Posted by
glen ropella on
Jul 25, 2013; 10:24pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/The-AP-kerfuffle-tp7583146p7583533.html
Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 07/25/2013 02:15 PM:
> My point is not about the structural similarity of information leaks in various realms (yes I see your point), it's about their relative consequences.
Aha! I didn't snap to that. It's an important difference.
> Exposing problems with organizations is more important that exposing problems with individuals, simply because of the number of people it impacts. If the Catholic church tolerates sexual abuse of children, or a DA tolerates homicides based on racial profiling, or a government takes actions that promotes violent blowback from other organizations, these are qualitatively different than instances of crime by individuals. Unfortunately, what often happens is that organizations are good at what I'd describe as "internally negotiating the truth" amongst themselves, such that a critic can't pin down any one fault. But, Zimmerman and Martin, that's easy to form an opinion about.
I agree in principle with your main point, here. But in practice, I end up disagreeing. The problem lies with the illusion of a crisp distinction between an organization and an individual. The counter claim is: Problems in organizations ultimately reduce to problems with individuals.
This is why I think Zimmerman/Martin opinions are not so easy to form. (OK, I'm baiting... they're easy to form _prematurely_ without thought... but if you put a little thought into it, then it's not so easy.) Nothing Zimmerman did was or should be illegal. Yet, nothing Martin did was or should be illegal, either. Likewise, lots of completely legal things can get you killed. And there are completely legal ways to kill people. Given this, why all the hoopla?
The reason for the hoopla is because the _organization(s)_ gave birth to Martin and the organization(s) gave birth to Zimmerman. Yet the organization was not on trial. The individuals were on trial. The legal system doesn't _die_ when it makes a wrong turn. And the legal system doesn't go to jail when it does something stupid. It seems quite clear that, in practice, our legal system is reductionist, organizational corruption reduces to individual corruption. The same can be said of Snowden and Manning ... individual scapegoats for organizational problems.
So, while I agree with you in principle, how do we _force_ a reorganization in the face of organizational problems?
> More alarming to me is the collusion between corporations and between governmental organizations.
I agree, especially large multi-national corporations, which are in direct conflict with self-government.
> Normal people that put most importance on getting along with their neighbors and peers and the powers that be will tend to be dismissive until it absolutely smacks them in the face and there are enough "middle tier" civilians to form a new consensus. Without that critical mass, change won't occur.
The question is how to [re]generate that critical mass. For a very short time, I thought the simultaneity of the Tea Party and 99% might get us over a threshold. But my experience with individuals from both groups was that they were as unwilling to think and act critically, skeptically, argumentatively, as everyone else. It seems we're doomed to building an unthinking mass to move in one direction, then having to forcibly dissolve that one and reconstitute another in order to change direction again later. We've hit some sort of efficacy ceiling with our 2, 4, and 6 year bloodless revolutions here in the US.
--
⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella
Better come to the throne today
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com