Control (And a profound realization)

[GenghisTron]

My first point, is psychology, and it's role in political theory/ethics. Many people fail to realize that psychology is an inherent part of an individual's intellectual conquests. And when I mean psychology, I mean genuine psychology, or your individual ego, and the reasons behind your choice. Not that watered-down bullshit they teach you community college. You must first realize that psychology is the driving factor behind politics, economics, philosophy, etc.

Anyways, since you were a child, you've been taught by your parents, your teachers, your mentors, etc., that your behavior was wrong. I'm sure as you read this, you're saying to yourself, 'of course, all kids need rules, or else they'll become bad kids!'. My contention, is that, while certain behavior is objectively 'wrong', when you're a kid, the last thing you need to be learning (sub-contextually) is that your actions are wrong. That's what happens when someone tells you not to do something. You're being told (on a subconscious level) that what you are doing was wrong.

Studies have proven that, when any human being (of sound mind) is told something by another human being, no matter their relation, they will always believe what is said by the other person. If you're fat, and someone calls you fat, no matter how hard you try, you'll always doubt yourself, and think to yourself 'maybe they're right'. You can deny it up and down, but this is completely normal, in fact, it's part of us. We can't help it. This plays into our childhood in a HUGE way. At this stage in our lives, we are extremely easily convinced and controlled. So imagine, being told subconsciously during your most impressionable years, that your behavior is wrong. The more you're told it, the more it sticks with you later in life.

What am I getting at? You can see this in the ethics and politics of others. I'm going to use the two majority 'schools' of thought, conservatism, and liberalism, as my examples. There are, of course, sub-sects with minor differentiations, but the underlying point is still true for both. Liberals and Conservatives have a core belief in their ideology, and it's groomed into them from a young age. They believe that humans/human nature are inherently bad, and must be controlled to make them good. When I mean 'bad', I don't mean 'evil', what I mean is--they think humans make bad decisions.

Some contextual examples include Conservatives' fear of all things sexual. Sex for many conservatives is a very strict taboo. They rally against pornography, adultery, unorthodox sexuality (Homosexuals, bi-sexuals, etc.), etc. Their views on economics also reflect this, but it's a bit more hidden. They believe in social-darwinism to the extreme. If you were a failure, you should have to suffer. This is the 'bad' side of humanity, and all you need to do to 'fix' your 'bad' side, is to work hard enough.

Some examples for liberals include their distrust of economics, and that humanity's inherent affinity for doing bad interferes with their ability to be fair, and therefore must be regulated. This is why they trend towards ideas like socialism and communism. Another good example, is Political Correctness. Liberals love telling people how they can, and can't address and interact with each other. You can't offend x, y, z. You can't say a, b, c. It's impolite to do q, r, s. Etc.

Ultimately, what I'm getting at, is that, from a young age, people are taught their natural desires are bad. They are bad. The only way to make them 'right' is through control. Control contextually implies that something is wrong, and therefore needs to be fixed. What happens when kids are controlled by their parents and teachers, is that they learn their desires are bad, and they need to be controlled. When they grow up with this insecurity, they project it. If you're familiar with psychology, you're most likely familiar with psychological projection, if not, it's basically where individuals will project their insecurities outward. So when you hear an adult, or even a young-adult say that something needs to be controlled (economically/socially/etc.), what they're doing is rehashing their own self-hatred and projecting it outwards, onto others.

This, in my opinion is the core problem in the world. I think humans are inherently good, and do not need to be controlled. I think the lack of control leads to order. I believe order is emergent, and that control is anti-thetical to order. This is demonstrated in nature. There's no control in nature. There's no rhyme or reason. No, instead, you have every living being, creature, plant, cell, every atom and sub-atom, all working together, in tandem, to seek an end to their desires. Obviously humans are the only completely autonomous species, but my point is still relevant. Order comes from the bottom up, not the top down.

YouTube

YouTube

This is called self-organization. It arises out of the individual interactions that every individual faces. A good example, is this video of traffic in Hanoi. There are no traffic lights, no stop-signs, no traffic conductors. All there is, is a bunch of motorists who are seeking their end (Which is to transport from Point A to Point B). What you don't see are the individual actions and reactions of every single individual, which is what makes this seemingly dangerous intersection completely safe. Notice how the tourist in the video disrupts the traffic, because they presume there needs to be control. Control ends up screwing up the delicate balance of self-organization.

YouTube

YouTube

People usually flip out when I suggest we should get rid of (most) traffic laws. They say, 'oh, it'll be chaos on the road! People will die by the thousands, we NEED laws!'. And to that, I laugh. They're projecting their self-hatred that was ingrained into their minds since the day they were born. We don't need traffic laws. We don't need traffic lights. What you need is trust in your fellow man, and the realization that you don't need to be controlled.

That leads me to my next point. Does control even work?

I say no.

Have you ever had an alcoholic (or any other form of substance abuse) parent/family member/friend, that you were close with, and had daily interactions with? If you haven't, have you at least seen the show on A&E, called Intervention? I can say from first-hand experience, that control doesn't fix problems. My father was an alcoholic, and one day he was 'forced' to try and fix his illness. He became sober, but another problem arose--his anger. He was then 'forced' into fixing his anger. After his anger was 'fixed' another problem arose, he found a new drug to abuse, cocaine. You get the point? His problem was not the usage of emotional outlets (drugs and anger), the problem was something inside. Something was bothering him. Eventually he went back to drinking, and became the old person he was before we tried to 'fix' him. One day, his father got ill, and died in the hospital. I never got the chance to ask my father what bothered him so much that he drank, he unfortunately passed away a few years ago, but after the death of his father, he was a new man. Something happened between him and his father that made him what he was, and no amount of therapy, no drug, no nothing could have fixed him, unless the ROOT of his problem was solved.

The same thing happens in that show I mentioned, Intervention. Getting people off a drug is not a solution. It's a temporary band-aid. What will end up happening, is another, newer, problem will arise. Then you get to the point where, you realize the problem is not substance abuse, but a psychological problem that needs to be addressed. It's like a game of whack-a-mole. You push one problem away, and another arises. Control is not the answer to problems, addressing the root cause of the problem is.

What does it all mean?

There is nothing wrong with humans.

I think most of the problems we face in the world, are due to control. Murderers, Rapists, Psychopathic CEO's who wish to exploit every last man and woman on Earth for economic gain... all can be traced back to control, somehow, some way. All of our Economic problems, control. Imagine a world, where everyone didn't project their own self-hatred. You give me a problem, and I can probably trace it back to control, in some form or another.

The solution, to me, is the most natural system. A system where, individuals can freely associate with each other, are free from coercion (control), and are allowed to grow up, and learn themselves the lessons of life. A system that promotes emergence, self-organization, and spontaneous order. Economically, socially, and in our Government. A society where police wouldn't be needed, because some children wouldn't grow up being controlled by repressive parents, and crime would be non-existent. A society where you wouldn't need regulators, because businesses would realize that we are all in this together, and exploiting and destroying the Earth, and others, drags us all down.

Is it utopian? I posit that it's utopian to suggest that every 4 years we get a new 'chance' to elect 'our' guy, who will fix everything, and never does. Then, after 4 years, we try and get 'our guy 2.0 (it's different this time)' into office. What's that they say about doing things again and again expecting different results... oh right, insanity. Or, a system that tells people what to do, and exerts control over all areas of life, from your kitchen sink to your car brakes. My idea brings humans as close to nature as you can get. As Richard Feynman said, 'the inconceivable nature of nature'.

YouTube

YouTube

Inspiration for this thread from aaron8803 (Control + My Greatest Idea) and Neilsio (One United Idea).

[Dexter]

ok

[GenghisTron]

lol

[Crazycarl]

Humans are defined by our ability to control. All our technology is a way of bending our environment or our bodies to our own will. Even animals seek to control their habitat and food supply, dig shelters, and limit the access of other animals to their territory. So control is not an unnatural thing. I have a two year old nephew, and he knows how to get people to do what he wants. He will show you where he wants you to be, and what he wants you to do. If you don' do it quick enough, he'll physically push you over there. Even newborn babies cry to control their mothers.

Part of raising a kid is drawing the line of when they can exert control over people and when they have to accept things as they are. The trick is to teach them empathy. They know how it feels to be controlled, they just have to make the epiphany that other people feel those frustrations, too.

As a parent, of course there is a desire to protect and teach a child about how to live. If you don't spend time around small children it's easy to forget how much they have to learn. They will do dangerous stuff like stick their fingers in a spinning fan, just out of curiosity. You have a choice of whether to tell the child that it's wrong, or to let them do it and find out for themselves. You are the more knowledgeable, and the more able, so you have been in control of the situation from the start. The choice is, which is the better learning experience? Control may lead to self-loathing, but trial and error may lead to fear of new experiences, and the feeling that there is no one to trust.

There's this staggering anarchic conceit that the system will work because everybody will suddenly start acting perfectly and rationally. People don't do that. In a system based on trust, it only takes one selfish individual to ruin it. In fact, the rewards become greater for the selfish person. There have been mathematical models done showing that the most stable and successful populations is a mix of selfish individuals, selfless individuals, and cautious individuals. The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins illustrates this in great detail.

On traffic: the control systems we have in place on roads are mainly concerned with making traffic go faster. In the video, we see people stopping regularly. And could you imagine that intersection if everyone had a car? In London they've been taking out some street signs in an effort to slow traffic, and it works. Ambulance drivers have been complaining that they can't get to emergencies on time.

[uBeR]

While you bash community college psychology, this seems like community college psychology more than anything else (if I'm going to be nice about it). I doubt even this would get much attention in a community college.

You say humans will believe anything another human being tells them. I call that nonsense. Case in point: I believe virtually nothing you wrote in this post. What if I called you an imbecile? Would you believe you were one? By your own theory, you'd have to. But at the same time, if you mother ever called you smart, you'd have to simultaneously have to hold that incongruous belief. That's quite some theory.

You also say children shouldn't be told not to do things. But you also believe this will lead to a crimeless world, where police are no longer needed. Sounds like more rubbish to me. A child, for example, might not realize it's not okay to hit his or her sibling if it's never taught to him or her. He or she might grow to realize it over time, but he or she won't know it at that instance because it's well understood that children lack the cognitive and empathetic abilities of adults. The same might be true if a child were to steal from a store, which is fairly common.

My belief is opposite of yours: Kids need to be taught that their actions are wrong. Even you admit some actions are "objectively wrong." But you believe a child's fragile ego will be harmed if they're told that their objectively wrong behavior is wrong. You then believe this telling of children that their wrong behavior is wrong will lead to politicians making laws that outlaw bad things like, say, murder. So your contention is that laws against things like murder and theft are wrong, because this constitutes "control" and is an abridgment of the freedom of people who wish to follow "their natural desires." Your contention is that if we just let people adhere to "their natural desires" rather than create laws (or forms of control) that outlaw (or limit) "objectively wrong" things, that the world would be such a wonderful and beautiful place, based on "spontaneous order" and "self-organization." Of course, it doesn't take a whole lot of insight to see this is plainly absurd. We know, for example, that things like murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, and warfare exist even in stateless societies.

You use examples from "two majority schools of thought," i.e. liberalism and conservatism (though these "schools of thought," which are virtually the same belief systems in every respect, are minority views outside of the United States). For example, you say the liberal tendency to check economic imprudence is based on a politician's learning as a child that "objectively wrong" things like theft and murder are wrong. What you ignore in your economic examples is that there are certain facts that are virtually undisputed in any serious scholarship. Take the example of externalities. Every serious economist recognizes that, in a free market system, there exists what are referred to as externalities. That's objective. Laws are therefore created to limit these undisputed negative externalities, e.g. pollution. It's not because some politician was told not to do something as a child. It's because the academic literature, which is thorough and established, objectively tells us these things exist and that they ought to be controlled for fairly obvious reasons. It's objective, not subjective, in other words.

To be clear though, I'm not here to legitimatize state power, authoritarian tendencies, or other control and power structures. If you look at the leftist tradition, which is rich and robust, there has always been an inherent distrust and criticism of illegitimate power and control systems. It is essentially the libertarian tradition. Libertarianism, remember, was born out of the leftist imagination and Enlightenment thinking. (The word "libertarian" of course has taken on a very corrupt and perverse meaning today, particularly within the United States, where its meaning has come to signify the very opposite of what it has always meant.) These early thinkers, who are sometimes referred to as classical liberals, people like Smith, Humboldt, Mill, and Jefferson, railed against the free market system. They did so not because they loved control, but rather because they recognized the illegitimacy and corruption of free markets, which resulted in very coercive and authoritarian structures. That tradition has continued through today, particularly in left libertarian and anarchistic currents. If you look at modern libertarians (real libertarians, that is), for example in anarcho-syndicalism, they seek to dismantle the current capitalistic system due to its authoritarian structure, and replace it with a freer system, for example one based on workers rights, freedom, and the common good. One method some theorist have advocated is placing checks on the capitalist regime, for example through laws (until it can be fully dismantled and replaced). To the rightist (e.g. you), this might look like someone who's just looking to control, but in reality its a means to achieve the end of the dismantling what is seen as a very illegitimate power structure that is antithetical to human liberty, even more so than the state or laws it creates.

So when you actually bother to look at the leftist tradition, it's very much based on abolishing authoritarianism structures, creation of self-organization, and a fulfillment of human liberty. This might mean dismantling authoritarian economic systems, e.g. capitalism, and replacing them with freer or more democratic economic systems, e.g. in syndicalism or socialism (real socialism, that is). But it is not just on the economic front. They seek also to dismantle all illegitimate power, whether it be in familial relationships, cultural norms, societal practices, traditions, or other institutionalized structures and conventions, i.e. beyond just the authority of the state. That is the heart of true libertarianism.

[Credge]

I have a beard.

[Etzell]

Originally Posted by GenghisTron

Have you ever had an alcoholic (or any other form of substance abuse) parent/family member/friend, that you were close with, and had daily interactions with? If you haven't, have you at least seen the show on A&E, called Intervention? I can say from first-hand experience, that control doesn't fix problems. My father was an alcoholic, and one day he was 'forced' to try and fix his illness. He became sober, but another problem arose--his anger. He was then 'forced' into fixing his anger. After his anger was 'fixed' another problem arose, he found a new drug to abuse, cocaine. You get the point? His problem was not the usage of emotional outlets (drugs and anger), the problem was something inside. Something was bothering him. Eventually he went back to drinking, and became the old person he was before we tried to 'fix' him. One day, his father got ill, and died in the hospital. I never got the chance to ask my father what bothered him so much that he drank, he unfortunately passed away a few years ago, but after the death of his father, he was a new man. Something happened between him and his father that made him what he was, and no amount of therapy, no drug, no nothing could have fixed him, unless the ROOT of his problem was solved.

The same thing happens in that show I mentioned, Intervention. Getting people off a drug is not a solution. It's a temporary band-aid. What will end up happening, is another, newer, problem will arise. Then you get to the point where, you realize the problem is not substance abuse, but a psychological problem that needs to be addressed. It's like a game of whack-a-mole. You push one problem away, and another arises. Control is not the answer to problems, addressing the root cause of the problem is.

What about when the root cause of the problem is at least partially genetic, like has been proven with alcoholism? The simple fact is that alcoholism, along with other addictions, is a LOT more complex than you give it credit for in passing.

The fact that you claim it can be "fixed" demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the problem itself. There's no fix for alcoholism. You're never over it, you're never fixed, it's a constant battle.

[GenghisTron]

Originally Posted by Crazycarl

Humans are defined by our ability to control. All our technology is a way of bending our environment or our bodies to our own will. Even animals seek to control their habitat and food supply, dig shelters, and limit the access of other animals to their territory. So control is not an unnatural thing. I have a two year old nephew, and he knows how to get people to do what he wants. He will show you where he wants you to be, and what he wants you to do. If you don' do it quick enough, he'll physically push you over there. Even newborn babies cry to control their mothers.

Perhaps I was unclear. The context in which I mean 'control', is when a human tries to control another human, through various forms. Of course, there's some form of 'control' everywhere, and that is entirely unavoidable. My point is that it is wrong to try and control other human beings. Controlling an in-animate object is patently irrelevant to my point. This has to do with psychology, hence, human psychology.

And, I don't think species are 'defined' by anything. We have no stated purpose on this Earth. That is perhaps the quintessential question that has been philosophized since the beginning of time. Why are we here? I think it's an open book.

Controlling science and technology is, again, irrelevant. Using technology to advance ourselves is natural. Our intelligence gave us the capability to use tools to make our lives easier. This type of 'control' is completely different than me trying to shame someone into fitting my idea of what an individual SHOULD be.

Originally Posted by Crazycarl

Part of raising a kid is drawing the line of when they can exert control over people and when they have to accept things as they are. The trick is to teach them empathy. They know how it feels to be controlled, they just have to make the epiphany that other people feel those frustrations, too.

I agree that empathy is a huge part in the equation, but I don't think an overwhelming majority of parents know how to raise their children. To them, it's perfectly fine to shame their kids, because they want them to stop a certain behavior. My contention is that, parents don't address the root cause of the problem when their kids act out. In an attempt to make them act 'normal', they shame them, rather than address the cause. In my alcohol example, I provided evidence that people think the best way to solve a behavioral problem is to attack the substance that's being abused. It could be alcohol, drugs, food, video games, anything. The problem is not the substance being abused... there's something wrong inside the abuser's mind. That is my point. Parents don't know how to correct their kid's behavior in a proper manner, and instead shame/punish them, and these kids end up learning from this shaming/punishing behavior that their desires are wrong.

Originally Posted by Crazycarl

As a parent, of course there is a desire to protect and teach a child about how to live. If you don't spend time around small children it's easy to forget how much they have to learn. They will do dangerous stuff like stick their fingers in a spinning fan, just out of curiosity. You have a choice of whether to tell the child that it's wrong, or to let them do it and find out for themselves. You are the more knowledgeable, and the more able, so you have been in control of the situation from the start. The choice is, which is the better learning experience? Control may lead to self-loathing, but trial and error may lead to fear of new experiences, and the feeling that there is no one to trust.

I think you're proposing a false-dichotomy. I don't think self-loathing and 'fear of new experiences' are the only choices. I know, personally, I was raised relatively free of being 'controlled', and while I did make mistakes, once I grew up, I think I'm entirely more suited for adulthood than most people I know. I think it's possible to raise a kid without him being fearful of new obstacles, and without him hating himself (and projecting that onto others).

Originally Posted by Crazycarl

There's this staggering anarchic conceit that the system will work because everybody will suddenly start acting perfectly and rationally. People don't do that. In a system based on trust, it only takes one selfish individual to ruin it. In fact, the rewards become greater for the selfish person.

Perhaps I'm being blinded by my enthusiasm for this concept, but I do think life would be far greater if everyone realized that trying to control each other was counter-produce to human progress.

Originally Posted by Crazycarl

There have been mathematical models done showing that the most stable and successful populations is a mix of selfish individuals, selfless individuals, and cautious individuals. The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins illustrates this in great detail.

No offense, but 'mathematical models' aren't exactly the be-all, end-all. This is my biggest contention with the 'social sciences'. A mathematical equation cannot account for the endless complexity and it cannot account for the trillions of interactions that go on in a society. Not to mention, those mathematical models probably are already compensating for the irrational behavior that is perpetuated in our current society.

I tend to agree that moderation is one of the keys to life, and having a majority or plurality is never a good thing, I'm kind of torn when it comes to the ideas I'm proposing in this thread.

Originally Posted by Crazycarl

On traffic: the control systems we have in place on roads are mainly concerned with making traffic go faster.In the video, we see people stopping regularly. And could you imagine that intersection if everyone had a car? In London they've been taking out some street signs in an effort to slow traffic, and it works. Ambulance drivers have been complaining that they can't get to emergencies on time.

I'd be interested in reading a study about this, if it were true, and what went in to determining these outcomes, but my point was more about spontaneous order than anything else. It's hard to deny the beauty of spontaneous order and emergence.

Originally Posted by uBeR

While you bash community college psychology, this seems like community college psychology more than anything else (if I'm going to be nice about it). I doubt even this would get much attention in a community college.

Starting off your post with an ad hom, I see this going places.

Originally Posted by uBeR

You say humans will believe anything another human being tells them. I call that nonsense. Case in point: I believe virtually nothing you wrote in this post. What if I called you an imbecile? Would you believe you were one? By your own theory, you'd have to. But at the same time, if you mother ever called you smart, you'd have to simultaneously have to hold that incongruous belief. That's quite some theory.

I thought it would have been obvious, given the multiple contextual clues. What I meant, more specifically, was that when a human receives criticism, they almost invariably either a) believe it, or b) begin to question if perhaps the person has a point--in other words, they doubt themselves. The rest of my thread relied on this premise, seeing as how the crux of my argument was children being criticized by their parents through the shaming process, and them learning that their natural desires are bad, which leads to self-loathing later in life.

Originally Posted by uBeR

You also say children shouldn't be told not to do things.

No, I said that children shouldn't be shamed into thinking their desires are wrong. Of course bad behavior should be fixed, but (for the 100th time) my contention is that parents don't know how to properly fix bad behavior. They think shaming their kids into behaving normal will 'fix' their bad behavior. I contend that this damages them. Most, if not, all, human behavior has an underlying motivation. Whether it's a physical need, or psychological. If a kid is acting out, it's likely that he either wants attention from his parents, or it could be something as harmless as being hyper because he ate some candy. In the process of trying to correct this behavior, a parent could shame their kid into behaving, meanwhile ignoring the fact that he needs attention.

Originally Posted by uBeR

But you also believe this will lead to a crimeless world, where police are no longer needed. Sounds like more rubbish to me.

As I said above, perhaps I was bit enthused when writing this thread, and I took that a bit over the top, however, I do feel that life would be dramatically better.

Originally Posted by uBeR

A child, for example, might not realize it's not okay to hit his or her sibling if it's never taught to him or her. He or she might grow to realize it over time, but he or she won't know it at that instance because it's well understood that children lack the cognitive and empathetic abilities of adults. The same might be true if a child were to steal from a store, which is fairly common.

The two behaviors you listed above are behaviors exhibited by kids who lack attention (and are seeking it, by acting out). A lot of the negative behaviors that children pick up, are (again proving my point that parents don't address the ROOT of the problem) because they want attention from their parents. To a child who wants attention, doing something bad, and being punished, is the only attention they get from their parents, so they act out. They aren't bad kids, they just want attention. Their parents are bad, because they only give their kids the proper amount of attention when they punish them.

This is common with kids who live in single parent homes, with a working parent. They become thieves, or develop a substance abuse problem.

Originally Posted by uBeR

My belief is opposite of yours: Kids need to be taught that their actions are wrong.

I know, you didn't need to tell me. I read people like you like a book.

Originally Posted by uBeR

Even you admit some actions are "objectively wrong."

Yes, murder is 'objectively wrong', but last I checked, toddlers don't indiscriminately murder people. Toddlers do steal, but as I pointed out earlier, it's often an attention-getting behavior.

Originally Posted by uBeR

But you believe a child's fragile ego will be harmed if they're told that their objectively wrong behavior is wrong.

No. I believe a child will grow up with insecurities if they are SHAMED by their parents. Parents don't properly correct bad behavior from children, and it leads to messed up kids. I don't think telling PROPERLY correcting bad behavior is a bad thing.

........before you even reply to this post (I'm assuming you won't) please, please, PLEASE, read the thread again if you don't understand what I'm getting at.

Originally Posted by uBeR

You then believe this telling of children that their wrong behavior is wrong will lead to politicians making laws that outlaw bad things like, say, murder.

x1,000,000

Originally Posted by uBeR

So your contention is that laws against things like murder and theft are wrong, because this constitutes "control" and is an abridgment of the freedom of people who wish to follow "their natural desires."

Nice strawman, bro. No. I don't think laws against murder and theft are wrong. My point, is that if kids are raised without being controlled to an excess, they'll learn for themselves that murder and theft are wrong. Because, if you understood psychology, you'd realize that poor parenting and excessive control often times is what makes kids thieves.

You'll notice how, my OP was mostly about children, and I did not advocate any laws in society. Context, bro, context.

Originally Posted by uBeR

Your contention is that if we just let people adhere to "their natural desires" rather than create laws (or forms of control) that outlaw (or limit) "objectively wrong" things, that the world would be such a wonderful and beautiful place, based on "spontaneous order" and "self-organization."

Once again, you have grossly misrepresented my position. My entire post was about CHILD PSYCHOLOGY. I was primarily talking about the psychology of children, and how control fucks them up. CrazyCarl understood my point (regardless of whether he agreed or not), why do you have such a hard time understanding this fact? This is probably the fourth time you've restated my position to me, but instead you pulled a Kafka and fucked it all up beyond recognition.

Read my OP a second and third time if you really have that hard of a time understanding it.

Originally Posted by uBeR

Of course, it doesn't take a whole lot of insight to see this is plainly absurd. We know, for example, that things like murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, and warfare exist even in stateless societies.

Of course, your entire analysis of my idea is based on entirely false platitudes, because it's clear you don't even fundamentally understand what I'm getting at--as evidenced by the fact that you've grossly misrepresented what I've said numerous times now.

Again, this is just one of a multitude of non-sequiturs you've posted already. Try harder.

Originally Posted by uBeR

You use examples from "two majority schools of thought," i.e. liberalism and conservatism (though these "schools of thought," which are virtually the same belief systems in every respect, are minority views outside of the United States).

I (again) should have been more precise in my wording (it was 3am when I wrote this thread), however, when I meant two main schools of thought, I was referring more to the philosophical underpinnings of each system. For example, conservatism is guided by an ethical negativism axiom, whereas liberalism is guided by ethical positivism. And, as I said, sure, there are sub-sects to these main pillars of an ideology, but they all encompass the same fundamental ideological underpinnings, and they arrive at their ends through the same reasoning.

Originally Posted by uBeR

For example, you say the liberal tendency to check economic imprudence is based on a politician's learning as a child that "objectively wrong" things like theft and murder are wrong.

I never said (or implied) whether it was a politician or not, who was learning these shaming lessons from birth. Politicians have nothing to do with my thread--politicians merely pander to their constituents, and do not deserve a serious mention in a psychological/philosophical debate.

Originally Posted by uBeR

It's not because some politician was told not to do something as a child.

You're grossly misrepresenting what I've said. Either that, or you just plain don't understand it.

My point, is that children grow up learning to hate themselves. They are systematically taught that their desires and behaviors are wrong. This creates insecurity in their minds. Insecure minds always project their insecurities. So, if you grow up learning that your behaviors and desires are wrong, and this creates instability in your mind, guess what, you're going to project that outwards, on everyone else. This is why the two majority schools of thought out there, both think humans are fundamentally flawed, and must be 'fixed' to become good.

Read the OP a second time over if you don't get it.

Originally Posted by uBeR

To be clear though, I'm not here to legitimatize state power, authoritarian tendencies, or other control and power structures. If you look at the leftist tradition, which is rich and robust, there has always been an inherent distrust and criticism of illegitimate power and control systems. It is essentially the libertarian tradition.

You're right, there has been distrust from leftists of authoritarian bodies. That's why modern leftists almost invariably support growing the welfare state through coercion. That's why modern leftists are skeptical of Barack Obama, who is a huge departure from Bush era pro-war, pro-torture, pro-Patriot Act, pro-Predator Drones, pro-Secret Prisons, etc.



I think more accurately, what you're trying to say is, modern leftists distrust authoritarian structures when someone who thinks like them is not the authority. Point-in-case, Barack Obama.

Originally Posted by uBeR

Libertarianism, remember, was born out of the leftist imagination and Enlightenment thinking. (The word "libertarian" of course has taken on a very corrupt and perverse meaning today, particularly within the United States, where its meaning has come to signify the very opposite of what it has always meant.)

That's patently wrong, and quite summarily is revisionist history. Classical liberalism is based around ethical negativism (negative rights) whereas traditional leftism is based on ethical positivism (positive rights). I'm sorry, but this is nothing short of a bold face lie.

Also, you seem to be trying to claim libertarianism for yourself, when you and I both know that there's left and right libertarians, and moreover, there's sects that aren't even distinguishable. I'm sorry, but you should you shouldn't be so confident when spreading patently false information.

Originally Posted by uBeR

These early thinkers, who are sometimes referred to as classical liberals, people like Smith, Humboldt, Mill, and Jefferson, railed against the free market system.

I know what classical liberalism is, and moreover, why are you bringing into the discussion the economic views of people who lived nearly 300 years ago? You're trying to make an appeal to tradition and a spurious authority.

Let's see what John Stuart Mill had to say about appealing to tradition, shall we?

The despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human advancement, being in unceasing antagonism to that disposition to aim at something better than the customary, which is called, according to circumstances, the spirit of liberty, or that of progress or improvement.... Custom is there, in all things, the final appeal; justice and right mean conformity to custom.... All deviations ... come to be considered impious, immoral, even monstrous and contrary to nature.

I don't think he'd like your use of an appeal to tradition

Also, Jefferson and Mill were primarily concerned with the rights of man, economics back in 1776 wasn't organized. There were no 'Economists' as we know them today.

Jefferson himself even admitted his own ignorance, when Congress tried to establish a Central Bank.

Also, when you mean Smith, are you talking about... Adam Smith?

Originally Posted by uBeR

They did so not because they loved control, but rather because they recognized the illegitimacy and corruption of free markets, which resulted in very coercive and authoritarian structures.

Baseless speculation. Market economics was a brand new concept, and Wealth of Nations was published around the time our country declared our independence. Again, you're appealing to a spurious authority. How could they have rejected free market economics, when Wealth of Nations was published just (5) months before the signing the Declaration?

Care to explain that one?

Originally Posted by uBeR

That tradition has continued through today, particularly in left libertarian and anarchistic currents. If you look at modern libertarians (real libertarians, that is), for example in anarcho-syndicalism, they seek to dismantle the current capitalistic system due to its authoritarian structure, and replace it with a freer system, for example one based on workers rights, freedom, and the common good.

Confirmation bias!

It's funny, in your little tirade here about the greatness of left-libertarianism, you seem to have left out the various other flavors of libertarianism, that operate on the same foundations... Oh, but according to you, they're not legitimate.

What you are failing to realize here, is that many left-libertarian movements are inherently hypocritical. For example, one of the main tenets of libertarianism is the NAP. The Non-aggression principal (or axiom). I'm sure you know what that is, considering you're the resident expert on libertarianism. So educate a lowly libertarian newbie such as myself, how left-libertarians are going to go about enforcing their desires (workers rights, for example) without using coercion? How are you going to maintain pareto-optimality without using coercion?

Originally Posted by uBeR

One method some theorist have advocated is placing checks on the capitalist regime, for example through laws (until it can be fully dismantled and replaced).

Further re-inforcing my assertion that left-libertarians are hypocritical. You wish to abolish a system, using coercion (and breaking with the NAP, the core of your philosophy) to establish your more perfect union. Do you not see the hypocrisy, or are you going to try and re-define the terms again?

Originally Posted by uBeR

To the rightist (e.g. you), this might look like someone who's just looking to control, but in reality its a means to achieve the end of the dismantling what is seen as a very illegitimate power structure that is antithetical to human liberty, even more so than the state or laws it creates.

First of all, I'm not a 'rightist'. Second of all, you're taking a massive leap in logic when you suggest changing the definition of 'control' and 'authority' when you suggest implementing a a law to 'dismantle' something. As Robert Higgs astutely asserts, Government power never rolls back. It's called the 'ratchet effect'. That's pretty funny, if you think about it. Use a law to abolish a system until it's phased out, so you can establish a new society with purportedly no laws.

Originally Posted by uBeR

So when you actually bother to look at the leftist tradition, it's very much based on abolishing authoritarianism structures, creation of self-organization, and a fulfillment of human liberty. This might mean dismantling authoritarian economic systems, e.g. capitalism, and replacing them with freer or more democratic economic systems, e.g. in syndicalism or socialism (real socialism, that is). But it is not just on the economic front.

They seek also to dismantle all illegitimate power, whether it be in familial relationships, cultural norms, societal practices, traditions, or other institutionalized structures and conventions, i.e. beyond just the authority of the state. That is the heart of true libertarianism.

*more leftist hooplah, ignoring our own hypocrisy, etc.*

As for your juvenile economic views, I'll carry them over to another thread, where they can be discussed in full, seeing as how this thread is not about a concise view on economics, but rather about philosophy/psychology.

[GenghisTron]

Originally Posted by Etzell

What about when the root cause of the problem is at least partially genetic, like has been proven with alcoholism? The simple fact is that alcoholism, along with other addictions, is a LOT more complex than you give it credit for in passing.

The fact that you claim it can be "fixed" demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the problem itself. There's no fix for alcoholism. You're never over it, you're never fixed, it's a constant battle.

I'm the perfect candidate for being an alcoholic, drug-abusing, loser. My father abused not only alcohol, but cocaine (among other hard drugs). I've never touched alcohol, tobacco, or anything else in my life. The only 'drug' I use in my life, is marijuana, and I smoke it purely for myself, it's not a social thing for me, and I use it maybe 4-5 times a month. I was 90% raised by my single mother, who came home at 7pm every night. By pure genetics, and statistics alone, I should be a substance abusing trouble maker.

I didn't need a law to tell me smoking and drinking were bad. My mom didn't have to watch my every move, to make sure I wasn't doing something I wasn't supposed to do. I was raised in a way (the way described in this thread) that gave me the capabilities to realize on my own that drinking and smoking were bad. If I can overcome the astronomical odds, anyone can. I'm hardly a remarkable person, nor am I trying to toot my own horn, I'm being completely honest. If I'm able to do it, I'm sure everyone else is able to.

[Etzell]

Genghis, congrats on avoiding it. You still know nothing of the nature of addiction, however, and are ill-equipped to make statements on it.

[[AE] 82694]

Somebody might want to do some research on "addiction". To put it simply not everybody is or will become an Alcoholic/Addict. For one a person who isn't a Alcoholic/Addict when they use or drink their body processes the chemicals and gets rid of them. A Alcoholic/Addict body actually stores these chemicals (to a certain extent) thus when the absence of chemicals and level starts dropping triggering with drawls.

Not to mention the psychological brain fuck you get from years of abuse using chemicals to deal with your issues. Take the chemicals away and your left with an ill adept person to deal with society.

[Crazycarl]

Originally Posted by GenghisTron

Perhaps I was unclear. The context in which I mean 'control', is when a human tries to control another human, through various forms. Of course, there's some form of 'control' everywhere, and that is entirely unavoidable. My point is that it is wrong to try and control other human beings. Controlling an in-animate object is patently irrelevant to my point. This has to do with psychology, hence, human psychology.

And, I don't think species are 'defined' by anything. We have no stated purpose on this Earth. That is perhaps the quintessential question that has been philosophized since the beginning of time. Why are we here? I think it's an open book.

Controlling science and technology is, again, irrelevant. Using technology to advance ourselves is natural. Our intelligence gave us the capability to use tools to make our lives easier. This type of 'control' is completely different than me trying to shame someone into fitting my idea of what an individual SHOULD be.

I was responding to the idea that control is somehow 'unnatural'. Can you think of an animal that alters its environment as much as we do? Our influence the world around us--and on the minds of others--is magnitudes greater than any other animal

Other humans are part of our environment. In a city, they are the single most important component of our environment. Objectively, there's no difference between influencing inanimate objects to your ends, and influencing people to your ends. A person must learn, or be taught, how much manipulation of others is acceptable.

I agree that empathy is a huge part in the equation, but I don't think an overwhelming majority of parents know how to raise their children. To them, it's perfectly fine to shame their kids, because they want them to stop a certain behavior. My contention is that, parents don't address the root cause of the problem when their kids act out. In an attempt to make them act 'normal', they shame them, rather than address the cause. In my alcohol example, I provided evidence that people think the best way to solve a behavioral problem is to attack the substance that's being abused. It could be alcohol, drugs, food, video games, anything. The problem is not the substance being abused... there's something wrong inside the abuser's mind. That is my point. Parents don't know how to correct their kid's behavior in a proper manner, and instead shame/punish them, and these kids end up learning from this shaming/punishing behavior that their desires are wrong.

It's all down to the individual's personality. Some people get addicted very easily because they have that personality.

Most parents don't try to shame their kids. Again, it's down to the child's personality. They may turn their frustrations at being punished outwards, or inwards, in negative or positive ways. If I give a child a time-out, I'm just trying to get them to cool down and forget what got them riled up in the first place. To that particular child, this might be humiliating. I have no way of knowing if they can't express that to me.

I think you're proposing a false-dichotomy. I don't think self-loathing and 'fear of new experiences' are the only choices. I know, personally, I was raised relatively free of being 'controlled', and while I did make mistakes, once I grew up, I think I'm entirely more suited for adulthood than most people I know. I think it's possible to raise a kid without him being fearful of new obstacles, and without him hating himself (and projecting that onto others).

Yes, it was a false dichotomy. I was just saying that no method is perfect or best in every situation. It's up to the parents to be wise and know what their child needs. Maybe as a child you were well behaved, yet sensitive to punishment, and your parents made the best choice. Or maybe they just got lucky.

No offense, but 'mathematical models' aren't exactly the be-all, end-all. This is my biggest contention with the 'social sciences'. A mathematical equation cannot account for the endless complexity and it cannot account for the trillions of interactions that go on in a society. Not to mention, those mathematical models probably are already compensating for the irrational behavior that is perpetuated in our current society.

No theory can take everything into account. These were very simple games describing theoretical animal behavior. But they are very enlightening in showing how seemingly destructive individual choices contribute to a stable population. In a population of perfect altruism and trust, a single parasite can take advantage of everyone.

[battery]

Originally Posted by GenghisTron

Some contextual examples include Conservatives' fear of all things sexual. Sex for many conservatives is a very strict taboo. They rally against pornography, adultery, unorthodox sexuality (Homosexuals, bi-sexuals, etc.), etc. Their views on economics also reflect this, but it's a bit more hidden. They believe in social-darwinism to the extreme. If you were a failure, you should have to suffer. This is the 'bad' side of humanity, and all you need to do to 'fix' your 'bad' side, is to work hard enough.

I don't agree that this is how conservatives think of social Darwinism. Darwinism is not about encouraging "losers" to work harder or to repent thru sufferring. It's about removing them from the social environment. For example, many conservatives agree that rehab for drug addicts may actually correct the behavior, but society has relatively little to gain from fixing a "broken" individual. The more ideal solution may be to deport drug addicts from America in order to make room for immigrants with well-established wealth and educational background. I mean, why start the game at a disadvantage when we can start on square one?

I am not here to agree or disagree with Social Darwinism. I am just pointing out that many conservatives are practical people who are more concerned about improving society as a whole. Liberal people, too, share the same overall goal. But their focus is on training everyone to become good citizens, while conservatives prefer, from the get-go, seeding the best individuals to build a great society.
________
Los angeles dispensary

[stray kitten]

Those "LOL" hurt my eyes. I may need psychological therapy for damage to the visual cortex and how I interpret and feel about "LOL"

[GenghisTron]

Originally Posted by [AE] 82694

Somebody might want to do some research on "addiction". To put it simply not everybody is or will become an Alcoholic/Addict. For one a person who isn't a Alcoholic/Addict when they use or drink their body processes the chemicals and gets rid of them. A Alcoholic/Addict body actually stores these chemicals (to a certain extent) thus when the absence of chemicals and level starts dropping triggering with drawls.

Not to mention the psychological brain fuck you get from years of abuse using chemicals to deal with your issues. Take the chemicals away and your left with an ill adept person to deal with society.

Originally Posted by Etzell

Genghis, congrats on avoiding it. You still know nothing of the nature of addiction, however, and are ill-equipped to make statements on it.

You guys do make a salient point, that eventually addiction becomes material, but I'm not willing to concede that every addict is an addict because of genes. That sounds like a pretty poor excuse.

As I said above, I'm the perfect candidate for an alcoholic. It's been in my family for generations. But I'm not.

I guess my point is, I guess addiction lies ultimately between the two. Obviously psychology plays a part in addiction. How do people become addicted to things that don't have a chemical element to them?

[Hawk Eye]

Etzell is making the point, not that addiction is purely genetic, though it plays a large role in how easily one becomes addicted, but once a person acquires an addiction there is no "fixing" it.

If you're an addict, the best you can become is a recovering addict, regardless of therapy or years of sobriety. Unless I've mistaken your point, in which case I apologize Etz.

[Etzell]

Originally Posted by GenghisTron

You guys do make a salient point, that eventually addiction becomes material, but I'm not willing to concede that every addict is an addict because of genes. That sounds like a pretty poor excuse.

Read Hawkeye's post. He nailed it.

Originally Posted by GenghisTron

As I said above, I'm the perfect candidate for an alcoholic. It's been in my family for generations. But I'm not.

If you're a high risk for developing heart disease, do you automatically get it? Of course not.

Originally Posted by GenghisTron

I guess my point is, I guess addiction lies ultimately between the two. Obviously psychology plays a part in addiction. How do people become addicted to things that don't have a chemical element to them?

People become addicted to the chemicals their brain releases. A lot of gamblers talk about the rush they get when they're winning... That's not just excitement. Behavioral addiction is just as real as chemical dependency.

[GenghisTron]

Originally Posted by Crazycarl

I was responding to the idea that control is somehow 'unnatural'. Can you think of an animal that alters its environment as much as we do? Our influence the world around us--and on the minds of others--is magnitudes greater than any other animal

There's a huge difference between controlling that which has no cognition or free will, and that which has free will and cognition. Can we agree that every individual has the right to self-determine their goal in life? Can we agree that exisentialism is the best method of doing that? I guess that's ultimately my point here, control suppresses the right of an individual to chose their path in life.

When a person tries to control you (my example given was a parent telling their kid not to do something), you're sub-contextually telling them that their action is wrong. My contention is that, instead of telling them they're wrong, you should tell them why they're wrong. My other contention is that people who do things that are objectively bad often have ulterior motives that are not self-evident from a rational observer. The example I gave, was a child who habitually steals. A toddler does not understand material positions and the concept of ownership, so why do they steal? What benefit is there to them? The benefit of stealing to a toddler, is that they'll get increased attention from their parent. Actions like theft are, of course, bad things, but the problem is not the action itself, but the underlying motives behind stealing.

My point isn't that control is inherently bad. It can be used as a great learning tool, but if used incorrectly, can lead to grave consequences. Control should not be used for domination, but rather to fix a problem. This concept is pervasive. It is everywhere around us in the natural world. You cannot control nature, you cannot control people's behavior, you cannot control an economic market, and if you do, it leads to unintended consequences. That is the very crux of my argument, and my philosophy. Control is specious. On the surface, it looks good, I mean, who could possibly say anything bad about a law from preventing a business from price gouging, or a parent correcting the behavior of an obnoxious child, but the thing is, control leads to unintended consequences that are almost always worse than the problem that was being remedied.

I don't think humans are perfectly rational, nature is perfectly logical, markets allocate resources most efficiently--instead, I think that when control is remedied to fix purported 'problems' the outcome is worse than the original problem.

Originally Posted by Crazycarl

Other humans are part of our environment. In a city, they are the single most important component of our environment. Objectively, there's no difference between influencing inanimate objects to your ends, and influencing people to your ends. A person must learn, or be taught, how much manipulation of others is acceptable.

I fundamentally disagree. I think people can control themselves if given the freedom to. Free association and self-organization have shown to be examples of how individual people, through their own self-interest, can come together completely spontaneously and contribute to the greater whole without being forced. If you look at a market economy, for example, you see millions of workers, who, through their own self-interest (Money, better quality of life) seek employment. Through this employment, they provide a broader range of goods and services to a great number of people. Through a supply and demand model coupled with spontaneous self-organization, you have effectively increased the lives of everyone else in your economy by giving them greater choice. The subjective needs of a multitude of individuals can come together and create an infinitely complex system of human co-operation and interconnectivity that crosses language barriers, geography, etc. and it all spontaneously arose.

Who says the same cannot be applied anywhere else in society?

Originally Posted by Crazycarl

It's all down to the individual's personality. Some people get addicted very easily because they have that personality.

Yes, but what if control exerted over that person from a young age shaped their personality? What if bad parenting was the cause of an addictive personality? There's ever-increasing evidence that a child's personality is contigent upon the manner in which they're raised from the first few weeks and months after birth.

Originally Posted by Crazycarl

Most parents don't try to shame their kids. Again, it's down to the child's personality. They may turn their frustrations at being punished outwards, or inwards, in negative or positive ways. If I give a child a time-out, I'm just trying to get them to cool down and forget what got them riled up in the first place. To that particular child, this might be humiliating. I have no way of knowing if they can't express that to me.

Again, what if it a child's reaction to punishment was contingent on how they were raised?

Originally Posted by Crazycarl

Yes, it was a false dichotomy. I was just saying that no method is perfect or best in every situation. It's up to the parents to be wise and know what their child needs. Maybe as a child you were well behaved, yet sensitive to punishment, and your parents made the best choice. Or maybe they just got lucky.

That's the thing, I don't think I'm remarkable or 'lucky' at all. I think the circumstances that made me who I am, are applicable to anyone.

Originally Posted by Crazycarl

No theory can take everything into account. These were very simple games describing theoretical animal behavior. But they are very enlightening in showing how seemingly destructive individual choices contribute to a stable population. In a population of perfect altruism and trust, a single parasite can take advantage of everyone.

In a society of altruism (I don't really think altruism is a good word, since altruism implies self-sacrifice) and trust, people could still remain vigilant against a potential threat to their freedoms.

Originally Posted by battery

I don't agree that this is how conservatives think of social Darwinism. Darwinism is not about encouraging "losers" to work harder or to repent thru sufferring. It's about removing them from the social environment. For example, many conservatives agree that rehab for drug addicts may actually correct the behavior, but society has relatively little to gain from fixing a "broken" individual. The more ideal solution may be to deport drug addicts from America in order to make room for immigrants with well-established wealth and educational background. I mean, why start the game at a disadvantage when we can start on square one?

I am not here to agree or disagree with Social Darwinism. I am just pointing out that many conservatives are practical people who are more concerned about improving society as a whole. Liberal people, too, share the same overall goal. But their focus is on training everyone to become good citizens, while conservatives prefer, from the get-go, seeding the best individuals to build a great society.

If by 'conservatives', you mean Hitler, then yes, they seek to 'remove' people from their population. In any other context, I think you're dead wrong. I'm just kind of at a loss for words, to be honest.

[GenghisTron]

Originally Posted by Hawk Eye

Etzell is making the point, not that addiction is purely genetic, though it plays a large role in how easily one becomes addicted, but once a person acquires an addiction there is no "fixing" it.

If you're an addict, the best you can become is a recovering addict, regardless of therapy or years of sobriety. Unless I've mistaken your point, in which case I apologize Etz.

Originally Posted by Etzell

Read Hawkeye's post. He nailed it.

Again, I think you guys do make a salient point--but what if that 'addictive behavior' wasn't exclusively created by genetics? I've read a little bit about addictive behavior, and the supposed connection to our genes, but the only concrete example is alcoholism.

A lot of modern-day psychiatry is bunk, and is playing into the hands of the pharmaceutical industry by making up a whole lot of false mental disorders (The margins on pharmaceutical drugs are astronomical). Which is why I'm inherently skeptical when people claim that genes are the cause of an illness.

Originally Posted by Etzell

If you're a high risk for developing heart disease, do you automatically get it? Of course not.

You're right. In my case, I grew up adversely affected by alcohol. I've had friends die, a parent die, a grandparent die, relatives die--I've suffered mental abuse because of alcohol, I've seen it ruin other people's lives, I've heard stories about it ruining peoples lives--all because of alcohol. I made an active choice to never touch it, and to this day, I've had no interest in it.

Maybe you guys are right, maybe the day I pick up a drink is the day that I damn myself to the same fate as my father and grandfather, but for the time being I've overcome the supposed genetic predisposition for alcoholism by arming myself with education and making a commitment.

Originally Posted by Etzell

People become addicted to the chemicals their brain releases. A lot of gamblers talk about the rush they get when they're winning... That's not just excitement. Behavioral addiction is just as real as chemical dependency.

This happens to everyone. I was just in Atlantic City for my birthday this past year, and I gambled for the first time. You're right, there is a rush when you win, and it can be addictive, but you need self-restraint. I have a hard time believing (again) that genes completely override a person's own best interest, and they're powerless to do anything about it.

I mean, if this is the case, where do you draw the line? Are murderers genetically predisposed to murdering people? Are people like Bernie Madoff genetically predisposed to embezzling billions from vulnerable people? Where does the buck stop, and at what threshold do you offset blame onto genetics?

[Etzell]

Originally Posted by GenghisTron

Again, I think you guys do make a salient point--but what if that 'addictive behavior' wasn't exclusively created by genetics? I've read a little bit about addictive behavior, and the supposed connection to our genes, but the only concrete example is alcoholism.

Again. Not saying it's exclusively genetics. Saying that genes contribute. It's like saying that part of the reason George has heart disease is genetics. The other part might be 'cause George eats about 15 cheeseburgers a week.

Originally Posted by GenghisTron

I mean, if this is the case, where do you draw the line? Are murderers genetically predisposed to murdering people? Are people like Bernie Madoff genetically predisposed to embezzling billions from vulnerable people? Where does the buck stop, and at what threshold do you offset blame onto genetics?

It seems like you're asserting that we're saying: "No, no, it's okay he's an alcoholic, he's genetically biased towards it" as if that absolves him of it. That's not the case. If you're an addict, you're an addict. You're not free of guilt. But you also don't cure it.