Could The Mafia Run The World?

[wonderpup]

Yeah, well, whadya gonna do?

We live comfortable lives in this part of the world, of course there is corruption and power play and all of that, its the nature of the mankind beast. But this 'system', whatever the motivations are behind the running of it, have seen us all benefit from advances in technology, in medicine, blah blah. You can feel like a slave to 'the system' if you want and envy those skimming the wealth you produce to live better lives than you but have some perspective and look to your own life. How tough is it really. You got a better system? You want to waste your limited time alive fretting over things you have no power to change or do you want to thank your lucky stars you get to live to a ripe old age in relative comfort and enjoy yourself as best you can? Invent, create, do what moves you, get a grip.

You make a good point- but it's based on the idea that the current system is sustainable.

What happened in 2008 is called a 'financial crisis' but in reality it was a crisis of trust- the banking sector had become so crooked that even the crooks running it could no longer trust each other enough to keep the game going- so the system froze.

I am suggesting that we are in danger of a much larger version of this phenomena that will create a far larger systemic crisis. Societies collapse when the bonds of mutual trust that lubricate their institutions fall apart so that what was formally an organised social reality devolves into disparate individuals who are no longer able to place their faith in these larger structures.

The people who stood in lines outside Northern Rock Bank branches had made the astonishing discovery that something they hitherto had believed to be immutable and 'rock' solid turned out to be anything but.

What should really surprise us about Northern Rock however is the speed with which so many ordinary people were willing to abandon their faith in 'the system' and it's ability to protect their money- this indicates that a more generalized crisis of trust is not as unlikely an event as we might imagine.

The EU has already put the mechanisms in place that will allow bank deposits in the UK to be 'bailed in' in the event of future bank failures- how confident are you that your money is now safe in the banking system?

If your answer is anything short of 100% then you are already experiencing the fragmentation of trust I am talking about- lets face it 'safe as money in the bank' is not as comforting an aphorism as it used to be.

[wonderpup]

Trust doesn't come down the barrel of a gun. Trust comes from people forming bonds/relationships/networks based on experience. This is the core problem with statism - it is a system which relies on violence/threats instead of trust/free association.

Moreover, we have a monetary system based on credit, also enforced via violence/threats, instead of trust/free association. This compounds the problem.

I agree that there is a lack of trust and also agree that it is the heart of the problem. However, when taken to conclusion, this provokes questions to be asked, which many find very uncomfortable to answer.

The problem with 'free association' is that it means that people are also free to pick up a gun- and any attempt to limit that freedom requires another gun- so you end up back where you started.

Trust is about mutually shared values- it assumes that the other subscribes to a world view not too dissimilar to our own, and that their behaviour is constrained by similar rules and inhibitions to our own.

When you walk down a busy street any one of the people who walk past you could turn, pull out a knife, and stab you in the back before you even know what they were doing. Yet you feel safe walking down the street because you assume that those around you inhabit the same moral universe that you do.

However- should you see a man walking toward you showing clear signs of mental illness, engaged in a ferocious argument with some subset of their own personality that feeling of safety is weakened- because here is a person who might not inhabit that same moral universe- this person is unpredictable and so potentially dangerous- him you will give a wide berth to.

But if trust is based on a shared morality what happens to trust when the prevailing morality is an amoral doctrine of self interest?

We have systematically trashed every value system in which mutuality is a central feature, replacing them with a system in which looking after number one is the only imperative. So where once we might have looked about us and seen potential allies and friends, now we increasingly find ourselves living in a world populated by the most successful predator that nature has yet evolved- ourselves.

Edited August 20, 2013 by wonderpup

[Traktion]

The problem with 'free association' is that it means that people are also free to pick up a gun- and any attempt to limit that freedom requires another gun- so you end up back where you started.

As soon as someone picks up a gun*, there is no free association.

Trust is about mutually shared values- it assumes that the other subscribes to a world view not too dissimilar to our own, and that their behaviour is constrained by similar rules and inhibitions to our own.

When you walk down a busy street any one of the people who walk past you could turn, pull out a knife, and stab you in the back before you even know what they were doing. Yet you feel safe walking down the street because you assume that those around you inhabit the same moral universe that you do.

However- should you see a man walking toward you showing clear signs of mental illness, engaged in a ferocious argument with some subset of their own personality that feeling of safety is weakened- because here is a person who might not inhabit that same moral universe- this person is unpredictable and so potentially dangerous- him you will give a wide berth to.

But if trust is based on a shared morality what happens to trust when the prevailing morality is an amoral doctrine of self interest?

We have systematically trashed every value system in which mutuality is a central feature, replacing them with a system in which looking after number one is the only imperative. So where once we might have looked about us and seen potential allies and friends, now we increasingly find ourselves living in a world populated by the most successful predator that nature has yet evolved- ourselves.

This is another problem of statism - it means people can forget about morality and just just obey the laws of the land. In effect, people outsource morality to the law makers, retorting with 'I did nothing wrong - I didn't break any laws!'.

However, what is moral and what is legal are two different things. Trying to define behaviour through legislation - itself immoral - absolves those close to the problem of responsibility, with it becoming 'someone else's' problem.

Is it any surprise that mutuality and cooperation fades when such a system is in place? There is every incentive for people to slope their shoulders and demand that someone else sorts it out.

* Assuming that they're 'using' it threateningly.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Traktion

[VeryMeanReversion]

> and only then – did I phone my first wife to say “The money’s safely banked”.

So he lent his new money to a bank and thought that was safe????

What did his other wife say?

[wonderpup]

As soon as someone picks up a gun*, there is no free association.

On the contrary- being free to arm yourself is probably the most basic freedom of all- which is why almost every state in history has made the possession of weapons by the average citizen illegal. The exception being the United States, which came into being as reaction against that kind of state control.

If you wish to deny people the freedom to use weapons you will need to use weapons to enforce your prohibition- at which point you become that which you claim to oppose.

Free association can only exist if those involved are free to abuse the resulting liberty- if you attempt to limit their freedom to abuse their freedom they are no longer free.

I'm not saying it could not work- only that you could not force it to work- which is the entire point you are making- right?