Another Engineering Solution
I was urged to write something more substantial in regards to the Ron Paul video that I posted yesterday. I said that I was going to do a piece on an alternative to pragmatic compromise, which, of course, opened all of the worm cans from earlier discussions with Billy Joe. *sigh*
The pragmatic compromises that the Republican Party have made in the last year have all but destroyed them. The surge is not working as planned, and the commanding general has asked for more time. The immigration bill that republican senators (including that champion of compromise and moderation, John McCain) have devised in cooperation with their accomplices across the aisle has divided the party base with an already extremely unpopular president deriding the very individuals who voted for him. The party that was the proponent of small government in 1964, 1980 and 1982 now believes that it needs a larger, more powerful government to accomplish the social reforms that would force America into the moral mode that it sees as necessary to survive.
All of these dismal failures can be attributed to the refusal to stand on principle. The means by which an end are accomplished is critical. This is the kind of thinking that I am opposed to, and always will be. However, merely stating one is opposed to the use of disreputable means is not enough, since critics will loudly proclaim that they are the only way to accomplish the changes necessary to create a safe, just and decent society.
Those critics are completely wrong.
Now, I am not always a big opponent of compromise. After all, a family can’t go to see Spiderman and Pirates on the same evening, there’s just not enough time. Compromise is the grease that allows social interaction to be something other than mere power-plays.
However, one cannot compromise with evil, for the taint of that evil rubs off on the compromiser and doesn’t slow down the evil one bit. Chamberlain learned that when his “peace for our time” agreement turned into the Second World War.
One cannot also compromise and trade away rights, since those rights are not granted by Men, but are innate in human existence. By the same token, government cannot grant rights.
So, how does one manage to fight evil and reduce the amount of power that others have over life without pragmatic compromise? How do we totally avoid using evil means ever?
The answer lies in engineering. There is a method of changing engineering designs and operations by a series of small steps, called incrementalism. Using feedback, a design is pushed in small steps towards an optimal solution. Wikipedia is based on this idea, as was John Bardeen’s research that resulted in the transistor. It’s an old and well-respected method.
So, how does this apply to politics? Let’s say that there’s an issue that needs to be addressed. The government has laws against something (or for something) and those laws must go.
You start by making a small request or demand for a change. You do not offer anything in return whatsoever. While remaining honest and true to your principles, you bring every shred of evidence available to bear on the issue, mobililize activists, contact government officials, educate the public until your opposition backs down.
When that happens, you act as if it was the only possible outcome, rest and prepare for the next step. Some time passes. You now make your next request/demand, again without offering anything in exchange. You use the same tactics you used the first time, again keeping your methods pure (no dishonesty or coercion.)
Again, the powers that be give in after a period of time. Eventually, you get what you desire, without using evil means or compromising any of your core principles.
Now, this is obviously not going to work in some cases. It would be remarkably ineffective in a 1984-type dystopia where the government controls access to communications between individuals. It would also not work in a fascist state like the dictatorships of the mid-20th, due to the mind-control tactics used.
However, our current nation, with its lightning-fast communication and sensitivity to public opinion is perfect for this kind of political action.
The anti-smoking movement is an excellent example of how effective this form of political action can be. Twenty-five years ago, there were only anti-smoking laws for theatres, hospitals and schools (and of course regulating age). Around the mid-80s, activists began lobbying for laws against smoking on airline flights of more than three hours. Every single extension of that ban, first to all flights, then to various and sundry buildings on the ground can be traced to that first effort.
Now, one can make a case either way for whether or not the laws were a good idea. However, it cannot be denied that the method that they used, the one that I outlined above, worked, and worked extremely well. All you need is a couple of decades and you can change virtually anything this way.
After all, can you name a single thing that the anti-smoking lobby gave up in order to get what they wanted?
So, you have a choice. All it requires is a moral heart, bravery, determination and patience.
FINAL NOTE TO ABOVE I am not implying in any way, shape or form that this is an original idea on my part. It has been part and parcel of non-violent social activism for at least a century. I am merely offering it as an alternative to the “ends justify the means” mentality that pervades so much of modern politics.
Go Ron Paul.
Tom
Comment by Augurbo on 6 June 2007 at 9:23 am:
You know how I feel about you Tom, but it’s time to cook w/ gas -
Dubious reasoning #1:
Incrementalism and pragmatism are not mutually exclusive. Sure, if you’re willing to move a hell of a lot slower and value your absolutism over results, incrementalism is more necessary.
Dubious reasoning #2:
With apologies to Jefferson and Madison, all this nonsense about rights irked me. Rights are granted by men and governments. It’s easy to pontificate about rights handed to man by the divine hand of god b/c you aren’t exactly living in Darfur. When some oppressed, tortured, sad bastard is about to get shot in the face, he doesn’t get very far w/ an “excuse me sir, all men have certain fundamental rights.”
Dubious reasoning #3:
The smoking example isn’t a great one, b/c most social change people would like to bring about doesn’t have an ill as obvious as fuckin’ cancer.
Dubious reasoning #4:
You’re talking about incremental increases in regulation w/ the smoking ban, while you espouse libertarianism and champion Ron Paul.
Comment by tet on 6 June 2007 at 9:41 am:
1. Pragmatism means thinking about what you want to do and finding the most efficient way to do it without considering the morality of the means. Incrementalism *could* be the most effective way of doing so, so it could be a pragmatic solution. It’s a more moral subset.
When I speak of pragmatic compromise, I am speaking of compromising some of one’s beliefs in the hope of gaining a political concession from your opponents.
#2–The natural state of affairs in human history *is* Darfur. The only thing that prevents that from existing here (or anywhere else) is the agreed-upon belief in God-given rights and the rule of law.
#3–Well, you can talk about a more controversial example such as civl rights for homosexuals–those have been established by incrementalism.
The same goes for the European Union, which dates back to an economic accord back in the late 1950s–all of the following changes came incrementally.
You have to realize that a large, large number of people smoked prior to 1985. Since the cancer danger had been known at least since 1955, there obviously was not enough public opinion to stop it.
Watch the engineers (obviously not stupid, since they were rocket scientists) chain-smoking in Apollo 13. Smart people smoked–a lot.
#4 I did not say anywhere that the smoking ban was a good idea. You know I oppose it. I merely offered it as proof that incrementalism can work as effectively as compromise.
Tom
Comment by Elderwife on 7 June 2007 at 2:18 am:
Tom-
#2 - didn’t Hitler use incrementalism to gradually eliminate the rights of Jews, homosexuals, etc.?
Comment by Brandon on 7 June 2007 at 6:16 am:
hahahahahaahhahaah. Elderwife you’re a true American hero!
I was going to come in with a snarky remark about how Tom’s premise and underlying assumptions are so bizarre that the rest of the argument sounds silly, but Augurbo beat me to the punch. You just added the kicker.
…I had to delete the initial comment because I didded a boo boo…
Comment by tet on 7 June 2007 at 7:51 am:
Premise? Assumptions? Ridiculous?
I’ve pointed to a useful tool that allows one to change the world without compromising one’s ideals and this is what I get?
Brandon, don’t just talk shit, give examples why it will not work. You’ve been doing that too much lately.
Elderwife, this is a tool. When the first hammer was invented, one man saw a weapon, the other saw a tool.
Compromise with evil will always corrupt the compromiser. Incrementalism, like any other tool, can be used for evil. However, it does not necessarily result in evil like compromise. Remember, a good end never justifies evil means.
Hitler did, indeed, use incrementalism to eliminate those that he considered enemies of the state.
However, the Nazis also came up with the superhighway and the Volkswagen. I don’t see any of us rejecting the thought of using those innovations because the Nazis did. (Well, except for Brandon and the superhighways.)
Tom
Comment by J. Prescott on 7 June 2007 at 9:03 am:
Tom-
You are assuming ideals should not be compromised. I argue that some ideals, most ideals, should be compromised.
You argue from a position of moral certainty, a position that I feel most people on this blog aren’t willing to take, except for Billy Joe Mills, my new moral, spiritual, and intellectual leader as president of the Federalist Society.
There are few positions that can unequivocally be called evil. Wanton death for grins, genocide, and things of that nature are generally about it. By adopting incrementalism as your preferred means of going about achieving things you turn evil. In religous terms, you turn evil because you essentially state that your moral view is perfect, no matter what the evidence, equating yourself to God(s) and that ultimately you are his/her/its equal. Equating yourself to God is evil in just about every religion I have heard. From an intellectual standpoint, by refusing to accept that you could be wrong on any moral issue is to be intellectually dishonest and to go against everything we have learned through science and philosophy, which is EVERYTHING is negotiable, and that given enough evidence, everything should be up for negotiation. By denying this factor you become intellectually evil, or intellectually deficient and stunted.
Either way, adopting incrementalism as you describe it leads to a stubborn refusal to turn away from a course that is very possibly, wrong, morally or otherwise.
Comment by tet on 7 June 2007 at 10:23 am:
Prescott, I don’t know who told you science is negotiable, but they should be spanked in public.
Science is not a consensus business. If you have a theory, even one counterexample is sufficient to disprove a theory.
All it would take to completely overthrow the big bang theory would be finding one star that’s older than the supposed age of the universe.
Finding two Top Quarks with different masses would demolish the Standard Model of Physics completely.
You’ve been hanging around too many folks who are arguing about Global Warming. Real science isn’t decided by committee–results are predictable, experiments are duplicatable and no one votes on whether or not a theory is correct.
You seem to have bought into the unfortunately common modern belief that evil means different things to different people. I don’t buy it–evil could be as definable by natural law as gravity. The fact that philosophy is currently in its pre-Newton days shouldn’t give us more than a moment’s hesitation in our search for the laws defining evil.
I am human, and therefore prone to sin, mistakes, temptation and ignorance. I am not perfectable. Therefore, I cannot in any manner be compared to God.
Because of these flaws, in my pursuit of change, I am going to make mistakes. However, it would be nothing short of cowardice to compromise with evil as I understand it at the moment merely because my understanding could be refined in the future.
After all, we do not leave our cars in the driveway simply because we do not understand the position and momentum of the other cars on the highway at all times. The limited amount of information that we are given is usually completely sufficient to move us from point a to point b.
Likewise, lack of total knowledge of virtue and vice should not prevent us from making practical assessments of the laws of good and evil and acting accordingly.
Fortunately, mankind has been doing this empirically for the past 4000 years and has written several histories of the search.
Tom
Comment by quarky on 7 June 2007 at 3:35 pm:
Tom,
I once had a threesome with two top quarks. I didn’t like being submissive and on bottom.
Comment by Brian on 7 June 2007 at 3:54 pm:
Heh. I enjoyed that, quarky. Well done.
Comment by tet on 7 June 2007 at 5:12 pm:
Wow, quarky, that’s really charming. I have often found it strange that physics finds itself so often dependent on the ups and downs of funding.
However, the scientists should not worry too much about the pie on their faces, for once Newt trains his expertise on the problem, the mere muances of the more eccentric will matter not. *Sigh.*
See, DF?
Tom
Comment by Brandon on 7 June 2007 at 6:05 pm:
I believe Prescott covered most of the points as to why I find the underlying premises of your argument so objectionable I won’t even bother with the substance. Also, like I said, Augur covered the bases, I don’t want to repeat what he said because I agree that you’re taking a moral superiority position which I and even you (here)”lack of total knowledge of virtue and vice should not prevent us from making practical assessments of the laws of good and evil and acting accordingly” agree is bullshit because you could be proven wrong later.
Comment by Brian on 7 June 2007 at 7:42 pm:
The point that the others are making here, Tom, is that they’re willingness to compromise is a reflection of their trust in the system over themselves as individuals. Knowing that they can be and will be wrong from time to time, they allow themselves to participate in a system that requires compromise, trusting that everybody working together and sometimes compromising with each other will ultimately lead to better results than everybody stubbornly standing by their own individual conceptions of right and wrong. You trust yourself more than the system, Tom, which to most of us is yet another galling display of hubris.
Comment by Brian on 7 June 2007 at 7:43 pm:
Oh no. I meant THEIR, not THEY’RE. I’m so embarrassed.
Comment by tet on 7 June 2007 at 8:47 pm:
It’s only hubris if you really aren’t that smart.
I don’t trust the system because I am smarter than 99.6% of the people in it. I see the exceedingly poor decisions made by the people on the left-hand side of the bell curve every day. Even worse, I see phenominally stupid and/or evil decisions made on the behalf of those on the left-hand side by those on the right-hand side.
I choose, therefore, to stand above that sort of crap, forcing none of my decisions on anyone. This is why YOU are going into the business of govenment and will spend the rest of your life vainly trying to make things better while destroying our freedoms. You truly believe that you are smart enough to make people’s decisions for them as you have demonstrated repeatedly in your columns.
Heh, and you say I have hubris?
Tom
Comment by moron the monkeyman on 7 June 2007 at 11:05 pm:
mr. tet,
if you’re going to make the claim that you are smarter than everyone and then proceed to tease them for being stupid, you should at least spell phenomenally simple words like “phenomenally” and “government” correctly.
he strikes again,
moron the monkeyman
Comment by moron the monkeyman on 7 June 2007 at 11:10 pm:
everyone,
mr. tet seems completely irrational, how about we all just stop trying to get him to understand how ridiculous he is? if someone can repeatedly make the same assinine assertions and be thwarted each time by educated, intelligent critics, but still refuse to evolve his views, then he is not worthy of the time it takes you all to pen your constructive criticisms.
here he comes to save the day!
moron the monkeyman