This is a work in progress. It is presented here with the warning it is just that- in progress. It is both incomplete and probably -almost certainly- contains errors. It is the best I have as of this date, and I have not been able to appreciably add to or even edit it for 6 long years. So I offer what I can, now. NOTE this is in fivve parts, they are really in sequence, but for download purpose have been split.
SOCIAL ENGINEERING James H. L. Lawler © 1996
What does the term social engineering mean? Social Engineering arises from sociology, but it is applied sociology and implies quantitative rules for the operation of a society, and the specification of what actions will cause what results. We thus may select those actions that lead to the results we want, and avoid those actions that lead to results which we do not want. This also implies that the engineering, the governmental operations, should control that society so that it will not befall predictable disasters, or that such disasters as may happen can be minimized, controlled and corrected, that bad trends may be inverted. The rules almost certainly will not be perfect, and they probably will need to be changed with time. Thus social engineering must build in a means of change & correction to its own theoretical mental constructs, the rules which we apply. We should learn new rules, and be prepared to modify or to discard incorrect or ineffective rules. Any time that social engineering becomes arrogant, and inflexible, it is virtually sure to be wrong.
COLLAPSE, POSITIVE and NEGATIVE FEEDBACK
Hypothesis: It is possible to "Engineer" a society which will NOT fall prey to the observed 700 year cyclic collapse of all past empires, the observed decline and fall of all past civilizations in a 700 year cyclic pattern. It should be possible to create a society which will be stable, or more likely can be stabilized against the observed normally POSITIVE human feedback of government. Negative feedback is what is used in automobiles in the power steering system. When the driver of a car places a stress on the steering system by turning the wheel, the power steering system applies NEGATIVE feedback, turning the wheels, to remove the upset, the initial change. Positive feedback to the contrary acts to increase the upset, to make the stress, the change get worse. Positive feedback creates an out of control situation where any change oscillates and get worse and worse until it destroys the machine. Societies until now have self destructed with positive feedback. What is needed is social engineering to apply NEGATIVE feedback similar to the control system of an inherently unstable aircraft, where enough negative feedback is applied to offset the inherent instability. In society this must allow for dynamic changes that will occur in a more or less permanent growth mode.
BASIC NOTE:: Absolute STABILITY or STAGNATION is inherently impossible. Societies either grow or die, but stagnation or absolute long term static stability without any change at all is a myth. To be alive implies that the organism changes. The only alternative to dynamic change is death. So we must have DYNAMIC negative feedback stability control for a changing and dynamic society.
SECOND NOTE: The stability must eventually be inherent not imposed. This internal negative feedback will be required for a relatively slowly communicating diffuse society which will occur with the growth of "Stellar", trans-Solar societies; societies outside of Earth-SOL orbit; as opposed to planetary or "local" rapidly communicating space colonies.
Eventually the control system will break down by lack of communication IF it is externally applied and not inherent built into all units of the society. Minimal communications to achieve negative feedback is necessary, an absolute requirement. We have a basic communications problem that will inherently cause this system to collapse in the very long run when we get into stellar populations if it is not micro controlled locally with minimal external feedback. This micro control is better anyhow, allowing for diversity within larger units so long as the units do not have destructive self conflict.
Mankind must seek habitat outside of Earth's limitations. We have no choice. Mankind or his descendants will either grow and expand, or we will cease to exist as a race. Failure to build space and eventually stellar colonies is sure racial suicide.
EVOLUTION and SOCIAL ENGINEERING: The theory of evolution applies to societies. Simply stated with a diverse "species" or in this case with diverse social customs, the fittest will survive, and the unfit will be eliminated. By this mechanism the species / society will evolve toward the more fit characteristics, and away form those which are not fit. This has been stated numerous times before from Karl Marx and the Nazi theorists to numerous other more "acceptable" social theorists. The problem is application of this theory to social engineering. The factors that allow evolution of a new species are:
1) Diversity within the "parent" species, culture
2) Isolation to prevent continued homogenization of the subsets that are to evolve,
3) Adversity: SELECTION: conditions probably CHANGING conditions that will select for some characteristic, some factor or factors, reducing or eliminating by social pressure, killing off or preventing "reproduction" growth of those with the adverse factors and allowing survival and expansion / reproduction of other individuals or groups with the different beneficial factors,
4) A biome where the new culture / species can grow, reproduce, and dominate that niche, dominating, or avoiding lethal conflict with any adverse competition.
DIVERSITY: Diversity is in and of itself a value. We must try to maintain all the diversity of choice of conduct possible, and to try to avoid homogenization that reduces diversity. In survival of a species the ability to adapt is all important. In the evolution of species, those which overspecialize die when their environment changes too much.
HOMOGENIZATION, anti-ISOLATION: Mankind has been homogenizing and mixing its cultures more than it has been socially isolated. Valuable diversity is being lost to some extent. For this reason we should be careful, and avoid destruction of ethnic cultural differences and sub-species variation within the race as a whole, and oppose interracial mixing that does not preserve ethnic variations and the diverse gene stock. Each variation happened for a reason, and we should not loose these positive diverse racial factors.
NOTE: This also implies that we should recognize and learn to value inter-racial and ethnic differences, and halt inter racial and ethnic strife and genocide. This loss of diversity is racially anti-survival, and the race can not afford destructive fools who can not understand and value diversity, and who try to force conformity, homogeneity requiring everyone else to convert to their particular variety of culture.
ISOLATION: The probable advent of Space colonies, O'Niel and other forms of habitat, will provide both the selection factors and isolation for social evolution. Only the most competent individuals will venture into space. Society can not afford to lift incompetent colonists. The energy cost alone suggests this. With the required drastically reduced cost of space flight, the cost alone would not suffice, but space is rather unforgiving of errors, and the selection factors against fools probably will tend to kill them off in any case. An even stronger and more interesting selection factor is that stupid incompetent colonists will not be welcome, and will not feel welcome, uncomfortable, and thus will not want to mix into a more competent society. Intelligent people seek out other intelligent people, and do not tend to interbreed with stupid people. Stupid people similarly do not feel comfortable with intelligent people thus they socially select against interbreeding. With the advent of voluntary contraception, the raw sexual drives, and "one night quickies" with unwanted long term consequences have become less of a social factor. Also the woman's control via abortion of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies (ignoring the ethical issues involved) also has reduced unplanned breeding of cross ability copulation. Thus self imposed selection will happen one way or the other.
SUBNOTE:REPEAT:EMPHASIS:: If mankind does NOT develop extra-terrestrial habitat, the race is doomed. We either expand or die. The nature of our race is such that it will expand. Any fool who tries to pull his head into his turtle shell and stagnate is proving his "unfitness" and his sort will automatically die off. Long range isolationism in even a global sense is predetermined extinction. In a longer sense, racially speaking, we should suppress any fools who would hinder or halt Space colonization. While ethically I am willing to allow them to live their ethic and die out, I am NOT willing to let them limit MY options and my children's options. I demand the right to seek and act toward what I believe is racial long range survival. To that extent I am willing to go against any "majority" of dinosaurs who are doomed to extinction.
SOCIETY: Society is composed of people, and is no more or no less that the sum total of all people in the social system. "The State" has no special existence, and is no more, or no less, than the sum of everyone in the state. Any time someone tries to do something for the benefit of "The State" or "The public" we should demand that he specify exactly which people he is referring to, and avoid generalities. The state may hire individuals to represent all people, and thus the "state" takes concrete form only in the form of individuals which we as a group designate to enforce our delegated rights.
WE THE PEOPLE The concept of Delegation
DELEGATION: Government today operate on the theory of delegated rights. Rights involve ethics, and ethics will be covered later, but a key thought is that no "state" has any right whatsoever that does not reside in some individual within the state. Rights belong only to individuals, and can not exist outside of those individuals. Any action of a government must be traced to some individual, and his rights.
IF AND ONLY IF I HAVE A RIGHT MAY I DELEGATE IT. But I also may not be forced to delegate it. If I had that right in the first place, then I always possess that right, and it can not be taken from me. Example: I have a "right" to property. I can delegate my right to a policeman to protect my property from a thief. Thus the "state" in the concrete form of that policeman may take actions against a robber, etc. in my behalf. But he may not demand exclusive delegation removing my own right from me. That also is an error. If he can do something, then I myself also may take that same action. While he may be better trained in LIMITED use of retaliatory force, and I may be more prone to excessive force, i.e. making an error, the monopolistic demand for exclusive delegation is wrong. I have a "right" to act properly, but if I make an error then I must be held properly accountable for that error.
PRIMARY and RETALIATORY or SECONDARY force. Normally is someone uses force on another individual, that involves a breach of ethics. That is primary force. Secondary force is that degree of reaction necessary to balance and negate the primary force. This retaliatory force is the force of justice, and restores ethical balance. Retaliatory force is neither for revenge, nor reprisal, but it is applied by delegation from a victim to a criminal to stop and prevent future use of primary unethical force. The word "criminal" applies to the person violating social ethics, ethics being interpersonal human - human relationships. Force is applied in order to retaliate and force the persons to abide by his own ethics, in order to punish him by applying his ethics to himself, and eventually to cause the criminal to renounce his bad ethics, and agree to the socially acceptable ethics. Secondary force has the goal of prevention of further violations.
GOVERNMENT: Government is created to promote domestic tranquility. It should provide a stable predictable, secure, existence in which we may live, work, create services and products and make a living. Excessive Government is opposed, in general, to healthy nondestructive change. Government in general tends to provides POSITIVE feedback to any change to any new situation. Negative feedback is desirable, not positive. With negative feedback any change or stress in the system is reacted to in such a way as to minimize that stress. Positive feedback, on the other hand, accentuates the change to increase the stress of change, usually increasing it to the point of destructive or violent change.
The words "to govern" implies a loss of freedom. Thus government is opposed to individual liberty and freedom. We swap freedom for social stability, and swap barbarism and anarchy for a controlled, secure, nonviolent environment with limited or minimized risks.
There is an operational range of restriction and loss of freedom that is acceptable, that is satisfactory. We can have a considerable degree of greater or lesser government that is acceptable. But the best possible government is the least government; The maximum freedom, meaning the least government, will also lead to the greatest possible creativity, innovation and productivity and greatest growth, particularly the greatest growth of wealth, of the society as a whole.
GOVERNMENTAL LIMITS OF EXTREME BEHAVIORAL BOUNDS.
Extreme behavior usually is socially destructive if not physically destructive. Some minimal amount government is required to correct those breaches of social conduct as happen. Individuals and groups may be expected to behave in antisocial ways, and they must be dealt with. Government should by analogy be an antibody or immune system for the diseases of society. It is a way of healing those social errors which do happen, and also of providing a basis model for normal social interactions. It provides a boundary of acceptable behavior, precluding Extreme or Destructive behaviors. The government must limit some "anti-social" behaviors. But if the immune system gets out of control, the social body gets anemia, and eventually dies. The government must be kept below destructive parasitic "leukemia" levels.
It has been stated that GOVERNMENT SHOULD NEVER SET OUT TO DO GOOD, but ONLY TO AVOID DOING BAD. This is basically true. While a government may actually set out to do good in the sense of repair of a failure, it should in general refrain from "virtuous" acts. Virtue is an individual human quality, and comes from voluntary actions to benefit self or other humans. When government set out to do the same things, it robs us of our virtue since we no longer may voluntarily take those virtuous actions. Even worse, it may coerce some people into actions that they find to be repugnant. It thus becomes unethical by taking their value, money, taxes etc. currency, BY FORCE to accomplish these actions that may appear beneficial to some people, -to many or even a large majority of the people; BUT if it does this then it performs theft by taking value by involuntary taking value without just compensation. Thus virtuous actions must be reserved to individuals or collections of individuals in voluntary association; NOT for society as a whole where the association is involuntary.
Government also can get involved in projects which are so large that it is beyond any normal voluntary group, so big that it requires virtually everyone in the society to do that project, or in events so important that failure would be disastrous for the whole of society, such as loosing a war against aggression, or space colonization where the alternative is racial suicide.
ELITE vs DEMOCRACY vs REPUBLIC: Answerability to "We the People"
MONARCHY and or OLIGARCHY: A Monarchy is that system of government where one person rules. An oligarchy that form of government where an elite or small group rule.
Almost all war, all major violence and major traumatic action has been caused by elite governments NOT answerable to the general populace. While there have been "popular" wars, the popularity has largely been the caused by propaganda of elite governments, and the polarization causing the war usually has just been between one elite ruling class and another ruling elite minority; NOT the disagreement of the general populace. That general populace normally was more concerned with making a basic living, getting in a crop, and day to day details of living than squabbles over pride and economic interests of the elite or the "mercantile" class, using a word borrowed from Adam Smith. In general destruction, particularly the mass destruction & social insanity called war, should have no place in any civilized society. The use of primary force, even the threatened use of primary force is a breach of ethics.
A Monarchy usually was based upon "divine right of kings" (DRK). This is now obsolete, and "assumed that one man was wiser than many. (Who decides?)" An oligarchy also assumed that an elite few knew better how to control society, and how better to live together than the people themselves in general.
A DEMOCRACY is that form of government where the will of the majority will dominate. This has nothing at all to do with rights. A lynch mob hanging an innocent man is a democracy in action. "Can you name ANY case where the majority was right?" Democracy is a popular fallacy to be avoided. The Greeks at about 350 B.C. tried that form and found its fallacies, and soon abandoned it for a Republic.
A REPUBLIC is a form of government where the rights of the individual are protected, and protected specifically from the majority. After Athens tried a pure democracy, they found it did not work, and tried a Republic. In theory we now have a Democratic Republic. The fallacy of both Democracies and Republics is that both assume that every man is equal, and give equal votes.
ALL MEN ARE UNEQUAL. All men are created, and remain unequal. Each man or woman is a unique different individual, and they "break the mold" after each is person is born. This also implies that "one man one vote" is incorrect.
The desires, needs and so on of men and women are NOT all equal. It is the height of foolishness to assume so. This popular fallacy is the basis of much of the present government and the basis of some of the most asinine rules mankind has ever made. It has caused untold human misery. Inequality does not mean that we should suppress any individual, and not allow each individual the freedom to develop his potential to what ever extent he wishes, in the direction that he himself chooses. I can think of nothing more socially stupid or destructive than laws restricting or in any way limiting a man's individual development. Society benefits to the extent that members accomplish productivity to their maximal potential. Society is the sum of its components, and optimize the value of each individual also optimize the total social values.
NEEDS and DESIRES are different. But a NEED is NOT a reason for theft. No matter how much you or anyone else "needs" something that is no reason to take value from you or me by force and give to that needy person. Involuntary redistribution of wealth - no matter how well intentioned- is still theft. Theft destroys value two ways: It destroys the incentive of the original producer since he is deprived of the fruits of his actions, his labors, his mind; and it destroys the productivity of the recipient by reduction of his incentive, as well as destruction of his self esteem and his value system.
ONE MAN ONE VOTE
Should we have "one man one" vote? The theory that led to plebiscite one man one vote democracy was that with "modern" weapons one man had about the same fighting skill as any other, and mankind could settle power struggles by a vote, rather than resorting to deadly violence, particularly violence where the looser was dead, and no longer socially productive. Remember this was instituted ca 350 BC , but became even more true with the invention of guns. The looser was obliged to do what the winners decreed. But that was individually better than being dead, and the looser still was socially productive. Or at least that was the theoretical basis for one-man one vote.
Women suffrage: With that basis of avoiding violence and war in mind why should women be given a vote since they did not fight on the battle fields, and thus did not represent raw power in the initial sense of the basic concept of democracy? Women fight with words. And they made such a damn verbal nuisance of themselves with words and demonstrations that men -probably foolishly - gave them votes. To reinforce that question I also observe that when women have been in political power, that has usually been a time of decline, even collapse of empires or civilizations. Never has a woman been in power during the growth of an empire or civilization. Are women in power causative of collapse or merely symptoms of other factors? Women are normally NOT socially creative. Their creativity is home and baby centered, introverted and not extroverted = socially centered. It is here necessary to question "symptoms" versus "cause - effect". We must try to deduce the factors that cause this decline and collapse of civilizations and to try to avoid the fallacies that led to those disasters.
Should we have a system where the illiterate street bum has the same vote & influence on decisions as a manager of a business with many employees? It is proposed that votes should be by ability, NOT one man one vote, but awarded by ability with upper and lower limits. The problem is how to do this.
The theory of representative government is that we can not tend to the business of government ourselves so we delegate our powers and rights to a "representative" to vote for us. Particularly up until recently we all could not communicate with Washington etc. to vote. This presumably also allowed the representative to vote for REPUBLICAN as opposed to Democratic ideals where the minority rights were respected.
Unfortunately this representation more often than not has fallen prey to special interest groups, lobbyists, bribery (recently disguised as campaign contributions - but bribes none the less) and just about every form of corruption you can name. The rights of the minority have NOT been preserved;-the rights of the MAJORITY have not been preserved!
CHECKS and BALANCES - The Executive, Legislative and Judicial three branch system.
The British "Magna Charta" and the U.S. Constitution were established with three allegedly independent branches. That has been the role model for most other democratic systems. The basic concept was to have three competing & adversary branches of government which would provide checks and balances so that no one branch would become too powerful, and thus get out of control. Unfortunately by collusion and conspiracy they now are all out of control. They all ignore the basic foundation, the terms of the constitution and specifically the 10th amendment as if it did not exist. Even more to the point, with dictatorial systems, the army, and executive power can dominate, both legislative and judicial branches. I cite Iraq as such an example: or Hitler: or almost any of a dozen other nations past or present in Asia, Africa, or South America.
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH: Executive branch - some one person must direct the "police force", and enforce the laws. As a check they must agree to the laws they are to enforce (or veto). This branch is usually headed by a President or Prime Minister, in charge of the Army, Navy, an Air Force, a Coast Guard, and other National police (FBI, etc.). At more local levels it is headed by a Governor or Sheriff etc. with the same general, but localized, duties. These people enforce the law, and perform those necessary corrective functions when people do antisocial acts.
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH- This body enacts the laws, provides for finance, and acts to remove intolerable Judicial or Executive officers. The Legislative branch passes written codification of the rules, the law of society, controls finances, and thus power via the purse strings, and impeaches and removes bad executive and judicial officers; usually with a Senate / House of Peers, and a Parliament / House of Representatives, most commonly bicameral: one to represent popular "plebs" number and power proportional to head count, the other usually an "elitist branch" to represent elitist "landed" interests. Historically the legislative branches started with the Elitist Greek and later Roman Senate. Later the representation of the commoners was added. The long term interests and thus stability is supposedly represented by the higher (Senate) house. The lower house represents the short term or immediate needs, responsiveness to people and immediate political pressures.
THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, Judicial branch - finds facts & establishes guilt or innocence and from that seeks equity - punishment for breach of laws, and vacates bad laws. The judicial system was formed to resolve differences of opinion other than by single combat to the death, and in theory operates with deliberation so that we do not unethically apply primary force to the wrong person after a crime has been committed. The actions, properly applied, come from the delegated individual rights, but the individual still has an absolute inalienable right to apply those same actions himself. The court action is intended to prevent a second error to compound a first ethical breach.
Experience showed that individuals often made second errors in the heat of emotional confusion after they have been harmed. Thus prudence suggested that we should allow the more impartial judicial system to operate unemotionally to determine facts and then to seek equity. But that system has now unethically demanded that we MUST delegate our rights to them, and that we not "take justice into our own hands". If what happens is justice, then we have the right to take it into our hands! The problem is the risk of taking unjust actions and thus become guilty of use of primary force, violating someone else's rights; taking actions involving what we thought was retaliatory force but what in reality was primary force which we did not have a "right" to do.
Even good courts make errors. In theory the probability of error is greatly reduced if a third party, particularly one trained to restrain emotions, finds facts decides equity and takes the retaliatory actions. Still we must remind ourselves that they are acting solely on DELEGATED rights on behalf of an offended party, and that some victim must always be present. Punishments applied for so called victimless crimes, are thus themselves a crime, and an unethical breach of delegation!
How do we punish those who use primary force, taking actions and applying direct force, NOT retaliatory force, acting without a victim, and without delegation, particularly those tyrants who inflict their own notions on others? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will guard those self same guardians? Do we need a police force to police the police and Judges to judge the Judges! We do.
JUDICIAL APPEALS: There is a judicial system of appeals designed to further reduce the chance of error. The present problem is that the system has grown so ponderous that it is basically inoperable. Appeals must be allowed, but they must be both swift and must rapidly go to the heart of the alleged error, to solve the problem quickly. The present legal system decides the appeal on the basis of the least fundamental factor possible. This is a basic philosophical error, and the decision should always trace "law" back to the most basic principles and cite delegation, i.e. go all the way to the constitutional and even common law ethical basis to make the case clear. With this basis there would be fewer appeals and more confidence in the court system. It would be predictable, thus there also would be fewer cases.
"JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED" and our system is also broken here. It has too many mostly superfluous rules, and violates the constitution which guaranteed "speedy trial"- we have fallen once again blindly into the very same trap that existed over two hundred years ago.
Ethics involve human - human interactions. "Rights" are the proper interactions, while the crimes, wrongs, "sins" all represent unethical actions. Rights pertain only to HUMAN actions and are granted by other humans. Animal rights come only from the rights given them by humans. This then also raises the question of child rights, and rights of defective "men" (idiots, imbecile and morons) who are nearly human.
As any animal is "higher" in its social development and more nearly man like, then it acquires more rights delegated FROM men assigned by the value of men because of affinity to human values/ ethics.
There is a fundamental problem with our law. It is so complex that it is totally incomprehensible. Even if it were not self contradictory, which it is, it is beyond the grasp of any one. If the law is so complex that it takes a "shyster" to interpret it. If the public does not comprehend the law, then how can the public obey the law other than by pure chance? The laws individually and in total must be simple enough in form and practice that the people understand all of them. If any law is too complex, if it is incomprehensible, then it is not and can not be delegated, and it is a bad law; and Ultra vires ab initio- i.e. invalid from the start. We need to clean up our law books and our legal system from top to bottom - and I fear that we will wind up with considerable dirty bath water, In fact a labor of Hercules, the Augean stables.
ALWAYS RELY ON SELF INTEREST, never on altruistic or social actions.
People act for several reasons:
Necessities: Air (Oxygen breathing), Water (drink), Food (nourishment), Shelter (temperature control both heating or cooling), Sleep (rest), Medicines (means of maintaining health), Sex - not an absolute individual "necessity" (Traps for animals are baited with food and females more often than anything else I can name. One of strongest motivations!)
Reproduction: not synonymous with sex particularly strong with females.
Sex per se reproduction is Absolutely Necessary to a species!
Less urgent needs / desires:
Approval, status, social approval, respect, admiration,
extreme = celebrity
Activity (both physical and mental),
Isolation (aloneness, solitude)
Security (mental, physical)
VALUES as wealth, property and services
ANTI SOCIAL DESIRES::
Unearned Status: False appreciation, particularly unearned status.
Men tend to seek power over other men, they want to tell others what they can or can not do. Overall this is unethical. But a government must do just this, it must adjudicate differences in opinion. It must interfere when there are differences in ethics and behavior at odds with one set of ethics or another. Men may hold differing ethical systems. The one system which I suggested above as one coherent proper system. But you are entitled to your own opinion. Thus two differing ethical systems may be in conflict. So how do we resolve this mental conflict between what I believe and what someone else believes? We apply the experimental method, and society through government must do this application of this method.
Send mail to
questions or comments about this web site.