even in the natural sciences this is hardly a given. Mathematics famously is the only science that can claim absolute correctness but such "truths" are only relevant within their respective systems, e.g. the obvious statement "1 + 1 = 2" is only true if we agree to submit ourselves to the underlying assumptions, many of which are ultimately arbitrary. Physics is probably a close second but the consensus on what might currently be the closest approximation of a model perfectly describing empirical reality is so complex that most applications instead use models that are known to be wrong but are simpler and ultimately good enough for the given purpose. At this point in science it is functionally impossible for a single person to have a holistic understanding of any given field, let alone the renaissance man ideal of a holistic understanding of a broad range of fields. So all views of "truth" are ultimately filtered through biases (e.g. discarding information as "irrelevant" or "unrelated") and often layers of abstractions. Imagining that this alone can result in a functioning society is the ultimate folly of liberalism: the total blindness to its own ideology. Ideology is not a flaw. Ideology is a lens through which we can understand society and a value system which informs us in how we want to progress as a society. If you don't take the time to build out a coherent ideology or at least a coherent value system - and understand it as such - you'll just be left chasing an inconsistent and often contradictory assortment of "virtues" and ad hoc preferences like those 85% of people who are not "politically engaged" (and arguably being politically engaged is neither necessary nor sufficient to having a coherent value system or else we wouldn't have the widespread problem of very vocal Lions Eating People's Faces Party voters).

pjkundert 2y ago
The set of underlying assumptions implied by the phrase "commitment to the rule of law" is astounding. Most people blithely assume it means something like "acceptable behavior is defined by these laws, not by arbitrary edicts of men". But, it means no such thing. First, any "rule of law" can only operate in the assumption that law-breakers can be easily captured and sentenced. This is so clearly impossible (witness the almost complete inability of law-enforcement to interdict drugs entering prisons) as to be laughable. No, unless a group of free people basically agree, internally, not to do something -- of their own free will -- you aren't going to have a civil society free of that thing. Basically, the "rule of law" is a guard-rail that allows a civil society to expel individuals who choose to not abide by the "high trust" commitments of members of that society. Which is fine -- they just have to pursue their behaviours elsewhere. And this is where it becomes sticky. Most people want the benefits of "high trust" and "rule of law" -- as long as it enforces behaviors on others and not themselves. Which is also fine, so long as they are living with others, of like mind, in their own society. Just let us know in a generation or two how that works out for you! Furthermore, they also demand not just Reasonable Accommodation, but full Mental Assent to their (fill in the blank) beliefs. Which, also, is fine -- so long as they are living in a society of their choice, with others who (also, presumably) have the same demands on each-other for Mental Assent to (whatever). But, for whatever reason, people are generally not OK with a society that says: "Well, you are clearly not in agreement with these constraints that we believe leads to Civil Society, so we'd like to you to go somewhere more amenable with your beliefs. And, no, this is not a request." Which I don't understand.

em-bee 2y ago

exactly this. what is also missing (although maybe this will be included in the follow up article) is education. education is a powerful tool to change peoples attitude and create this high trust. it will take time, but it is achievable. same goes for the problem raised in the article. if people are to flawed, ignorant and tribal, then we need to change how we educate our children so that the next generation will be less flawed, less ignorant and less tribal. the earth is but one country and mankind its citizens.