Technology is not the problem. Laws are not the problem. PEOPLE in our GOVERNMENT are the problem.
-40hz
...
...Should we be surprised that when we base our entire society on force and violence, that things always end up as force and violence?
-Renegade
I'm not sure whether the above type of process of elimination even
can, or does necessarily achieve anything particularly useful. The conclusion is arguably a truism -
that the act or habit of violence for the purposes of control over others leads to Totalitarianism (which manifests as deliberate, necessary and systemic violence for the purposes of control over others to oblige them to conform to a given set of rules).
It is arguably the same for many/most of a society's religio-political ideologies - e.g., including such as Serfdom, Roman Catholicism, Islamism, Hinduism, Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Liberalism, Progressivism, Anarchism, Democracy, Capitalism, Fascism. However we might try to disguise it or use euphemisms for it,
violence is an implicit and necessary factor running through the thing's structure, giving it strength and rigidity, like the grain in a piece of wood. The most successful religio-political ideologies, in terms of power or longevity, would seem to be those whose artificial framework of reference employs
the most implicit violence and has as a basis
one or more of some kind of real/imaginary ruling object or master-principle - e.g., a king, an idol, a God, a dictator or a concept such as "the people", "the workers" or "the State". The more the merrier.
Whittling away at a stick, looking for "a problem", will usually result in a stub of the stick held between your finger and thumb, and some wood shavings on the ground, and no major discovery of anything particularly new/useful. It was, after all, always nothing more than just a stick of wood. The "problem" (if you can call it that) with the stick is that
it was made of wood. But what was the problem really?
All this talk of "the problem", but, do we have a discernible, clear definition of
what the problem actually is?
- Is it "Technology"? It might be, I suppose, but why? - and how exactly (unless you are a Luddite) could a collective noun for a set of hardware, software and methodologies be a "problem"? It would presumably depend on your definition of the problem.
- Is it our "Laws"? It might be, I suppose, but why? - and how exactly could a collective noun for a set of rules that society has established for itself to observe be a "problem"? It would presumably depend on your definition of the problem.
- Is it the "People in our government"? It might be, I suppose, but why? - and how exactly could a collective noun for any given set of people that society has appointed into government to manage that society be a "problem"? A stigmatisation, maybe, but a "problem"? It would presumably depend on your definition of the problem.
I could go on, but you probably get the idea, and in any event I don't wish to labour the point too much.
The missing factor in this would seem to be the necessary articulation of a clear, useful, accurate and rational definition of the problem - whatever the problem may be. Once you have defined the problem thus, you are likely to be around halfway to identifying and articulating a rational solution.
Of course, if you don't
need a clear, useful, accurate and rational definition of the problem, because you already
know the solution is your preferred
hammer belief or religio-political ideology - e.g., including such as Serfdom, Roman Catholicism, Islamism, Hinduism, Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Liberalism, Progressivism, Anarchism, Democracy, Capitalism, Fascism - then good luck. Go ahead and knock yourself out. If you don't study history, then you could save yourself some time by taking a leaf out of the the Egyptians' handbook on this - they seem to be really into this kind of thing at the moment.
