Replies

Thanks for the clarification. On one point:

First, my point (as should have been clear from context) was that if you are talking about people designing social systems, and they claim to be designing them with goal X, and instead they are pushing for things with no serious relation to goal X, suspect that they are actually working toward some other goal, goal Y. (In my previous post, the X is "evolution" and Y eventually proposed as being "power to kill those they envy".)

...I would once again dodge the entire question by pointing out that "designing social systems" is essentially an authoritarian exercise, and anyone who tries to do it is already the enemy--his precise goals are irrelevant.

"Thanks for the clarification."

Man, you are a sneaky one. At least I'm saying what I think, not leaving it for you to infer. And, at least I'm overtly addressing what I think you think, not silently smugly assuming I can read your mind. I suppose that's the nature of honesty, relative to pride?

If you actually care a whit about human life, you'll get a lot more people killed by this sort of proud silent smugness, than by honestly discussing what I think.

"...I would once again dodge the entire question by pointing out that "designing social systems" is essentially an authoritarian exercise, and anyone who tries to do it is already the enemy--his precise goals are irrelevant."

Thomas Jefferson? The U.S. founding fathers?

This is one of the situations where no choice is a choice. The only result of dissuading citizens from discussing and altering social systems is to leave it in the hands of those who currently have the social power (in the Jefferson example, the British king). That is the true nature of rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

Bluntly, the US is a designed social system, yet it is not an authoritarian exercise, so you are wrong. The US was designed, but it was designed to secure individual liberty. It does this by detailing a structure which has both internal and external checks (different branches check each other, the people are armed and vote, respectively) on tyranny. This structure is good insofar as it serves as an immune system against anarchy, which leads to tyranny of the physically and socially strongest, and which is what you would get absent any design at all. This seems to be what you are promoting. Be honest about it, if so.