27
June 2015 © Vitali Kaufman
Ïî-ðóññêè
Content
Formulation of
the problem
Select and clearly articulate a set of statements about facts,
properties of social reality that can serve as a basis for
the development of rules of social intercourse, aimed at optimizing
explicitly selected parameters ( * ) human society.
Allegations of the most important properties of the facts of
social reality I call social axioms. They are
designed to work in the discussions on the updated social rules is quite
similar to how work mathematical axioms to prove mathematical theorems.
To solve the task - to create a coherent set of social axioms -
is inconceivable without the active discussion. I would be glad if these notes
will serve as the basis for such a discussion.
See also Registration
revolution, Social rules, Cult
of understanding, FAQ.
Who, where and why
Statement of the problem and the facts themselves, the axiom does not
necessarily have to be taken, or even confident enough understood by all
or even a majority - is assumed to be a high level of training to
the manipulation of the wording and reasoning. An axiom need to justify
and facilitate the creation of rules of social intercourse.
On the other hand, own the social rules are just for general use
and for this reason should be clear to almost anyone who wants to.
These notes are based on my personal experience,
including the experience of father and grandfather, as well as
professional experience at least in math, programming and teaching.
I think this part of the professional experience is very important from
the point of view of the problem - in fact we need to, in effect, do a usual
job for the above category of professionals - to optimize the structure
of the (self) management of a complex system. Of course, we are talking
about the system of exceptional complexity - about human society.
This exceptional complexity should not be forgotten, but it is
hoped that a common culture of working with complex systems is rather
useful than harmful.
On the other hand, the author does not claim any expertise in the social
sciences. It is possible that the lack thereof will be more beneficial than
harmful.:)
Axioms are presented in the form of a triad (with possible additions,
comments, explanations):
- the axiom itself
- a brief explanation
- the main conclusion
Facts-axioms
- Almost any statement, position or opinion
concerning the society, can be subjected to well-founded criticism
- I heard
many times from Eugene A. Zhogolev
- Justified criticism is not sufficient
for rejection of the criticized social rule
- The planning horizon key
influences on behavior in society
- I really like the definition of religiousness
(belongs Valentin Turchin) as a
setting goals beyond human life
- Management planning horizon can and should
be used as the basis for updating the social rules
- Scam is
extremely easy if you are happy to be deceived
- simple and natural explanation of many mental
disorders
- including racism, fascism, idiotic selfishness J
- who wants to be deceived is called “loh” by scammers
- Updated social rules must resist scam
- in particular scam that threatens public
safety
- The justice is not exist and
can’t exist ( *
)
- what seems fair for you, it could be absolutely
not fair to the other
- The concept of justice can’t be put in
the basis of the social rules
- however successful rules can help avoid
injustice
- Interest - the
main stimulus to act
- Any other
incentives are consequences of interest. Hiding the true interests -
a special (very common) interest ( * )
- The concept of interest, incentives
and balance of interests can and should be used as the basis of the social rules
- Monopoly
dangerous
- First of all because it ceases to serve the
original intent, since more and more serves own interests
- DANGER - not banned! When the need for some of
the monopoly (for instance, a monopoly of the death penalty) is clear
some monopolies may be laid down in the social rules, but always in the
presence of checks and balances
- People are
different (*)
- The main interest for some is to give,
for other - to take
- The social rules must to take into
account the existence of such differences by the most significant way
- Time and attention
- the most important irreplaceable resource
- In our super-dynamic world
- a super-value. Sometimes
more valuable than money
- Conventional money depreciate over time
- it stimulates the increasing race, that encroaching on our time
and attention without our permission
- The social rules can and should
protect against unauthorized encroachment to our time and
attention
- reasonably resist the race
- They should be focused on supporting the real
equivalent of universal values (in the short term, one of the
contenders - virtual currency)
- By good intentions without profound knowledge
paved the road to hell
- A good example - "juvenile justice"
- without checks and balances leads to a violation of the basic principles of management
of complex systems :
- parents are responsible for the fate of
the child, and are almost always interested in it, but
decisions are made by officers that are not
interested and are not responsible
- my wonderful Dad (the only time in my life and because of a serious cause) hit me
with a belt - and taught me instantly and immediately
- but now a aunt-uncle with
'well-intentioned' received a legal right to isolate
a son from such a father for such a reason
- The social rules must be based on knowledge
and on clearly articulated priorities, rather than good intentions
(see also prohibitions)
- The larger the size
of the crowd, the crowd is more stupid
- The intelligence of the crowd of hundreds of
people is like intelligence 3-year-old child. Easily and quickly moves
from elation to crying, etc.
- The social rules should take this into
account
- State must
be exactly as much as is absolutely necessary (i.e. as little as possible)
- Civil servants are spending someone else's
money. The owner of the money, as a rule, removed from the
evaluation of the effectiveness of these expenditures - feedback
is weak and slow. In
addition, the state is
a monopoly
- On the other hand, some semblance of a state
structure, financed by all citizens, it may be necessary. For example, for security
- The right - at
whose expense (*)
- The method and form of payment can be, of
course, various
- The fundamental question - at whose expense
- must always be present in the formulation of the social rules
- The tax system conflicts with
the creator
- The more the creator has given to
society, made, created, the more the creator should pay to
society. Unfortunately, there is nothing more effective in
terms of payment of the common needs, but we live in a super-dynamic
world
- Updated social rules must seek to minimize
this conflict. Ideal would be to eliminate the taxes completely
- The more answers, the more questions
- The more humanity learns about reality the
better is understanding how much we do not know
- the development of knowledge increases the
borderline space between the known and the unknown
- "Pushing the horizons" of the known,
the science encounters with the unknown wider and deeper
- The fundamental limitations of our knowledge
of reality can and should be taken into account in the social
rules
- Randomness is no less important than regularity
- given the well-known laws, it is necessary to
protect themselves from accidents - for example, by feedback debug
- and be able to enjoy the wonders around
us J
- social rules must take into account the
accident possibility - the possibility of absence "causes"
of events or the inability to install them
- Bad law worse than the lack
of law
- Unlike the situation with the law, poor standard
(de facto) better lack of standard precisely because such a standard is
voluntary, but the law is mandatory and involves coercive apparatus, and
has its own development trends (especially Parkinson's Law), that could
be completely different than the law goal
- It is best to refrain from accepting a
law, than to accept bad law (*)
- Re-upbringing of
criminals is not justified
- the success can’t be verified
- the success rate is not justified by the
risk of new casualties (*)
- the whole idea is based on a wishful
thinking
- the idea can’t be put in the basis of the
social rules
- Want peace - prepare for war
- there is no insurance from the appearance
of the aggressor - people are different
- the aggressor can only be stopped by force,
able to inflict unacceptable for him damage
- trying to appease the aggressor - encourage
and whet
- the social rules must ensure public safety
- preserve the constant readiness of society to
ensure unacceptable damage to a potential aggressor
- Migration issues
- the key issues of the day
- Figuratively speaking, "well-fed"
ceased to give birth, " hungry " ceased to die
- Migration issues should be very substantially
addressed in the social rules
- The existing structure of authority is not
fully fit to our super-dynamic
society
- It does not provide the speed and adequate
decision making
- The migration crisis - the clearest
confirmation
- the most important thing - not ready for him,
not only society, but also the authorities,
- inability to discuss its
essence
- adoption of the "solutions" that
create a more severe problem than the supposedly "decisive"
- Super-dynamics of society should be
reflected as soon as possible and reasonable in the updated social rules
- There is another cost
revolution - registration revolution
- the fourth in a row - after the
transport, industrial and information revolutions
- technical means of registration, which can’t
be forged
- protected from
hacking
- The updated social rules must take into
account the registration
revolution
- The displacement of people from
the sphere of production and service by robots will lead in the
coming years to the employment revolution
- demand will fall sharply, say, for professions
such as drivers, train drivers, cashiers and others.
- Updated social rules must take into account
the employment revolution by the most significant way
Supplements
17.12.15. Glad to thank Valeri Väisänen and Nikolai Mustonen
for very productive discussions.
Terminology
19.7.20 The term “social axioms”
(“Social Axioms”) is used in the work of M. Bond and K. Leung with co-authors
and their followers in a completely different sense - as the most common human
beliefs about oneself, about other people, social environment, physical or
spiritual world, as a central to a person's belief system.
Social axioms in my sense are not
beliefs, but facts about the structure of society (and not personal beliefs,
not personality traits). It is the facts that are worth identifying,
formulating, explaining in order to build social rules on their basis.
It is rather strange to call the beliefs
of a specific individual as social axioms.
Prohibitions counterproductive
- Suffer normal citizens
- The goal is not reached - the side effects worse
than the original evil
- There is a growing black market - a classic
example: no alcohol law
Super-fresh example: the Belgian police and WhatsApp
- after the terrorist attacks they
could communicate through Whatsapp only
- called open police easy access to the data of
social networking (!) - in other words, a ban to hide such data
- demonstration of incompetence of authors
as in the part of their duties, and in part to the over-the
dynamism of the modern world
- for normal citizens – serious problems
- for attackers - at
the time of next failure of police communication - the ability to
read the police reports in social networks
- no problem to use other,
less popular, but not worse protected means of communication - they
are at their hand without any restrictions
Instead of prohibitions need methods
of struggle, incentives, propellants of what they are trying to ban
On justice
The wording has repeatedly offered to change to "Absolute
justice is not exists and can’t exist.". I prefer to leave as is.
Otherwise, focus moves to the word "absolute" and the axiom is
trivial (absolute nothing at all and can’t be J), but the essence escapes.
Of course, we are not talking about the absence of the notion or feeling
of justice, the existence of which there is no reason to doubt.
The thing is that in many important situations, there are no criteria
of justice that are acceptable to all. And not because someone does
not want it, but because the existence of these criteria , in principle,
impossible .
On the other hand, the idea of justice, adopted by an individual or
group of people of justice criteria - a powerful motivator of behavior. Even
though so a way to resolve arising in connection with the concept of
justice conflicts should be provided in the social rules.
Traditional and natural social institution for this - the court .
It is important that the court dealt primarily just
resolution of conflicts, the search for compromise, for balance of
interests, and not a statement of "fairness".
03.30.16. In the formulation and interpretation of this axiom is
considered a comment by Vladimir Chukharev on 30/03/2016 at 00:52.
The interest
Of course, a person or a group is not always understands (recognizes) of
the interest or does not always act in accordance with it, even when
understands. However, the complexity of the relation of interest and actual
behavior does not interfere confidently assumed right and possible to put the
concept of interest, incentives abd balance of interests into the basis of social rules.
Equality
The idea of human equality in one way or another often aspires
to the role, logically it is not appropriate in the hierarchy of priorities. It
can be, and has been extremely relevant in certain historical circumstances,
but in the formulation of general rules of its dormitories should be used with
caution, carefully formulating the conditions of its applicability.
Let's say one thing - the equality of citizens before the law, it is a
different matter - the claim to equality in income.
By the way, equality before the law does not prevent formulate the law
so that the court could take into account the peculiarities of a person found
guilty - to be effective, punishment must be borne in mind that the
culprit is really a punishment, and that - is a mockery of justice.
- It is foolish to punish people who are accustomed
to hardships such as hunger and thirst, "deprivation of liberty"
in civilized prison with the Internet and a special menu, which takes into
account the religious preferences
- An example of a more appropriate punishment in
such cases - isolation from family, inability to eat according to
religious preference, and others.
Similar considerations dictated by a desire not to take revenge, but
only the desire to make the penalty effective, comparable with the effect of
imprisonment on people to hardships quite accustomed.
On the right
The essence is not in that there should be a fee for every
right. The bottom line is that the right always and everywhere is paid
by somebody. The desire to ensure the rights of some always means restriction of
the rights of others, often not less socially significant rights. An explicit
statement of this fact in the form of axioms only underlines this fact so that
the social rules should not never ignore it.
The right to
oblivion
- right to be forgotten - a vivid example of the
counterproductive ( bad ) law
- It creates more problems than it solves
- moreover new problems are more
serious than problems supposedly solved
- an obvious step in the direction of the
Ministry of Truth, instead of respect for the true story
- "Resentful" may become more
cautious, can publish a refutation, to go to court,
- but no changes of the real history (after
all, the slander and dissatisfaction were in reality etc.)
- everything will remain in the normal history
- narrows the planning horizon
- Among the numerous examples of bad laws - the
possibility for the producer to evade responsibility for the damage
caused to the client, clearly telling him about it
- now almost all manufacturers of software
products reject responsibility this way
- It raises the question of irresponsibility
producer and customer habit to ignore the warnings - they are usually
directed against its interests, not for his benefit
- it would be good to introduce a law
"warning about the unwillingness to take responsibility for the
damage not exempt from this responsibility"
- in fact we suggest something opposite to known
rule (to make legal experts extremely required :)
): "ignorance of the law is no excuse"
- that works even when the law is so abstruse
that a normal person can't in principle to "know" it
No danger to society?
Decision-makers on parole, is not directly responsible to the potential
victims discharged to freedom of convicted criminals, including those
committed very serious crimes. Feedback between the decision of the
"expert" and a potential victim of his(her) decision is absent.