Re: virus: Virus: Sociological Change

Lior Golgher (
Thu, 28 Nov 1996 23:57:52 -0800

Martin Traynor wrote:
> > *Can memes be eliminated by simple logic and persuasion, or are stronger methods
> > required?
> If they could, there would be no irrational memes left.
Memes don't work on scientific logic, but rather on social\popular
logic. Hitler's tremendous charisma didn't have much to do with the
consistancy or the correctness of the Nazi 'scientific' idealogy. In
politics you work in the meta-idealogical level, you work on rhetoric
and expressiveness rahter than on provable models and concrete facts.
Therefore memes can be eliminated or weakened by rhetorically
questioning their validity, not by logically proving they're 'wrong'.
Before you bring up Godwin's law, wonder if it's relevant.

> > *Is there a format for society where change is easily obtainable if the people want it?
> Anarcho-capitalism.
Anarchy's good. What Drakir asks is actually whether we can create a
functional society. Well yes. Almost. Once the tribal social structre
<see Morris, Desmond> is satisfied, you can build an utterly functional
society. I once developed a model for such a society, but it's too late
to phrase it here.

> > *Should the law represent solely the beliefs of society, or should it be an initiator
> > of change?
> It should be abolished. (To the ironically challenged; the paradox is
> deliberate)
That's right. Laws should be abolished by removing their need. The
following excerpt might clear the paradox up:
"In a Democratic regime, the power of decision making is given to all
citizens. That way it is assured that two intentions will always be
taken into account while making decisions:
A. The benefit of oneself as an individual [freedom, socio-economical
support, etc.], generally represented by the liberal left.
B. The benefit of oneself as a part of society [security, etc.],
generally represented by the patriotic right.
One way or another, those intentions are taken into account by all
citizens, both liberal and patriotic. It is their place in the state’s
priorities that is so frequently being discussed. A state whose
citizens’ security is being threatened [either by a real or an imaginary
threaten], is likely to put more efforts on keeping itself safe, than on
keeping the rights of the individual, thereby becoming "less
democratic". The contrary is right as well [for example, Canada is much
more liberal than Israel, mostly because of its more pleasant security
When there're no problems with the second intention, the first intention
could be developed. An Anarchy (society with no laws) can survive only
when the benefit of oneself as a part of society equals 0.

Towards the annual Conference all through the weekend...