Topic: On guilt shared and kept

<Written during the trial according to timestamp>

It has been seen in past as wise that inviduals are guilty for crimes they commit in name of some higher power - be it organisation, nation or some god. It is a good guide line for justice for it keeps organisations more honest. They cannot just name sacrificial goat for greater purpose.

When asked who were involved in their actions Sebastian said at the trial that any guilt related to their rings moves were his. Even when Mizuki and Ishi stepped up to be held accountable for their part it is rather likely that more of the rings memebers knew about the matter. But then again we might never know. Organisational structure  of the Horizon helps keeping secrets and marshalling resources for projects that are more than questionable - and it appears that these possibilities are used actively by their ring.  Torture and weapons are two things that used to be things of the past - but are no more.

I call everyone to reconsider their relations to the Horizon.

Yours
Relay
<signature file included>

Re: On guilt shared and kept

<Timestamp marks this post to be written while Ishi spoke for herself - unlike the earlier post>

Ishi understands problems with what they did as part of the Horizon ring. Perhaps someone can figure out some way to make their organisation more responsible - perhaps by just everyone being forthright about their moves and deeds. I fear it is not enough - even for now - our society is not as strong as technocrasy was - maverick rings whose actions speak of misplaced trust in their purpose can harm it beyond repair.

Yours
Relay
<Signature file attached>

Re: On guilt shared and kept

<Timestamp marks this post written about the time Ishi started talking about her suggestion what should have been done>

We have heard example of what banality of evil means - it is ordinary inviduals that end up doing horrible things as part of power structure. If such structures are not held checked we will end up slowly seeing more hidden deeds of cruelty and harm where better ideas could be seen, but were not acted on. I commend Ishi for speaking up at least now - I believe that we all can act with necessary kindness if we are not too deeply ingrained in web of power, lies and deceptive necessity.

Yours
Relay
<Signature file attached>

Re: On guilt shared and kept

<Timestamp slightly after Ishis simulator idea>

I agree with Ishis simulator idea - it would give much needed perspective.

Yours
Relay
<Signature file attached>

Re: On guilt shared and kept

<Timestamp clearly after simulator idea is presented>

This idea as presented is very good even if it is not feasible as such right now. We could make something that helps us to aggreate necessary information as simulation. - I will work on the project as needed if it is started.

Yours
Relay
<Signature file attached>
<CV-file included for project purposes>

Re: On guilt shared and kept

<Timestamp is after Mizuki accused SoFC of arrogance>

Interesting thing Mizuki had to say. It is true that it is very human to be assured of rightness of actions one makes and to see evidence that supports it. Mere accusations do nothing to alleviate problems inherent in being who we are. It is part of our society growing up to learn how to best work with our own nature - we know much about ourselves, but we have to learn more. Speech Mizuki gave strongly highlights strength of idea Ishi presented.

Still our concern for communication is not the only problem we face - something has to be done about weapons and deceptions that threaten fabric of our society.

Yours
Relay
<Signature file attached>

Re: On guilt shared and kept

<Timestamp slightly after Sebastians declaration of being willing to take any repercursions associated with their deeds>

What should we do with persons who declare their their guilt proudly?

Necessary evil is justification that slides us towards corruption - it is true that parties involved believe in their actions enough to admit their guilt in fortright manner when brought in front of the jury. Every necessary evil will make it easier to take another baby step to seeing grander purposes that just require a little bit more of deception and use of force.

We desperately need more openess to our society lest we have to cover in front of threat that we ourselves help to create. Information sharing is one thing that our tower appears currently to lack.

Yours
Relay
<Signature file attached>

Re: On guilt shared and kept

Kesegowaase - Bonds

1. A ring attending Lurker arranged meetings, and keeping silent about it.

2. A ring which holds their hands over its members working with Lurkers.

3. A ring whose members without remorse think their opinions are above tower
decisions.

4. A ring where at least 4 members have tried to aid Lurkers.

5. A ring who stands defiant when confronted with their illegal actions, and who would likely do the same again.

You Relay, might call upon everyone to reconsider their relations to the
Horizon - I say you look closer to home...

I call for everyone to reconsider their relations to the Society of (too)
Free Colonists.

Yours

Kesegowaase, One of Three

Re: On guilt shared and kept

Lorne - handler, Dreamers of Gaia

On Guilt Repressed

Relay of The Society of Free Colonists - Your musings are not rational nor are they objective. You seem to be convinced you know about the rings of the tower, and know all there is to know about The Horizon - enough to judge them like this. It is the height of arrogance, and your post will just amount to one more in the long line of anti-TH posts made by people who should know better. Instead of any reflection into whether what your own ringmembers did might not have been much worse, you focus exclusively on The Horizon - a good tactic if you wish to muddy the floatbed, although not a very likable one. 

What do you know of The Horizon? Have you talked with them? Asked them about their motives? Ever met just one of their members enough to judge that person? Or the whole? Do you know how much good they do for the tower? How much bad? Have you analyzed pro's and con's rationally and fairly before arriving at your conclusion?

No, you have not. Instead you think you can just conclude whatever you like in the spur of the moment, without regard for how it will be used politically. And that is not considering whether you are not having ulterior motives, as most who critizise the bigger rings have. One such motive could very well be to deflect attention from your own ring and their doings. Your ring members tried to aid Lurkers. Terrorists who have killed innocents. And now you wish our sympathy for the criminals who have been apprehended? Now you wish to tell us that those who captured your ring members on behalf of the tower are the real problem? Come on!

I am not saying The Horizon are perfect, not at all, but in this particular case, this is a classic example of painting white black and black white. Yes, the Lurker Investigation Project, which was not even started by The Horizon, used non-lethal weapons. These weapons were sanctioned by the other ringleaders. You use the word deceptive, but where are they really deceiving us? They captured 4 of YOUR ringmembers who have admitted to aiding the Lurkers. According to their own words, they (still) think this was the right thing to do. This is directly against what the tower has decided. It is also incredibly dangerous to the stability of the tower, whether they did so based on misguided morals or sinister intent.

If someone thinks something that has been agreed upon is wrong, he or she goes to his ringleader, who can then work to get this decision changed together with the other ringleaders, while explaining the argument to the entire tower. This is how our tower democracy works. This is what your ringmembers, your entire ring, decided they were above because it did not suit them to follow these decisions.

Instead of complying with tower decisions, they secretly aided a group who seem to wish to kill us all off. I find this to be an act so enourmously more serious than what you accuse The Horizon of, that it seems to me only people with already established agendas would disagree. Your ring willingly, knowingly, completely and indeed still unrepentingly went against a clear, democratic tower decision. Consider this for a moment. Consider the implications. Your ring kept secrets and opposed democracy. Now think about what you think The Horizon did. Do you see the similarities? But The Horizon has been open about this, whereas your ring has not. Can you see why I think it is amazing you have the sheer audacity to write as you do?

If The Horizon were so deceptive, secretive, dangerous and closed about this, I find it strange that they have not only presented all of this to the tower, but have also admitted going too far in their interrogation methods. All of this is just an invitation to any anti-TH'er to bash them, instead of focusing on the real issues. They are honest and open about this, taking a risk to their standing. Doesn't that show you something?

You complain about big rings having secrets? How hypocritical do you think you are allowed to be? The Horizon are open with us, while YOUR ring has tried to keep the Lurker meeting a secret to the rest of the tower. YOUR ring has shielded those of its members who wished to aid the Lurkers. YOUR ring members knowingly went against tower law, trying their best to keep their actions a secret.

How can you possibly get yourself to write as you do, with a clear conscience? Are you really this blind?

Is it only I who see this enourmous case of arrogant hypocrisy? And this is not all it is. It is incredibly dangerous as well, more dangerous than The Lurker Investigation Project using weapons sanctioned by the tower, infiltrating criminal groups with deception, or admitting in public to somewhat harsh interrogations methods and standing up to face punishment for it:

I think that what your ring has done jeopardizes the very existence of the tower. Perhaps (luckily) not in this case, but sooner or later, when your members continue to meddle in things that can be harmful to the tower, without adhering to the democratic rules set out,  you might just tip the very fragile balance we have. All this, and no repentance or even the slightest bit of self-reflection. It is truly amazing to behold.

How can you ignore the democracy we have? How can you ignore what your ring members did? Is it because you know that if you admit that your ring members place themselves above democracy, it will sound bad? That it will sound like what you basically accuse The Horizon of wishing they could do? Or will you argue your ring members did not put themselves above a clear vote by the tower, while even those who did not directly aid Lurkers, still kept their mouth shut about others from their ring doing so? I think not.

To sum it up, I am appalled at your gall in critizising The Horizon for their actions, considering what your ring has been part of. Yes, The Horizon has its secrets and probably also its malfunctioning ASU's as we say, but so does every other ring. If you took your time to actually study what The Horizon has done for the tower, how their actions have helped save the tower on several occasions - within the rules we have in place I might add - or how their members help out those they meet individually and as a group, perhaps then you might think before you post the next time?

I am saddened that it has come to this, that there is no objectivity nor rationality in our views anymore. Can't you see that what your ring members did was wrong? Can you look into yourself and honestly say they acted rightly? If so, you are not only beyond a rational discussion, you are also part of a group of people who believe their own opinions supercede democracy. Look around - you will find plenty of other groups who share this view. One such group are the Lurkers.

Re: On guilt shared and kept

Bitisururu - The Electrocuted

I think this is related.

(Please ignore my handle. My real name is Awiti.)

Re: On guilt shared and kept

Klatch - The Electrocuted

Relay - you just don't know anything, do you?

Re: On guilt shared and kept

Aviah - Society of Free Colonists
10.1.105

Look who's speaking, Klatch...

Re: On guilt shared and kept

Sinuhe - Society of Free Colonists
11.1.105

Thank you, Lorne, for an interesting and insightful analysis of the current situation. I feel the need to clarify some misunderstandings, however.

Lorne wrote:

Relay of The Society of Free Colonists - Your musings are not rational nor are they objective. You seem to be convinced you know about the rings of the tower, and know all there is to know about The Horizon - enough to judge them like this. It is the height of arrogance, and your post will just amount to one more in the long line of anti-TH posts made by people who should know better. Instead of any reflection into whether what your own ringmembers did might not have been much worse, you focus exclusively on The Horizon - a good tactic if you wish to muddy the floatbed, although not a very likable one.

I believe the accusasion for "muddying the floatbed" is an unfair slant against Relay. He has the right to state his opinion on any matter in the tower he chooses to. The choices by me and some of my ringmembers are a matter in themselves. Relay wasn't even awakened when those choices were made, so it's not only unfair but rather rude to use them to diminish his arguments.

Lorne wrote:

What do you know of The Horizon? Have you talked with them? Asked them about their motives? Ever met just one of their members enough to judge that person? Or the whole? Do you know how much good they do for the tower? How much bad? Have you analyzed pro's and con's rationally and fairly before arriving at your conclusion?

Relay wrote:

I call everyone to reconsider their relations to the Horizon.

Relay is presenting a concern, not a comclusion. He's requesting everyone to think through their relations to a ring he's worried about. I invite everyone to do the same concerning myself and the actions of my ringmembers. I believe there is a lot for everyone to learn here, assuming every attempt at dialogue by the newly initiated doesn't get shot down this violently.

Lorne wrote:

No, you have not. Instead you think you can just conclude whatever you like in the spur of the moment, without regard for how it will be used politically.

The Horizon is, I admit, very good at having regards on how something is used politically. Personally, I prefer a free exchange of thoughts and opinions over political conveniency.

Lorne wrote:

And that is not considering whether you are not having ulterior motives, as most who critizise the bigger rings have.

I would respond with a "Come on!" but that would be drooping too close to the level of some... arguments. I hear the stench down there is quite unbearable.

Lorne wrote:

One such motive could very well be to deflect attention from your own ring and their doings. Your ring members tried to aid Lurkers. Terrorists who have killed innocents. And now you wish our sympathy for the criminals who have been apprehended? Now you wish to tell us that those who captured your ring members on behalf of the tower are the real problem? Come on!

I believe it has been stated several times that the purpose of our action was to reduce the violence - the killing of innocents as you so dramatically put it. I do not ask for sympathy for myself - however unpleasant my time in the cell may have been. I fear, however, that with the hormonal imbalance among the Lurkers running amok, the death count may yet rise. The responsibility for that will lie solely on the shoulders of the 'investigation'.

Lorne wrote:

I am not saying The Horizon are perfect, not at all, but in this particular case, this is a classic example of painting white black and black white. Yes, the Lurker Investigation Project, which was not even started by The Horizon, used non-lethal weapons. These weapons were sanctioned by the other ringleaders.

Using weapons was an error back then, as well as it's a mistake now. There is only one easy way to respond to violence, and it's more violence. The 'investigation' has chosen the easy path - do you think the Kingdom of Orph, or "the Lurkers" will be now inclined to choose the hard one?

Lorne wrote:

You use the word deceptive, but where are they really deceiving us? They captured 4 of YOUR ringmembers who have admitted to aiding the Lurkers. According to their own words, they (still) think this was the right thing to do. This is directly against what the tower has decided. It is also incredibly dangerous to the stability of the tower, whether they did so based on misguided morals or sinister intent.

The tower didn't have all the relevant information at the time of the decicion. And speaking about "the tower" is a rather strong generalization in any case. Several major groups, including The Association of Scholars, were in favor of a peaceful and civil solution to the crisis.

Lorne wrote:

Instead of complying with tower decisions, they secretly aided a group who seem to wish to kill us all off.

Ma-Ti most certainly didn't "seem to wish to kill us all off". And it's a bit of a long shot when it comes to theories about their motives in general as well, don't you think?

Lorne wrote:

I find this to be an act so enourmously more serious than what you accuse The Horizon of, that it seems to me only people with already established agendas would disagree.

Even if this is so, how does it disqualify the concerns of a new member of our ring that had nothing to do with our disputed decicion?

Lorne wrote:

Your ring willingly, knowingly, completely and indeed still unrepentingly went against a clear, democratic tower decision. Consider this for a moment. Consider the implications. Your ring kept secrets and opposed democracy. Now think about what you think The Horizon did. Do you see the similarities? But The Horizon has been open about this, whereas your ring has not. Can you see why I think it is amazing you have the sheer audacity to write as you do?

If The Horizon were so deceptive, secretive, dangerous and closed about this, I find it strange that they have not only presented all of this to the tower, but have also admitted going too far in their interrogation methods. All of this is just an invitation to any anti-TH'er to bash them, instead of focusing on the real issues. They are honest and open about this, taking a risk to their standing. Doesn't that show you something?

You complain about big rings having secrets? How hypocritical do you think you are allowed to be? The Horizon are open with us, while YOUR ring has tried to keep the Lurker meeting a secret to the rest of the tower. YOUR ring has shielded those of its members who wished to aid the Lurkers. YOUR ring members knowingly went against tower law, trying their best to keep their actions a secret.

I cannot fathom the naivete in your statement about The Horizon's openness. If one of their secrets leaks out and they pretend to be open about it, they're suddenly a paragon of honesty? Didn't you realize how pathetically Sebastian tried to patch up the fact that the actions of his ring had seriously traumatized one of their own members? As a side note, I commend Ishi for her actions during the trial, even though I can't condone her earlier deeds. I wish her luck in finding a place in the tower such that doesn't force her to commit any such crimes again.

Lorne wrote:

How can you possibly get yourself to write as you do, with a clear conscience? Are you really this blind?

I believe that in this case, blindness is in the eye of the beholder.

-- Snipped: several paragraphs of rant and hyperbole. --

Lorne wrote:

I am saddened that it has come to this, that there is no objectivity nor rationality in our views anymore.

In other words, you're insulted by someone disagreeing with you. I recommend a deep breath.

Lorne wrote:

Can't you see that what your ring members did was wrong? Can you look into yourself and honestly say they acted rightly? If so, you are not only beyond a rational discussion, you are also part of a group of people who believe their own opinions supercede democracy.

I believe you're making two matters into one here:

1) Whether what we did was right.

2) Whether we should have followed the "tower's" directions whether or not we're right.

That said, I would also be interested to hear Relay's thoughts on both of these matters. Assuming he hasn't been scared away from these forums by the... judgemental attitudes of some people here. I still think it's a rather rude thing to do, especially to a two-week-old just trying to do some conversation.

Lorne wrote:

Look around - you will find plenty of other groups who share this view. One such group are the Lurkers.

Not to mention the Dreamers of Gaia. Remind me, Lorne, what was the tower's decicion about introducing new species to The Garden again?

Re: On guilt shared and kept

Cassia - Dreamers of Gaia
11.1.105

Hey all! I don't really want to get into this discussion - it's going to end in flames! I just wanted to say this:

Sinuhe wrote:

Not to mention the Dreamers of Gaia. Remind me, Lorne, what was the tower's decicion about introducing new species to The Garden again?

There was no standing tower decision about introducing new species to the tower at the time! The fact that people decided, after the fact, to eradicate all the bees - that had been completely harmless, just as we'd expected - is a totally different matter!

Re: On guilt shared and kept

Barbaros - The Tubelift Central Collective
12.1.105

Yeah, so there's a flamewar starting here. Real nice of you to walk all over
the new Seedling.

Anyway, was I the only one noticing the high and mighty Emperor Sebastian
resorting to unusually crude manipulation at that Garden farce?

As Relay briefly reflects, he seems to have used the torture thing to have
his ring seem honest and forthright, 'nobly' admitting to the deed, since it
would have leaked out anyway.  But when he and his two cronies had to say
they submitted to whatever punishment the tower could come up with, he
stooped really low. I wonder if he's losing it? He asked us to remember
those who were killed by Lurkers first.

Yeah, so in effect he wants to appear submissive to tower law, and at the
same time he wants to manipulate us to not really punish him or his
accomplices, by making us feel sympathy for the need of his actions. No news
there, but I thought the obvious way he mentioned those killed by the
Lurkers as a ploy to soften up the audience to be uncharacteristically
crude. And this is High Lord Sebastian himself, the grand manipulator! Has
age finally caught up with him?

I hope I was not the only one getting gag reflexes at this shameless and
opportunistic ploy, and I hope we surprise King-of-the-Drones Sebastian
together with his torturing henchmen and actually punish them so it can be
felt!

-------------------------------------------
The Tubelift Central - most repair jobs per manpower in the entire Middle Cluster!

Re: On guilt shared and kept

Ben - The Horizon
12.1.105

What, so now he's not allowed to defend himself before judgement? What should he have done, just stand there and let everyone harash him without replying?

Re: On guilt shared and kept

Reneb - Da Vinci Collaboration
13.1.105

I agree that there's little reason to condemn Sebastian of The Horizon for giving his defence statement during the trials. For a long time in the juristical systems of Earth, it has been standard practice for the representative of the defendant to give their best arguments in favor of their clients. The same would apply to the prosecuting party. The judge and jury would base their decision on these arguments, as well as the facts and proof presented.

As far as I know, last week's trial has been an exceptionally honest affair compared to similar cases in the history of Earth, as well as the tower. All prosecuted parties fully confessed to all charges read against them. All prosecuted parties had the chance to present their motives and justifications. As far as proceedings go, I for one have nothing to complain about.

I recommend those who suspect foul play on behalf of either party to focus on finding proof to support their claims. As for punishment, I sincerely hope the verdict will be fair and based on fact.

Re: On guilt shared and kept

Balthazar - The One Faith
13.1.105

INTRODUCTION

What we have here is actually an important event in our Tower history. I have been reluctant to post here due to the usual nature of such discussions. However, there is a large audience reading this, and I think there are some topics that still need to be mentioned, so that said audience can make informed judgments. If we are very lucky, perhaps we can utilize the current situation to better life and stability for everyone living in the Tower. I sincerely hope so.

I will try to list only facts, historical and actual, and avoid commenting on the actors in this current drama except peripherally - they are not what is important as such, and we should stop focusing so much in the individuals, analyzing the broader patterns instead.

BACKGROUND

Historically, humans have been very quick to establish rules and a body of governance whenever groups larger than around 30-50 individuals were living and working together. 30-50 seems to be the upper limit that can be maintained without some firmer form of structure and hierachy, as we cannot psychologically identify personally with more than this number at once. This is reflected here in the Tower in that most rings have trouble exceeding this number, and if they do, they need to have a structured system of handlers and a leader in place, to divide the ring into smaller units.

There is also a larger number, somewhere between 100-200, beyond which the brain has even more trouble maintaining an individual perspective to the whole. This number is where humanity historically has moved from the small family units, through the chieftain clans and into the realm of a governed society.

Studying history, one will see that this happens naturally everywhere where this number of humans get together and do not start with killing off each other. As in early society, so also in our Tower. In the following, I believe it will be fruitful to compare our tower existence to mankinds early history. The most important comparisons that can be made are:

1. We have around the numbers of an early society (last count said 1200)

2. Our lives are directly threatened by death and failure in the same way as early mankind

These psychological (the numbers) and practical (our physical frailty) points are what makes it more fruitful and correct to look at mankinds first societies than at our pinnacle, the Technocracy, when understanding how life works in this tower. I am aware this is a debatable point for those who believe we are close to the Technocracy still, but please indulge me for the time being.

Why did mankind so naturally establish their first societies, moving from the smaller (30-50) family hierachies and the bigger (100-200) chieftain clans? They did so because of the inherent safety and stability attainable in such numbers. If a stable society could be established, less time was needed individually on matters such as survival, because of the specialization possible in larger groups. Some could gather food, some could become soldiers, defending from external (and internal) threats, some could build structures, and so on. The social contract made between such people undeniably gave them a longer, easier (such as it was) life. It made sense on every level to cooperate, though chieftains, being human, often decided to try and kill off the other group instead of merging. If you keep seeing similarities to our current state of affairs, then that is good.

As it is, the level of safety and stability a merger into a (working) larger society fostered has been what has moved humanity forward. All the way forward to this tower, though we now find us at the beginning steps of civilization and society all over again. I hope you are with me this far, and agree that we need a form of society in order to increase our chances at both survival, wealth and social happiness.

Now, if you agree this far, let us look at what dangers a fragile, beginning society faces, and how it protects itself.

1. External threats - These threats are what societies are best at protecting its citizens against, their reason for existing in the first place. Their success in doing this naturally depends on their size and efficiency, meaning how well the resources at hand are managed. Notice again how direct a comparison between the ancients and ourselves we can see here.

2. Internal threats - These are many and varied. And here we will find the crucible of this post.
   
- Incompetent leaders

These are very hurtful to a society. If the society does not face external threats, it can survive bad leaders. If it does, the incompetent leaders can weaken the whole enough for the society to collapse.

Democracy with multiple leaders and the option of removing them peacefully is brilliant at limiting the effects of incompetent leaders. However, it has been said it is only the 'least bad' solution, not neccessarily a good one. A good leader can take the society far ahead of where it would have come with democracy. A bad leader can destroy a society. On average, a stable democracy will take the society forwards in a slow but secure way, making up for the efficiency of a good dictator with assured, slow forward progress, and protection from a bad dictator.

- Bad government system

If the society has the wrong government system for the task, i.e. dictatorship when it is more beneficial to be feudal, then it will wither and not achieve the level of advancement it could have attained.

However, after the development of democracy, it is hard to argue that any other form of government could produce better results, as above. We can have leaders acting swiftly and efficiently in a democracy as well. I also believe, contrary to some, that this Tower IS a democracy. Not a direct one of course, nor are our ringleaders yet as accountable as in traditional representative democracies, but it is unfair to call what we have a council of dictators at least.

- Criminals

Criminals are defined as those who act against the established laws of the society. These laws need to be put down in writing or spread orally to be formal, so that citizens know what is legal and what is not. Criminals, as opposed to dissidents, do not threaten the existence of the society, and thus their punishment is traditionally more lenient (relatively), as society as a whole can survive their actions, even if individuals cannot. In primitive, early societies, criminals were usually physically punished in a way that ensured they could not repeat their crime. Cutting off hands for theft, loss of genitalia for rape, I am sure you get the idea.

As societies developed and became more intricate, so did crime, and it became harder to punish this precisely. Loss of freedom, wealth and status relative to the perceived damage to society were then the punitive norm for offenses, with death as the biggest punishment, that negated both freedom, wealth and status completely. Later again, as societies grew more stable and secure, focus began to center on sociologically educating the criminal so that the offense was never repeated again, while the victims were reimbursed by society as a whole. This level of civilization was not completely realized before the Technocracy, not would it have been efficient to all societies if implemented.

- Dissidents

These are always the biggest perceived threat to a society. Dissidents are those who oppose the structure upon which the society is built and through their actions directly threaten the existence of the society. As such their punishment has always been the harshest in any society. A society can have many laws, but not threatening society itself must neccessarily be the most important law to society, because it is a matter of life and death (real or perceived) to the society and its citizens.

Not only can dissidents not be tolerated, they rarely are tolerated by the majority, there are many emotions involved in this, when their actions are perceived to harm the whole and thus also the individual. For leaders of societies, it has historically been a convenient way to remove many different irritants or problems - if a criminal can be said to be a dissident, it is much more likely citizens will accept whatever punishment is decided upon. In most societies, dissidents were also those who spoke out against the ethics, ideologies or structure of a society, though more advanced societies managed to secure these under the 'freedom of speech', as opposed to the dissidents who endangered the society through violence, wars or physically aiding enemies. Verbal disagreement was seen as acceptable by some societies, whereas physical actions were not.

CONCLUSION

Now, after this lengthy exposition designed to sum up our current status, I will finally be able to move to what I had to say.

Currently, although we have a basic, working Tower democracy, and binding laws/agreements in place, we lack the means of a real society to enforce these laws. We have no prisons as such, nor do we have a trained police force nor weapons. Our mindset here is still that we are a group of scientists more than a society, and this has already been problematic. We are unwise to think we can survive without more structure. It is not possible in the situation we are in, we do not have the luxury to act as we please, we do not have the luxury to think we can reason with everyone, no matter what - it is impossible to reason with everyone, as long as we do not all share the exact same  goals and morals.

In any society there will be criminals and dissidents - our society is as endangered as any primitive early human society. We could die off any day due to a variety of causes. Our only hope of survival lies in efficient cooperation. Efficient cooperation requires a governed society, where citizens act according to laws that are in place to protect the whole. Also, as we are free-willing individuals, this society needs an enforcing body, there is no way around it, except if we want to believe in the goodness of all humankind.

We will fail, we will die without a stable society.

I think it is time we stopped being children and accepted these hard truths - before it is too late. The current situation serves well to highlight several points.

1. People go against tower decisions as they please, due to a variety of reasons.

2. We have a democratic society, but it is fragile, partly due to our hesitation to fully embrace it.

3. Both those inside and outside of our system take advantage of it.

Lurkers have benefitted from our pacifism and lack of weapons.

Lurker collaborators have been able to work with the Lurkers because they do not see this as a moral problem or a big enough risk to themselves.

And our appointed investigators have broken our moral rules, perhaps because there was no one to stop them, no one who controlled them or knew what they were doing.

In short, we are an inefficient semi-democratic, almost-society, and this keeps us at deaths door, very close to total failure if just a few factors go the wrong way. I believe it is time to stop thinking we have the luxury of doing as we please with this. We must reign in our manipulators as well as our anarchists, and put consequence behind our democratic decisions. And we must start opening up for more democracy in slow, measured steps.

Thus I suggest:

1. We establish a governing council - this would be made up of ring leaders, much like our ring leader meetings now, but instead of everyone working at cross-purposes as now, they start to work together as a whole. Over time, we go towards representative and direct democracy.

2. We establish an enforcing body with complete transparency built in and answerable to the council, tasked with securing the stability of our society. This is more important than anything: No matter what you may think, we are humans, and there both are, and will be, humans who cannot be reasoned with. These people must not be able to end our existence.

3. We do not shirk away from punishing criminals and dissidents as needed for the stability of the Tower (I would say freedom of speech does not harm us). We stop being lenient just because TAU taught us to work together as if we were only 30-50 people. The reality of the matter is that we are a large society, and what TAU teaches us will work for a small group will not work with thousands of colonists. Personally, I think the accused from SoFC should be punished as dissidents, and the three offenders from The Horizon as criminals. I also offer my insights into Earth's judicial systems to the ringleaders and will strive to be impartial in this.

To conclude, I must stress that NO early society has ever survived according to TAU without these measures - And we are too many to keep the illusion that we are just a large group of acquaintances who respect each other. We must cease believing we can run around helter-skelter, at cross purposes, knowing better than all others. We need a structure that collectively knows better than any individual, and we need the structure to be accepted by all, hence democracy, transparency and freedom of speech.

Let us seize this opportunity, while we are still able, to take the beginning steps towards a stable, just and civilized society - because that is what we must become if we are to survive.

-----------------------------------
Join us to discuss the word of God at Lockerhall Alpha, every Thursday at 9:00.

Re: On guilt shared and kept

Jhim - Society of Free Colonists
13.1.105

Lorne wrote:

You complain about big rings having secrets? How hypocritical do you think you are allowed to be? The Horizon are open with us, while YOUR ring has tried to keep the Lurker meeting a secret to the rest of the tower. YOUR ring has shielded those of its members who wished to aid the Lurkers. YOUR ring members knowingly went against tower law, trying their best to keep their actions a secret.

Please don't generalize. I had nothing to do with this, I didn't go to Sinuhe's meeting when he asked for people he could trust, I didn't know what they were doing, and I certainly didn't help them. Frankly, I never wanted anything to do with the arrogant little endeavours of Sinuhe and Andrea, I just wanted to do my job and have a ring channel without commitments. Please don't look at me like I'm some terrorist Lurker, okay, I don't condone it and I had nothing to do with it!

Re: On guilt shared and kept

Astran - Stargazers
13.1.105

I've been thinking about this, and it all seems kind of weird to me..

Where would the harm be in making the Lurkers LESS aggressive? Can that in any way have been bad? I think not, and I guess neither did the SoFC'ers.

As for attending a meeting and engaging in dialogue - that should never be illegal. There are some things that are just clearly worth fighting and striving for. The right to speak freely, with whomever you chose, should be one of those. That does not mean you accept what  some Lurkers do, or that you become tainted by participation - it simply means you have an open mind and are more likely to find workable solutions for the good of all. As it seems the SoFC could have done, had they not been stopped.

I don't think I am the only one seeing this. It seems twisted somehow, that all are hauling out the huge CCSDE's in this matter, instead of looking at both both the intended as well as the practical effect of Sinuhe, Andrea, Aviah and Jaana's plan.

Nobody seems to disagree that the SoFC'ers meant well. And no matter how I turn it, the effect of what they did, had they succeeded, would only have been beneficial. So why are we having this trial and this discussion I wonder? Why is everyone and their patch sibling jumping on this?

The Tower never was threatened by their actions, only good would have come of it. It is a sad day when individuals no longer do what is right just because it goes against a (shaky I might add) general consensus. Don't give me all this philosopher-muddying about how catastrophical that would be for a society. We've seen time and time again how determined individuals can do what's right when the majority is passive or worse. It's what has enabled humanity to both abolish slavery and reach the stars.

Think about that before dragging it all down to some cold, clinical level where everything can be dissected and be called ineficient or illegal if it goes against the ethereal Whole.
-------------------------------
The stars are still out there!