[LINK] the myth of government censorship

[Deus Ex Machina]

Sam Hinton [sam.hinton at canberra.edu.au] wrote:
> On 2/4/03 4:38 PM, "Deus Ex Machina" <vicc at cia.com.au> wrote:
> 
> To some degree, control can be seen as a necessary life process.  Without
> control, there'd be anarchy.  It's the glue that holds society together.

no its not. what holds society together is choice. choice is a-priori to
your notion of control. your notion of control still implies a decision or
intention. I call your use of the word control, influence. we influence
because we want certain outcomes. because we desire common outcomes we group
together on like interests. because we group together we delegate authority
to small sub-groups to facilitate large scale action. in so doing we trade off
large scale action against individual freedom of action.

> > if corporations could subtly control public opinion then one would expect to
> > see easy penetration
> > of products and services, but we see no such thing.
> 
> Ah, but there's the rub.  It's not a simple unidirectional conspirational
> process - it's a dynamic system in which everyone plays a role in a larger
> system.  It's not them against us.  It's them against them, us against us,
> etc.  The problem is, in this system, some people lose out, and they lose
> out _badly_.


thats normal. if you want to understand how pareto (or more precisely
power law) distributions arise as a natural outcome of networks then I strongly
recommend:

Linked: The New Science of Networks 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0738206679/ref=ase_vc-20/102-8785739-4669762

vastly unequal distributions are a natural otucome of scale free networks.  these
occur at quantum level, within genetics, within proteins, virus distribution, people within society and 
even in distribution of information and wealth and that is just the way that a systems overall structure
ie a scale free network topology, growth of that network and the interaction between the nodes
ie what the authors call preferential attachment in a network produces patterns of outcome over time.
ie an unequal distribution of links between nodes.

its not conspiracy, its not evil, its just the way that because a a node has relationships with other nodes
then that the collective action of individual nodes preferences determines the pattern of the outcome.

to remove the unequal distributions then you must remove these preferential attachments which basically
in society means you must remove choice from nodes. ie from people. now you need to think deeply
about when in society this has occured and what the outcomes were.

freedom of choice is a fundamental aspect of our society and it is this very act
of permiting of freedom of choice within a growing society will results in unequal distribution.
to create less unbalanced distributions you must remove freedom of choice.

now that clearly is not an option.

vastly unequal distribution is the price we pay for freedom of choice. while we have equal rights
we are in essence all individual. ie different. and because we are different and we have choice,
unequal distributions must occur.

this is a profound insight into the nature of reality and society.


> > chomsky is the ultimate pessimist he not only sees conspiracy he sees the very
> > fact that there are different
> > values and beliefs and goals as confirmation of that conspiracy!!! something
> > must have planted these different
> > views and values into these people because my views are clearly the way
> > reality is, says chomsky.
> 
> Your reading of Chomsky is an interpretation that differs from my own.  To
> me, Chomsky and others who take a critical approach to society recognise
> that there are problems with modern society.

chomsky and others offers no solution because if you understand the above insight
into society there is *no* solution that will remove all problems. good and bad are relative,

they are opposite ends of a spectrum, if you snip off the evil end
then the relative socially accepted difference between good and bad slidesback up the pole 
towards the good end and what was acceptable becomes bad. the new cut end becomes the bad end.
and you can keep snipping off till the pole reachs plank scale because there is always a good end and a
bad end.

there is nothing wrong with chomsky cataloging injustice, in fact it plays a very important role
in society but thats all he is doing: cataloging, not producing solutions. producing solutions
involving trade offs and pleasing some and not others.

Vic