Skip to main content

Freedom-Security-Games

Freedom vs. Security

It is said that by the second century of our era that ancient Romans during the reign of Trajan (Roman emperor from 98 to 117 CE) that at least one provision of current social justice was popular even then, that it is better that the guilty remain unpunished than the innocent to be condemned.  This is a thorny issue plaguing us all today.

However, and of more subtle distinction was at this time Romans loved security too much to be capable of freedom.  The distinction should not be lost on modern times.  At least one party in most western countries promotes security above everything else.  In their version of politics, they work to attract groups that venerate security, having persuaded them they never had it and that it is the primal goal to achieve.  Security, however, comes at the price of surrender of power, of thought, and of freedom in all forms. It surrenders to the provider (usually government) virtually unlimited power over their well-being. Freedom demands responsibility and sacrifice. It is more on the model of ancient Greece. It commands the citizen to monitor the government in what it does and to correct errors at personal risk. With freedom a certain level of chaos seems always present.

One could view the current battle between the positions these days is something like a Zoroastrian contest between security and freedom.  You decide which is the “good” and which the “evil.” Not an easy task, you can be sure.  However, it’s easy to build a case either way and therefore makes a building a convincing argument a difficult task  – if you prefer big picture or philosophical viewpoints.  When combined with international hegemony on many sides, the distinction and battle is more acute, and far more real. 

You may prefer security, but putting the price aside, who is the guarantor?  Security invites in the door a strong central government.  You may prefer freedom, but at what personal risk?  Are both possible together?  Probably not in the long term.

Consider that many or most of our laws limit rather than grant freedom. Conversely, many laws grant rather than limit security.  Our heroes champion freedom; our gods celebrate security.

---------------------------------

Game Theory

In the game of giving up, there is one loser and no winner.


In every play-by-play game (e.g. coin flipping, roulette) you will almost certainly win a fortune, if you play long enough. Yet, you will almost certainly lose everything, if you play long enough.  (Hint. Don’t lose everything first.)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Accepting Fake Information

Every day, we are all bombarded with information, especially on news channels.  One group claims it's false; another calls it the truth. How can we know when to accept it or alternatively how can we know it's false? There are several factors which influence acceptance of fake or false information. Here are the big four.  Some just don’t have the knowledge to discern fact/truth from fiction/fact/false*. Some fake information is cleverly disguised and simply appears to be correct. Some fake information is accepted because the person wants to believe it. Some fake information is accepted because there is no other information to the contrary. However, the acceptance of  information  of any kind become a kind of  truth , and this is a well studied topic. In the link below is an essay on “The Truth About Truth.” This shows simply that what is your point of view, different types of information are generally accepted, fake or not.   https://www.linkedin.com/posts/g-donald-allen-420b03

Your Brain Within Your Brain

  Your Bicameral Brain by Don Allen Have you ever gone to another room to get something, but when you got there you forgot what you were after? Have you ever experienced a flash of insight, but when you went to look it up online, you couldn’t even remember the keyword? You think you forgot it completely. How can it happen so fast? You worry your memory is failing. Are you merely absent-minded? You try to be amused. But maybe you didn’t forget.   Just maybe that flash of insight, clear and present for an instant, was never given in the verbal form, but another type of intelligence you possess, that you use, and that communicates only to you. We are trained to live in a verbal world, where words matter most. Aside from emotions, we are unable to conjure up other, nonverbal, forms of intelligence we primitively, pre-verbally, possess but don’t know how to use. Alas, we live in a world of words, stewing in the alphabet, sleeping under pages of paragraphs, almost ignoring one of

Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious?

  Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious? I truly like the study of consciousness, though it is safe to say no one really knows what it is. Some philosophers has avoided the problem by claiming consciousness simply doesn’t exist. It's the ultimate escape clause. However, the "therefore, it does not exist" argument also applies to "truth", "God", and even "reality" all quite beyond a consensus description for at least three millennia. For each issue or problem defying description or understanding, simply escape the problem by claiming it doesn’t exist. Problem solved or problem avoided? Alternately, as Daniel Dennett explains consciousness as an account of the various calculations occurring in the brain at close to the same time. However, he goes on to say that consciousness is so insignificant, especially compared to our exalted notions of it, that it might as well not exist [1] . Oh, well. Getting back to consciousness, most of us have view