Political Engineering or The Lack Thereof
![[avatar]](/pictures/favicon.png)
Blender Dumbass👁 155
https://blenderdumbass.org/articles : 👁 1
https://duckduckgo.com/ : 👁 1
https://blenderdumbass.org/articles?page=2 : 👁 2
The main reason a lot of the Roman concrete structures are still standing is that those structures were not engineered, but rather, built to be the strongest. The difference is that anybody with enough resources can make a strong building, or an unbreakable bridge, but rarely those resources are available. Engineers on the other hand have to design structures that barely hold, with the least possible resources. The lunar lander had walls as thin as foil, because taking up to the moon, the mass required to make a strong lunar lander was extremely expensive. Engineer's job is therefor to come up with weakest acceptable design beyond which any waste is too expensive. But here if an over-complication occurs, the manufacturer just loses money. In other activities, if an engineer fails to make the structure just barely on the edge of what's acceptable, the entire thing collapses. And I'm of course talking about politics.
Freedom is the most unstable political substance. Tyranny or Oppression are self-stabilizing because even to facilitate the existence of Freedom, some Oppression is required. When the conversation stops being about what is getting us more freedom, but rather, what is the most we can do to stop tyranny, we are destabilizing freedom, paving a way for tyranny. And the only way to combat this, is to use clever political engineering to have just the bare minimum amount of power to cause the system to stabilize towards freedom and not towards oppression.
If I lost you here, perhaps I shall try to dive a bit deeper into what I mean, so you could have a chance at understanding it. There is a line between freedom and oppression, both of which are control of one type or another. And the line is very thin. When somebody has control over somebody else it is power. An injustice. Oppression. But control over one's self is freedom and completely justified, no matter how stupid it might look from the outside perspective. Freedoms you are more familiar with, like freedom of speech, are coming directly from this. If I control my body, I control my mouth, and so I have a right to use my mouth to do any sounds what so ever. Whether you like it or not. Notice how this is not about utility or anything. Free Speech is not useful and therefor has to exist. It is more fundamental than that. Controlling how another person can use his mouth is a direct oppression akin to rape. It is control over another person's body. And I'm not saying here that Free Speech or any other freedom isn't useful. Its just that the usefulness is a secondary benefit.
The instability of Freedom comes from the slight paradoxicality of it. Say you are a person with a choice between using Free Software to do your computing and using Proprietary Software. With Free Software you are insured to have freedom. But you still have to have the freedom to use the non-free, proprietary software. If you don't have that freedom, you don't have freedom. But then if you choose to use non-free software you don't have freedom either. Therefor the system isn't stable. There are 3 possibilities here: 1. You choose Free Software. This way you have freedom. 2. You choose proprietary software. This way you lose freedom. And 3. You choose to limit yourself to not being able to choose proprietary software, in which case you also lose freedom. In even the simplest example like this your odds of losing freedom is 2 to 1. And this kind of decision you have to do constantly, which makes it very likely that at some point you will lose freedom.
Another instability comes from the fact that most people do not respect your freedom. If everybody would respect your freedom, there would not be, for example, proprietary software to begin with. And therefor freedom would have been a lot more stable. But a lot of people have an ambition for power. And if nothing stops them from having power, they will. In order to stop people from gaining power, somebody must interfere with their goals. Somebody needs to put roadblocks into their way. Somebody must exercise power to stop power. And that is the problem. If we increase power to stop power, we still increase power. If we are trying to fight an injustice so desperately that we forget about freedom, we are creating another injustice in the process. And therefor it is paradoxically impossible to even have freedom, at least fully, in the first place.
The best possible thing we can do is to optimize the system in a such a way that power is at its lowest possible, just barely enough to defeat power. Which kind of starts to resemble the ideas in the beginning of this article, where I talked about engineers. Most governments around the world aren't even trying to optimize for freedom. They see an injustice and attack it with full force. Similar to how Romans built their structures. A very wasteful endeavor. And while with Roman concrete it was just a waste of material, to make things stronger, which was not particularly terrible, fighting with injustices by creating injustices is a whole another type of waste.
We have a finite unstable amount of freedom. And this is our currency, our only currency, to fight oppression. Because we can remove some of our freedom and turn it into a bit more power. A bit more oppression, to catch a bit more criminals. But we should never overdo that. All criminals ( that are bad ) are oppressing people in one way or the other. Rapists and Murderers do that directly to the person's body. Thieves do that the person's belongings. And other oppressors to that in other ways. So in order to have freedom we should stop them. But if to catch a thief you need to completely undermine freedoms of the rest of the population, you are wasting the freedom resources. You are a terrible political engineer, completely and utterly under-qualified for the job.
A lot of today's political landscape is just brewing with this kind of insanity. Most cities in the world are filled with surveillance cameras, so just in case something bad would start happening, those in power could respond more effectively. This is already too much waste. This is already almost a complete disregard toward privacy, freedom to control what you want to tell others about yourself, just to increase power a little bit. A little bit! To maybe, possibly, somewhat aid the powers to stop some powers. If we were talking about a bridge. And that it could be stronger if we put one more million dollars into it. And therefor it will less likely to collapse. It is one thing. Yes those needing to pay it would probably be not very found of this idea. But if your bridge's integrity is dependent on it self, it is a completely different problem. If to make it stronger, you need to make it weaker, it is an absolutely inexcusable type of stupidity to do it. With freedom we only have that, freedom. Somebody might want to take it away. But if we take more to stop that person, than what this person could have taken, we are making it worse, by even trying. If to catch one criminal we have to turn the entire city into a surveillance machine for a day. How many people will lose freedom to that criminal in a day, versus how many more people will lose freedom to stop that criminal in that same day?
Say he is a very bad guy and he is going to kill 10 people today, in a town with 100 residents. So he will violate freedoms of 10 people if we don't stop him. We should stop him! In order to stop him, though, we decide to use mass surveillance, which doesn't even mean that it will help us catch the criminal, but it will definitely violate freedoms of all 100 people in the town. In this case we are committing 10 times as much crime. This is not a smart design. A smart design would have dealt with this criminal without taking other people's freedom with it. Or maybe if the criminal would have oppressed 10 people, the cost to catch that criminal with a smart design would not have exceeded 10 people's freedoms. And that is including that one criminal's own freedom. Because putting a person into a cell is directly violating this person's freedom.
An engineer would laugh at you today if you would try to build a strong structure by just filling a thick wall full of steel. This is way to wasteful. The same, or greater strength could be achieved by choosing the right materials and shapes. Triangles, for example are incredibly strong. And a lot of structures today are build from thin pieces of material connected into triangle meshes. This is way lighter, way cheaper and therefor a lot smarter. Why aren't we doing the same with politics?
Happy Hacking!!!
Definetely Advocates for Oppression
"In this case we are committing 10 times as much crime."
Yes you ludicrous genius: using cameras around a city to track 100 people, is "committing 10 times as much crime" as if one guy just kills 10 people.
You really are a (blender) dumbass, sometimes.
But yes, we have to be smart.
You ask: "Why aren't we doing the same with politics?"
Because we rather work on decreasing the cosmetic effects of something bad, rather than working at the root cause.
It's like your example: rather than monitor all people, waiting for a crime (which is statistically highest for certain illegal immigrants), you can just expel the illegal immigrants (e.g. with routine id-document/passport controls in those regions which already suffer from a lot of crime).
And instead of waiting for more illegals to enter and do crime, you can protect the border.
In other words: get real, instead of gullible.
Telling yourself that no bad people will cross into your country... is just gullible.
Blender Dumbass
c:1Answering to Anonymous Guest's first point. I spoke to Richard Stallman on email about ideas in this article, he brought up similar concerns. A more nuanced way would be to make a list of freedoms, like: Privacy, Free Speech, Control Over One's Body, etc.. And multiply effects on those freedoms over time of the oppression. So murder in this case if a violation of all freedoms, ( attempted murder a violation only of the body ), with full murder, all freedoms are being taken away, and it should be multiplied by the rest of the expected life of that person. So let's say the life expectancy is 80 years and the person was killed at 20, the difference is 60 years. Which is 60 years of all freedom being lost.
This compared to the example in the article, will yield a different result. In which case a very short violation of just privacy, may actually not exceed the violation caused by murder. In which case some of it could be potentially quasi-justified.
Only "Quasi" though, because the goal is to engineer the system to have that oppression be minimized. And if that killer could be stopped with less oppression, it should always be the way to do it.
Blender Dumbass
c:2About the second point of Anonymous User about immigrants.
Deporting immigrants is a limitation of their freedom to move around and if they are deported to a country with less freedom, it is also a limitation of those freedoms. If we are talking specifically about Trump and US. And deportation to say Mexico. Mexico is a way less free country, which means to deport those immigrants to Mexico is not just to violate their freedom to move around, but also to violate their other freedoms ( I need to look into how exactly Mexico is worse in this regard to answer this properly ). If lets say the deportation is instead done to a freer country, or comparably as free, then we are talking about violation of freedom to move around.
No... Wait. If those immigrants happened to have real estate in the United States, then it is also theft. Even if we pay them back with money. Because a person might not want to sell you pers house.
In this case a statistic needs to be carefully studied. How many of those specific immigrant commit what type of crimes. And is deporting them actually is a lesser crime? And not just that... Is it the least crime that could be done to stop their crime?
I doubt that it is as straight forward as to just deport them.
A lot of anger. Probably Cognitive Dissonance.
All I hear is Jew-speak.
Listen. Your stuff about engineering society bla bla is just that: some constructed engineered bla bla.
Out of touch with reality.
Your stuff about bad if "deporting to a country with less freedom" is als bla bla bullshit, because people come from somewhere. You can deport them to wherever the fuck they came from.
To think about such stuff you must make it personal, ok?! So here it is:
Even Jews have a zionist-engineered home now, called Isreal.
So you want to deport the all European muslims to safe Isreal, is that what you are saying?
Think about it! To where do you want to deport the rioting Muslims, that are making European cities unsafe?
And the Mexican drug-cartel members? Also to safe Isreal, right? Think about it!
How did you get to Isreal anyway?
And lets say for a moment, that I'm not a Jew. Do you think I can come to Isreal?? etc. Think about it.
So bottom line: no to braindead "engineering solutions" to problems and dynamics with peoples, cultures, heritage, traditions, etc.
And double-no to progressive... we're all one big family and all just want freedom to live our lives freely in harmony together... bullshit.
Blender Dumbass
c:4Answering to Anonymous User. I am saying that I don't see how it could be justified to move entire groups of people against their will anywhere. I'm saying that perhaps certain countries are better, and therefor it is mathematically more justifiable to send somebody there, rather than somewhere else. And I am not claiming that Israel is by any stretch of imagination a good country. There is a lot of work that has to be done in Israel before I would recommend anybody to come here.
Maybe if you do the math, I could see that it could be potentially justified, somehow. But the crimes that they are committing should be so great, that I fail to imagine this kind of crime.
Actually wait Global Heating could be the kind of crime that would justify some extreme action against it. Perhaps we should depart all oil magnates to some terrible countries. Actually no it would help for shit. We should take their companies from them. That should be more than justified. But is there a lesser method that would achieve the same result? If there is we should do that instead.
"I don't see how it could be justified to move entire groups of people against their will anywhere"
I don't see how it could be justified, to flood your own country with foreign people (illegal immigrants or whatever, via "open-borders" and "human-aid" ideology of your country's ruling elite), against the will of the people living in your country in the first place.
(where I write "your"... I'm talking about you, and e.g. and the feelings of some guy in France, and some guy in the US, and some guy in ...)
Is it so hard to fathom people being brought back to their own original countries????
(Maybe it is, for diaspora Jews who perhaps don't have a real "original country"? Is that the problem, perhaps? Or is it "progressive" propaganda-ideology?? ...anyway...)
Most of the people have their own original countries. That's where they should be brought back to. That's where they can fully create and form their own countries, and reach their destinies.
Blender Dumbass
c:7 Most of the people have their own original countries. That's where they should be brought back to. That's where they can fully create and form their own countries, and reach their destinies.
I see countries similarly to instances of the Fediverse. Different ones have slightly different rules and cultures. Therefor if you are in one you don't like you can move to another one, where you will feel better.
Nobody chooses where they are born. But people can choose where they want to be. If a person is born in a country that is actively not for that person, the person should be able to get to another country where the life would be better for that person.
Similarly how a person who is born into a gender that this person doesn't like, should be able to move to another gender. And similarly how a person that is born to a religion he doesn't like should be able to move to another religion.
Disagree on all points.
Countries are no Fediverse.
Countries... you say: "Therefor if you are in one you don't like you can move to another one, where you will feel better."
-> It's not you who is allowed to choose which country to live in.
No, on the contrary, it is the citizens of a country who have the right to choose whom they wish to grant entry and for how long (and under what conditions), and whom not.
"Nobody chooses where they are born."
-> People are the children of their parents. They have a heritage-line and history. (It's not chance.)
"But people can choose where they want to be."
-> Like some Moslem who wants to be in Isreal to bomb away some jews?
No, come on.
"If a person is born in a country that is actively not for that person, the person should be able to get to another country where the life would be better for that person."
-> No, you can actively work towards making own your country better reflect the way you want it to be. But you can not come to other countries and bring your conflicts with you. Or come to other countries and undermine, subvert, manipulate, exploit, take advantage of the people there.
Especially not in large masses, where you import your conflicts; and supplant, sideline and replace the own original people (their home and their identity).
(I write "you", but see it as moslems, or extremists; if that helps you better understand it).
"Similarly how a person who is born into a gender that this person doesn't like (...)"
Pfff... yes, choose and change it like the colour of your underpants. No to woke propaganda!
Blender Dumbass
c:9 It's not you who is allowed to choose which country to live in.
If that is the truth, it needs to be fought against, since it is oppression.
People are the children of their parents.
I made a whole movie just disagreeing with this viewpoint. It is called I'm Not Even Human. In a nutshell children are humans and owning a human is directly violating this human. So parents who behave like they own their kids are direct oppressors of their kids. Kids, as any other human, should have the same rights and any other human. Otherwise there is age discrimination.
Like some Moslem who wants to be in Isreal to bomb away some jews?
I know Muslims that live in Israel and they are nice people that respect other people. It is too bad that some people ( that just so happened to be Muslims in this case ) decided that killing Jews in the way to solve their problems. And it is too bad that Israel is very bad at solving those problems in a peaceful way.
No, you can actively work towards making own your country better reflect the way you want it to be.
I agree, work in your own country, to make it a better place, is also important.
But you can not come to other countries and bring your conflicts with you. Or come to other countries and undermine, subvert, manipulate, exploit, take advantage of the people there.
I agree, it is unjust to oppress people. In general. But if you are not oppressing, there is no injustice in your presence in a country you were not born into.
No to woke propaganda!
Perhaps I was wrong when I assumed that the right isn't as reactionary as the left. Just look at this statement. You are disagreeing with it not because you can see how it is wrong, but because it is "woke". It is very much reactionary.
"If that is the truth, it needs to be fought against, since it is oppression."
-> Your favourite word, "oppression", is also when original people of a country are made to feel guilty, and made to do things that they don't want, and made to eliminate themselves by taking in huge masses of foreigners (and granting them social/monitory benefits), while having to endure hostility, blame and nonsense if they ever try and stand up against it.
"parents who behave like they own their kids"
-> Children are not owned by their parents, except perhaps for leftists who have a designer-lab-baby with the "right" hair-and-eye-colour etc.
"too bad that Israel is very bad at solving those problems in a peaceful way"
-> those are just blank words.
"But if you are not oppressing, there is no injustice in your presence in a country you were not born into."
-> Wrong. If too many people of a certain foreign group move into a country it is direct oppression of the original people of that region.
One drop of poison/pollution is not bad, but gallons and gallons of it wreak havoc.
""woke". It is very much reactionary."
I'm not even going to talk to you about egotistical, god-like syndrome, social coercion, etc.
Blender Dumbass
c:11 I'm not even going to talk to you about egotistical, god-like syndrome, social coercion, etc.
Are you talking about yourself? Egotistical means liking himself. Lets think about it. One of us argues from the perspective of a small entitled group "natives" to have God-like power against the entirety of the rest of the world. "Us vs them", remember? To convince people that this Egotistical, god-like violation of human rights is somehow "better" one requires to do hell of a lot of Social coercion. I guess you are talking about yourself here after all.
Now, if you are talking about the "woke" a lot of the extreme ones poses those egotistical, god-like syndromes. And those people oppress people who disagree with them. And I truly believe that it is wrong. Also because the left is so reactionary, they tend to support things out of spite. And I agree that it is a bad thing. Though generally speaking the ideas of the left way better reflect freedom than the ideas of the right. If only those ideas were achieved in such a way that does not introduce more oppression in the system than there is already there. And I don't think the left does a very good job at this at the moment.
Children are not owned by their parents, except perhaps for leftists who have a designer-lab-baby with the "right" hair-and-eye-colour etc.
I agree. It is up to the child to choose what the child want to look like. What cloths per wants to ware and so on and so forth. Including what genitals per wants to have.
those are just blank words
The fact that you cannot or do not want to understand what I wrote, doesn't mean that what I wrote has no meaning.
is also when original people of a country are made to feel guilty, and made to do things that they don't want, and made to eliminate themselves by taking in huge masses of foreigners
If by "do things that they don't want" you mean, somebody is restricting their freedom, it is wrong, with that I agree. And it should not be done. If on the other hand, what they ( the natives ) want is restricting somebody's freedom, and they are made not to do it. They shouldn't do it. And there should be somebody who will stop them from trying. This is also true of immigrants too, btw. No side should oppress. Each side should have freedom.
Egotistical means making yourself God over your own true self.
"It is up to the child to choose what the child want to look like."
-> No a child looks the way it looks
"What cloths per wants to ware and so on and so forth."
-> How shallow are you?
"Including what genitals per wants to have."
-> Killing God, by becoming your own god.
It is not good... to divorce yourself from God, by making youself God; and telling yourself that everywhere you see God... needs to be destroyed... by calling it either lack-of-freedom or oppression.
If you are righteous... then you serve. You willfully serve God.
Or else you kill God. "God is dead". And live in modernist, anonymous, empty shallow places.
You once wrote about yourself:
"Born in Ukraine. Jewish. Living in Israel. Raised in a religious family. Not religious now. A fighter for freedom of all humans. A fighter against power of any human."
I hope that one day you can find it in you, to revise that to become:
"Born in Ukraine. Jewish. Living in Israel. Raised in a religious family. Religious again! Have a Jewish family. A fighter for heritage, identity and fulfilling destiny of my people. A fighter for allowing other peoples to strive towards their heritage, identity and fulfilling destiny. As such: against oppression and thwarting of other peoples destinies. No to globalist world-agendas that undermine, ridicule, subvert, engineer, manipulate a people's identity and freedom, to become something that they are not.".
We are not alone on this planet.
But currently your "friends" are not your friends.
And your dogma and ideology is not you.
Why divorce yourself from yourself? And force it on others and certain keywords?
Time to find God in you; and God in others.
God bless you.
Blender Dumbass
c:13 No a child looks the way it looks
"it"? I hope it was not intentional. "it" is used when talking about not people. And if it was intentional, then it means, you think children are not people? Did I understand you correctly?
About the rest I have two approaches.
1. Religious
God is almighty. He can do anything. And he wants something from humans. Something from humans to do for him. Why, if he is almighty, he doesn't just make it impossible for us to do otherwise? Well here is a religious answer, actually coming from Jewdaism: God wants people to have Freedom.
It is extended even more with the story of Exodus. There were slaves. And the story about re-gaining freedom. And how challenging it is to regain freedom. People walked around for 40 years, when they could have done the trip in a week. Because slaves are not prepared to be not-slaves. It takes time to think like a free person. The whole story has a message about freedom. It is about freedom.
The best illustration of the this duopoly between the true belief in God and the pseudo-poser way of the ultra religious belief, which is all just theatricality, is illustrated wonderfully by Lars Von Trier in his film "Breaking The Waves". I suggest you to take a look.
2. Scientific
It is meaningless to even ask the question of "Is there God?" because answers on both sides are what's called "Unfalsifiable". Meaning that there is no conceivable test which could be done which will stop all debates about it. And the test doesn't exist because it doesn't actually change anything, whether there is God or there isn't God. Both ways there will not be a measurable difference in the world.
By any means, everybody's equality before the God, as a concept was very helpful to establish the modern ideas of individual Freedom. All people are equal. And trying to be God-like ( as in trying to take control over other people ) as something bad that should not be done, also came from those religions. Freedom as we know it, on which the whole western philosophy is based got out of those religions. And if you are a true believer, and not just a theatrical poser, you should know it.
![[thumbnail]](/pictures/thumbs/danibox.png)
![[thumbnail]](/pictures/thumbs/danisrace_2025-03-17.jpg)
![[thumbnail]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/ba/Fabelmansposter.jpeg)
![[thumbnail]](/pictures/thumbs/danisrace_pathfinder.png)
![[thumbnail]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/05/Chocolate_2008_poster.jpg)
![[thumbnail]](https://archive.org/download/morias-race-soundtrack/cover.png)
![[thumbnail]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ed/1941_movie.jpg/220px-1941_movie.jpg)
![[thumbnail]](/pictures/thumbs/stallman_its_fine.png)
![[thumbnail]](/pictures/malware/interference.jpg)
![[thumbnail]](/pictures/thumbs/BDServer.png)
![[thumbnail]](/pictures/malware/subscription.jpg)