Ideas vs. IDs

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.
--Eleanor Roosevelt

    Ideas should be judged by their intrinsic merits and not by the identity (ID) of the person with the idea.  This relates to academic articles, bullying, political attacks, and anonymous articles like this one.  Ideas vs. IDs also ties in with Kings vs. Consent.  Other ways of paraphrasing this concept are judge the message, not the messenger; and, principles before personalities.

    Double blind peer reviewed academic articles are an example of ideas over IDs.  These articles on research which are submitted for publication are sent to peer reviewers with the authors’ names removed from the submissions, so the reviewers have to consider the intrinsic merits of the research without knowing who did the research.  The authors likewise do not know who the reviewers are and so cannot tailor their research to satisfy particular reviewers.  The result of this anonymity is that the ideas in the research are judged by their intrinsic merits and not by the identities of the people involved.

    Bullying is the opposite concept.  In bullying, ideas are forced on others by intimidation regardless of the intrinsic value of the ideas.  This is obvious in schoolyard situations but also applies to other situations that fail CAWTBER, such as dictatorial governments, corporate advertisements, and religions that do not tolerate open discussions of other ideas.

    Johannes Guttenberg’s press revolutionized independent thought beginning in 1450 by allowing people to read the Bible themselves, instead of having to rely on church leaders for Biblical information, helping to fuel the Reformation.  Martin Luther assisted this process by translating the Bible from Latin to German.  Biblical ideas could then be judged by their own merits rather than only by interpretations of church leaders.  The Internet has revolutionized freedom of speech more than anything since the Guttenberg Press by allowing widely dispersed individuals to converse with each other en masse without the gatekeeping of mainstream media.

    The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly called the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or Obamacare, is an example of an idea being judged by ID rather than by the intrinsic merits of the idea.  The ACA is very similar to Mitt Romney’s An Act Providing Access to Affordable Quality, Accountable Health Care, commonly called Romneycare.  So basically, both major political parties support the same idea, so the idea is good, but the one from Obama is criticized by the Republicans simply because it came from Obama.  This is character assassination with no regard for the ideas of the person being assassinated.

    The same thing from another angle is the issue of pro-choice, where presumably the Democrats are on one side of the issue and the Republicans are on the other side, yet some Democrats will slip in who are anti-choice—they are elected based on the label of Democrat, yet their ideals are something else.  They are political Trojan Horses who run on the party platform but then vote differently from the platform.  This happens on a wider scale when politicians run on their characters and reputations and get votes regardless of their stands on issues.

    Bullying also occurs in the expression of Freedom of Speech when people have the attitude that actions have consequences and that people with opinions should identify themselves.  These attitudes are used to intimidate and harass people with ideas that you do not like:  rather than argue the merit of the ideas, you intimidate the person who has them.  This is often related to a twisted interpretation of the US 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech in which you can say what you want, but other people have the right to intimidate you for your ideas.  This bullying is dampened when ideas are anonymous—you can’t bully someone when you don’t know who they are.

    The bullying of bloggers seems to be fairly common on the Internet according to comments by other bloggers, with such bullying sometimes including threats of violence against bloggers with certain beliefs.  Threatening people with ideas other than your own is rather the opposite of belief in Freedom of Speech.  Apparently many of the same people who think that the 2nd Amendment gives them unrestricted access to firearms also believe that the threat of violence against people practicing the 1st Amendment is A-OK.

    The intimidation of Freedom of Speech is also accomplished by corporate leaders and government entities who prohibit, or discourage, the discussion of topics such as politics and religion at workplaces, including parking lots.  (Of course, the administrators’ views on these topics are often well known, so the result is that only the administrators have de facto Freedom of Speech.)  This carries over to the Internet where policies are often clearly stated that employees must not refer to their employers while giving opinions on the Internet, sometimes to the extent that employees are required to provide disclaimers that their comments do not represent their employers.  Even if an employee does not identify hir employer, this information can often be readily determined by search engines.  I am sure that employers exist who promote Freedom of Speech by their employees as a patriotic act, but I don’t seem to be hearing about them.  The controlling of Freedom of Speech by employers ties in with Kings vs. Consent.

    So this blog is anonymous in order to keep the discussion on ideas, and not identities.  The Internet provides opportunity for the increased freedom of the discussion of ideas by reducing the amount of control of mass communication by the corporate media, much like the printing press increased the discussion of religion by reducing the control of mass communication by the church.

    Another way of saying ideas vs. IDs is principles before personalities, a phrase commonly used in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA).  The situation with AA is the extreme diversity of members from the cross section of society represented by this equal opportunity disease, from the homeless to millionaires, people who normally would not mix.  Principles before personalities helps to keep this group working together.  Name-calling would be counterproductive, kind of like killing the messenger because you do not like the message.

Conclusion

    Ideas should be judged by their intrinsic merits and not by the identity (ID) of the person with the idea.  This relates to life in general including academic articles, bullying, political attacks, and anonymous articles like this one.  The opposite of this method is to accept the ideas of kings, corporate administrators, and bullies because of who they are, regardless of the intrinsic merits of their ideas.  Other ways of paraphrasing ideas not IDs are judge the message, not the messenger; and, principles before personalities.

Freedom of speech means
It is safe to speak and write,
With no bullying.

Suggested Comments:

  Does the situation that some newspapers allow unsigned letters to the editor qualify as ideas over IDs?

Kings vs. Consent

If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.

–George Bush

Numerous types of governments fail CAWTBER, including authoritarianism, monarchism, dictatorship, aristocracy, militarism, plutocracy, autocracy, despotism, totalitarianism, and theocracy.  Other types and practices of government might fail, as well, depending on the circumstances.  The issue is not so much assigning pass-fail labels to types of governments as it is analyzing what the governments do in practice.  A democracy, for example, might pass CAWTBER in some areas and fail CAWTBER in other areas, depending upon governmental actions.

Consider the general idea of an historical king as a meme for a governmental authority figure that must be obeyed.  As such, this meme bumps elbows with the citizenry and fails CAWTBER.  An historical king would likely not have been elected, but a modern governmental official matching the king meme might have been elected.  The king meme is pervasive in our society even though we have a democracy and are led by presidents.  In the U.S., We pledge allegiance to the republic, yet our lifestyle is rife with loyalty to monarchs.  Do we as a nation believe in democracy or authoritarian control?  Do we act the same as we think we believe?

A meme is an idea that is passed between people in an evolutionary way somewhat like genes are passed in DNA.  The word was coined by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene.  Here is a good external explanation of memes:  http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/What-Defines-a-Meme.html.  The king meme as used here is more than just the definition of a king; it is the idea passed down through the ages that an authority figure, sometimes respected, is in control and should be obeyed.  Most of us have some idea of historical European kings, but consider also other non-king examples of these kinds of authority figures.  Consider the god of the Old Testament.  Consider Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book.  Of course, Hitler.  These do not have the title of king, but all are authority figures, like a king, that people learned to follow (or were forced to follow).  It’s good to be king!  Does Buddha fit this meme?  Not so much, because kill the Buddha is a teaching that what is important is the teachings of Buddha, and not the Buddha, himself.  In modern times, top-down corporate management fits the king meme:  the boss does not care what you think, just do what he says.  These other king meme manifestations, as well historical kings, bump elbows with their citizenry (or employees) and fail CAWTBER.  King meme in this discussion henceforth refers to all types of authority figures that must be obeyed.

The king meme has carried over into our culture even after a war against a king over 200 years ago.  Consider that we have prom queens and homecoming kings.  There is no such thing as a burger president or president of the hill.  We have king for a day, King Kong, kingpin, and king size.  Although we might believe in a democracy, we seem to think in terms of kings.  Some say that a constitutional monarchy is not really a monarchy—I say that either England is just pretending to have a queen or they are pretending not to have one.  In the U.S. we are starting to have successions of governmental leaders such as George and George W. Bush.  Geb Bush might be next.  Hillary might follow Bill Clinton.  Do you think we as a citizenry might feel comfort in having not just a king, but a royal family, in charge?  Media interest on the personalities of candidates, as opposed to their positions on issues, further degrades progress towards the move away from king memes in government.

Not all authority figures fit the king meme and fail CAWTBER.  Sometimes it is best to turn it over and trust an authority figure.  An example is a car mechanic who takes apart your car and presumably sees the problem to fix while you are at work earning the money to pay hir bill.  Another example is a surgeon who has you under the knife while you are asleep.  Sometimes you are in situation where you just have to trust other people being in control.  Should you always trust all surgeons and always trust all car mechanics?  No, it is not a matter of assigning pass-fail labels on types of people as it is analyzing what people do in practice—the same person might pass CAWTBER in one endeavor and fail CAWTBER in another endeavor.

Even with trusted authority figures, reason can play a part in addition to blind trust of authority.  Even the surgeon and the car mechanic is likely to explain things to you and ask for your opinion on how to proceed when possible.  Shouldn’t a government be the same way?

The opposite of the king meme is consensual government—rule by consent of the governed.  This can be rather difficult and controversial to define.  Being ruled by an elected official makes some sense in that by voting you have given someone consent to govern.  Does that pass CAWTBER?  It depends.  Does the elected official then steal your property and throw you in jail without cause?  Here is another scenario.  Only the very richest people can determine who can run for office.  Generally undesirable candidates are put on the ballots and the citizens then vote for the best of the worst candidates.  The winning candidate then appoints a judge that has a term for life.  Is that judge then ruling with consent of the governed?  This could be argued both ways.   Does this judge situation pass CAWTBER?  That depends on what the judge does more than how ze was put in office.

Lysander Spooner questioned whether the U.S. Constitution met the criteria of being consent of the governed.  You did not sign it, or vote on it.  You are subject to it because you were born in the U.S.  Does that signify consent to it?  The Southern States definitely believed otherwise during the U.S. Civil War.  The concept of once-in-a-democracy-always-in-a-democracy appears to have come from Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract:

Each of us places his person and authority under the supreme direction of the general will, and the group receives each individual as an indivisible part of the whole...

 

Abraham Lincoln stated this as a house divided against itself cannot stand.  A similar situation appears to apply to many street gangs and organized crime:  Once you join you cannot quit.

What about rule of law?  Does that concept pass CAWTBER?  Rule of law is often given as a good substitute for rule by man because laws are presumably more consistent than the arbitrary whims of individuals.  But what about laws requiring, say, that run-away slaves must be returned?  Or laws governing women’s bodies?  The answer is that rule of law as a concept neither passes nor fails CAWTBER, it depends on how the laws are used.

Government secrecy is another issue concerning consent of the governed.   Can the citizenry really consent to what they do not know about?

The move towards running government as a corporation, i.e., top-down, is a king meme that moves away from consensual government and fails CAWTBER.

The situation with democracy is that it may or may not pass CAWTBER depending upon the circumstances.  This includes the populace having enough information to make informed decisions, consent continuing even after an election, more direct participation in the selection and election of government officials, and recognizing and avoiding king memes in government.  The test, though, is CAWTBER.  It is not a matter of assigning labels to types of governments, but rather of analyzing particular situations.

Conclusion

 Numerous types of authoritarian governments fail CAWTBER, summarized by the king meme, which persists even in a democracy.  As many people say, democracy is not a good form of government, but it is the best we have.  A government by consent of the governed with informed participation even after elections supports CAWTBER.  A democracy may or may not pass CAWTBER depending upon actions taken by the democracy.  Citizens can use CAWTBER as a tool for awareness and analysis in evaluating the actions of a democracy and other types of government.

Democracy may

Pass or fail—depends

On actions taken.

Suggested Comments:

Does a constitutional democracy effect CAWTBER?