None Good

[kerravonsen]

I was going to post a ramble or review of L.E. Modesitt Jr's first SF trilogy, which has now been released as an omnibus. But I can't really review it, because I put it down in disgust about half way through the third book.
It was the second book I attempted to read after giving up on the book by the Generic-Fantasy-Author-I-shall-not-name. The first book I'd started was another fantasy, and the writing style was definitely better, but I just didn't feel like reading about oppressed pagan witches, sorry. So, I turned to SF, and Modesitt Jr. And it was indeed promising. It opened with some lovely evocative phrases, and gave a real sense of historicity, by interspersing the book with "quotes" from various works which had been "written" many years after the events in the "present time" of the novel. I like that sort of thing, it gives it a good setting.

The hero is also a Marky-Sam. That wasn't the problem, I knew what I was getting into, considering that the retitled omnibus spells this out fairly plainly. The books in the trilogy itself had nicely poetic titles:
- Dawn For A Distant Earth
- The Silent Warrior
- In Endless Twilight
However, the omnibus title is the clunky and obvious "The Forever Hero". Yep, Marky-Sam all the way through.

I now understand lizbee's fascination with the Phrynne Fisher books. You sort of step back and look with horrified fascination as to what the author considers the Ideal Person, and watch the Mary-Sue Collapsar distort all the characters around the Hero(ine).

But that wasn't what caused me to give up on it, really. It was the politics.

Far too simplistic (probably Libertarian) and a tendency to blame the victim.

Central government control is teh eval! Every man for himself!
And then suddenly my brain jumped to Communism: Capitalists are teh eval! Workers of the world unite!

They are both equally stupid, equally correct, equally idealistic, and equally naieve.
Capitalism can be evil. So can central government control. However, every man for himself, and workers of the world uniting can also do evil.

So, I shall now formulate my own political theory: political systems can no more save the world than technology can. The only things that can save the world are goodness and mercy fountaining up from the human heart, and the only thing that can bring that about is God.

Thing is, NO political system will ever work if the people governing within it are not just and merciful and good. But most political systems will work if the people governing ARE good and just and merciful. But people are Bad. So in this fallen world, a political system which restrains badness is going to be the most workable one, which is why Democracy is the "least worst" system.

But a good king can do much more good than a good democracy -- and a bad dictator can do much more evil than a bad democracy. So, is it the system which is bad, or the people in it?

Comments

[neuralclone.livejournal.com]

Hmmm, yes. Libertarian ideologues tend to produce fairly simplistic science fiction - invariably with a "strong man" as hero.

There has been a lot of science fiction coming out of Britain (Scotland in particular) recently, which uses space opera to explore different political systems/ideas/societies in a pretty sophisticated fashion. Check out the works of Ken Macleod, Alistair Reynolds and Iain M. Banks. They may not be the easiest of reads, but they're definitely entertaining and thought provoking.

[kerravonsen]

I've dipped into Ken Macleod and Iain Banks before, but as you say, not the easiest of reads. I should try again some time when I have lots of energy. 8-)

[labingi.livejournal.com]

Very interesting thoughts! You caught my eye with:

So, I shall now formulate my own political theory: political systems can no more save the world than technology can. The only things that can save the world are goodness and mercy fountaining up from the human heart, and the only thing that can bring that about is God.

This really, really resonates with me (up to the God clause). Speaking as an agnostic sociobiologist, let me put forward what I think is a fundamentally similar idea in more materialist terms. "The only things that can save the world are goodness and mercy fountaining up from the human heart" (beautifully put), and the human heart is organized in such a way that, with very few exceptions (Jesus, Gandhi, M. L. K., etc.), our powers of goodness and mercy are stimulated by specific human interactions. If we see someone fall down in the street in front of us, most of us will rush to help. If we hear about thousands of starving people dying in the street, we think, "Gee, that's too bad." If someone knocked on our door and asked for food, I bet most of us would give it (though we might feel weirded out), but we don't all necessarily bother to contribute regularly to the local food bank. The difference is that in the former cases, we can see a human being in need of help. In the latter cases, we're faced with faceless numbers and our brains are not constructed to feel intimate empathy for faceless numbers.

So, "NO political system will ever work if the people governing within it are not just and merciful and good. But most political systems will work if the people governing ARE good and just and merciful." And what makes it difficult for us to be just and merciful and good is, I believe, having to be just, merciful, and good to faceless numbers that we can't easily see as people. Therefore, if we want a political system to work (i.e. to be run with justice, mercy, and goodness), it's basic units need to be small enough that the governors can know the governed as people (say, town-sized). I do believe that, on this scale, most any system will work: communism (everyone owns everything and works for the greater good), libertarianism (everyone owns their own stuff and works for their own enlightened self-interest), even patriarchy (follow your wise leaders). As long as most people can interact with each other as people most of the time, the goodness of the human heart will correct petty injustices.

Conversely, as long as the people's destinies are primarily decided by a governing apparatus (democratic or not) that must, owing to its size, treat people as numbers, people will be treated like numbers, not people. Injustice will be the inevitable result. In other words, go localism! (Sorry for getting long-winded.)

[kerravonsen]

Therefore, if we want a political system to work (i.e. to be run with justice, mercy, and goodness), it's basic units need to be small enough that the governors can know the governed as people (say, town-sized).

Yes, yes! Why do country towns (no matter where you are in the world) tend to be nicer places to live? Because folks know each other. In a positive sense, that means you're more likely to help each other. In a negative sense, peer pressure has a lot more pressure when you know your peers. So, yes, country towns can oppress with that pressure. But still...

As long as most people can interact with each other as people most of the time, the goodness of the human heart will correct petty injustices.

(nods) But people who try to press for one political system or another, get caught up with one aspect or another of the problem, and argue over the details...

In other words, go localism!

Go and read Chesterton's "The Napoleon of Notting Hill". (Note to self: must re-read it soon)

[labingi.livejournal.com]

Go and read Chesterton's "The Napoleon of Notting Hill".

Thanks for the tip; added it to my reading list.

[shimere277.livejournal.com]

Wow...I have a very different take on this. But I am a Libertarian...please don't throw fruit.
1) Ideologies are really, really bad. Marx, Hitler, Mao - they all thought they were going to save the world, and did infinitely, infinitely more harm than a pure sociopath like Jeffrey Dahmer. In fact, they do more harm than the greed merchants who currently run the world, because the greedy un's can be trusted to act in their own self-interest.
2) Personally, I like human interaction, but many of the most profound thinkers and spiritual teachers have been loners/hermits. Social interactions can be very negative - there is a least common denominator phenomena - think of mass delusions, riots, peer pressure etc.
3) I think democracy could work if people could be trusted to feel their own feelings and think their own thoughts. The biggest threat to democracy ever is big media...and not because of some vast conspiracy, but because it makes it so easy for us to passively accept not only the information and points of view chosen for us by others, but even their dreams and fantasies. In that light, fan fiction is a way for us to take back control, to insist on an interactive dialog with these eidolons fed into our unconscious minds.
Hmm...that's a good one...I'll have to remember it when someone asks me how I've been wasting my time lately!

[kerravonsen]

Ideologies are really, really bad.

Generalize, much?
What is Libertarianism but an ideology? Therefore, by your own words you ascribe to something "really, really, bad".

In fact, they do more harm than the greed merchants who currently run the world, because the greedy un's can be trusted to act in their own self-interest.

One word: Bhopal.

Personally, I like human interaction, but many of the most profound thinkers and spiritual teachers have been loners/hermits.

I thought you disliked ideologists? I mean, a hermit who is a profound thinker, I'd call him an ideologist, wouldn't you? Or is it better for profound thinkers to cut themselves off from humanity, to save us from the dangers of ideology?

Social interactions can be very negative

Well, of course. The most negative "social interaction" is war.

I think democracy could work if people could be trusted to feel their own feelings and think their own thoughts. The biggest threat to democracy ever is big media...

That, again, I think is over-simplifying.
But to get back to labingi's point, perhaps the problem with big media is just one facet of the problem with "bigness" in general -- to cut us off from each other, to cut us off from our neighbours, to give more importance to the starving in Africa (about which we can do little) than to the starving in our own cities (about which we could do more).

[shimere277.livejournal.com]

Fair enough - and I have to say I'm not even a member of the Libertarian party (they lost me when they ran Howard Stern for governor of NYS) - but I see Libertarianism as perhaps the least dangerous ideology since they tend to mess least with other folks.

I don't want to make any excuses for Donald Trump or even Enron, but do you honestly see these people as more dangerous than Hitler?

I think I'd better distinguish an "ideologist" from someone who happens to have ideals. Ideals are great - as long as you don't impose them on anyone else. If we spent our time living up to our own ideals, instead of telling other people what to do, a lot of the world's problems would just go away.

Bigness, I think, will resolve itself. Insects don't grow 20 feet tall because it isn't practical given the conditions on earth. The internet is the ultimate bigness, but it tends to resolve itself into the littleness of communities like this one.

And as for generalization "NO political system will ever work if the people governing within it are not just and merciful and good"...sounds like you need some leaders on a pedestal. Bill Clinton had an affair, so the radical right scratches him off their "good" list - do you agree? Sometimes, I think it would be better to hire leaders than to elect them - then we would have better quality control.

BTW - I don't mean to attack you - I'm just up for discussion. These are important questions.

[kerravonsen]

I don't want to make any excuses for Donald Trump or even Enron, but do you honestly see these people as more dangerous than Hitler?

(a) there are more of them, even if they do less harm individually
(b) just because they are a lesser evil doesn't mean that they aren't evil; just look at history to see what happens when corporations are not restrained by governments -- the opium wars were caused by corporations telling their government what to do, the Boston Tea Party was prompted by the evilness of the British East India Company, luckily the USA won rather than the British that time (such an irony, that Libertarianism is strongest in the USA)
(c) "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil: which some reaching after have been led astray from the faith, and have pierced themselves through with many sorrows." 1 Timothy 6:10 (ASV)

Ideals are great - as long as you don't impose them on anyone else. If we spent our time living up to our own ideals, instead of telling other people what to do, a lot of the world's problems would just go away.

That sounds all nice and wonderful, but all governments must tell other people what to do, or they aren't governments. And if you think anarchy is nice, then you are ignoring the lessons of history.

Bigness, I think, will resolve itself.

Not really. Status quo situations remain status quo unless individuals decide to act.

The internet is the ultimate bigness, but it tends to resolve itself into the littleness of communities like this one.

The internet is very intriguing, because it is both an example of bigness and localness.
Bigness because there is a tendency to "treat people as numbers" in initial contacts, because you don't see the person behind the post. Thus you get extended flame wars. (Thank God that they are no more than verbal!) On the other hand, where such things have been set up, such as on LiveJournal (which was deliberately crafted to be community-like) then you get the localness, because you are interacting with individuals, who are your peers, with all that that entails.

so the radical right scratches him off their "good" list - do you agree

"There is none who does good, no, not one." Psalm 14:3

Sometimes, I think it would be better to hire leaders than to elect them - then we would have better quality control.

Yes, well that begs the question of who would get to choose, doesn't it? It's not as if the quality-control issue hasn't been raised in the past -- if I recally correctly, some of the Celtic tribes solved that problem by not having hereditary kings as such; the king was elected by the nobility from amongst the nobility -- but again, what criteria do they use?

[shimere277.livejournal.com]

That, I think is the crux of the problem - what criteria defines good? It is for this reason that I believe governments should be as minimal as possible. I am not an anarchist - I was once, as an undergrad, but that ended once I had to teach a class. I discovered quickly that someone was going to assume control, and it might as well be someone who knew what they were doing.

I think part of the problem is the current tendency to define "Libertarian" as an economic Libertarian. Most of what passes for Libertarianism today, isn't. Perhaps you could call me a "Timothy Leary Libertarian." Back in the day, Libertarians believed in stuff like free education and health care for all. I think it's totally within the realm of the government to perform some economic regulation, to insure the well-being of its citizens. If you like, think of it as being an ultra Liberal, not an ultra Conservative (although it's telling that Leary and G. Gordon Liddy became good friends.)

Here's what I think the government should not mess with 1) what people think; 2) what people believe spiritually; and 3) what they do with their bodies - including who they have sex with, what drugs they use, and unpopular choices like abortion and euthanasia.

And yes, I do believe that big corps are "evil" (although I dislike the term - we tend to demonize the things that offend us). But the greed mongers are most effective when they hitch their wagon to an ideology, and have a wonderful riding crop called fear. Look at America today as an example. Where would Cheney et. al be if lil' George weren't a religious fanatic who believes he's making the world safe for democracy? Or if the American people weren't stupidly stampeded after the horror of 911?

The more I think about it, the more I think bigness/littleness are irrelevant. It's all a matter of proportion. We can see the miraculous in a drop of water or a galaxy. We are all both tiny specks in the whole, and precious in our individuality.

[kerravonsen]

That, I think is the crux of the problem - what criteria defines good? It is for this reason that I believe governments should be as minimal as possible.

Ah, so you want to limit the badness of govenments by limiting their power to essentials. I can see that. The wrangling then starts over what is "essential" for a government to do...

I am not an anarchist - I was once, as an undergrad, but that ended once I had to teach a class.

(grin)

The more I think about it, the more I think bigness/littleness are irrelevant. It's all a matter of proportion. We can see the miraculous in a drop of water or a galaxy. We are all both tiny specks in the whole, and precious in our individuality.

Then perhaps "bigness/littleness" is the wrong dichotomy for what I mean. Probably more precise to say "facelessness/localness". That is, what labingi and I were discussing were things like "faceless beaurocracies" that treat people like numbers. It's the treating people like numbers that is the problem, and that tends to happen with groups of people (gathered for any purpose whatsoever) when the group is too large for people in it to know each other.