The Trap - BBC2 Sunday

mike65

A bit late to mention this (it starts at 9 pm) but Adam Curtis' new series The Trap should be well worth 3 hours of your tv time.

Mike

DadaKopf

I dunno, it was OK. I'll keep watching, though.

Akrasia

It was very interesting

I only saw half of it though

I must watch it again.. it's bound to be on-line soon

Any Adam Curtis Documentary I have seen has been a true eye opener. I highly recommend everyone checks out the award winning Century of the Self and also The Power of Nightmares. They are all up on Google Video.

mike65

I was in danger of suffering information overload last night, he moves the narrative along at such a clip by the end I was glad for the rest! I suspect 4-5 hours would have been better.

Mike.

radiospan

Third and final part is on tonight.

The first part had bits about game theory and the simplificiation of human behaviour into a mathematicaly model.

The second part seemed to argue that Richard Dawkins' Selfish Gene ideas did the same in the field of biology (ie - reducing human behaviour to one that is pre-programmed in our genes).

mike65

Tonights prog which has just finished attempted to give us a Unified Theory of Freedom or rather two versions of it Negative and Postive, the former is one model we in the developed world have chosen over the latter which is associated with tyranical accumulation of power "for the greater good".

Curtis spent the programme showing how the west has been exporting our verison with chaotic results in Russia and Iraq among others while illustrating what happens when Postive Freedom is taken to its extreme in Cambodia under Pol Pot. Curtis ultimatly decides that the Negative model which treats people as self seeking consumer/producer units is the wrong model and revoltuonary Positive Freedom does not always equal tyranny.

Mike.

Mucco

mike65 wrote:

Curtis spent the programme showing how the west has been exporting our verison with chaotic results in Russia and Iraq among others while illustrating what happens when Postive Freedom is taken to its extreme in Cambodia under Pol Pot.

I found the comparison between Cambodia (Pol Pot executed all the middle and ruling classes) and Iraq (the Americans sacked all the civil service) worrying. Seems we don't learn from history.

It's an excellent series, if you get the chance to see it, or any of Adam Curtis's other stuff, jump at it.

DadaKopf

mike65 wrote:

Tonights prog which has just finished attempted to give us a Unified Theory of Freedom or rather two versions of it Negative and Postive, the former is one model we in the developed world have chosen over the latter which is associated with tyranical accumulation of power "for the greater good".

Curtis spent the programme showing how the west has been exporting our verison with chaotic results in Russia and Iraq among others while illustrating what happens when Postive Freedom is taken to its extreme in Cambodia under Pol Pot. Curtis ultimatly decides that the Negative model which treats people as self seeking consumer/producer units is the wrong model and revoltuonary Positive Freedom does not always equal tyranny.

Mike.

Damn, forgot about this. I'll 'get' it on the internet. I've enjoyed the series, but I still think it's his weakest to date.

Does he really go on about positive and negative liberty? I always thought the distinction was a load of old cobblers, I'm surprised to see him using it. That thing about Cambodia seems interesting. Something I've been thinking about a bit recently.

democrates

DadaKopf wrote:

Damn, forgot about this. I'll 'get' it on the internet. I've enjoyed the series, but I still think it's his weakest to date.

Does he really go on about positive and negative liberty? I always thought the distinction was a load of old cobblers, I'm surprised to see him using it. That thing about Cambodia seems interesting. Something I've been thinking about a bit recently.

The +- liberty framework does appear dated according to http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/
where McCallums triadic model seems to have more useful applications among recent writers. Some things just don't go away like left/right wing.

Damn interesting stuff, I'll have to look into getting some of the recent literature on this, only last week I'd started considering if there were weaknesses in the free software model in focussing only on freedoms concerning the availability of the software.

In short my concern is that if I make software available to everyone, that includes those who I consider to be reducing the freedom of others, extreme eg vulture funds. If I were to create a license which forbids such uses, on the face of it it does not give as much freedom as free software which vulture funds are free to use, but the net effect of not empowering those who reduce freedom is then to increase freedom.

Thoughts?

Akrasia

democrates wrote:

In short my concern is that if I make software available to everyone, that includes those who I consider to be reducing the freedom of others, extreme eg vulture funds. If I were to create a license which forbids such uses, on the face of it it does not give as much freedom as free software which vulture funds are free to use, but the net effect of not empowering those who reduce freedom is then to increase freedom.

Thoughts?

That sounds very much like the "copyleft" principle. There are different kinds of copyleft licenses with different conditions attacked. Most of are simple enough "You can use and modify this work of art, academia or computer program as much as you like but you are forbidden from copyrighting any subsequent product if it uses any copyleft components.

Another kind of protection is where intellectual property is made available for free for all non commercial uses, but requires those who use it to generate a profit for themselves to pay for a commercial license (which may or may not be granted)

silverharp

The prog made some good points but hardly original, namely that any kind of zealotry leads to the end justifying the means mentality be it Blair lying with WMD in Iraq. Or the US thinking that they can remodel the world in their image. I don’t agree with the positive negative freedom as a unified political theory but I guess it is useful to understand it if TPTB think like that.
Any ideology that wants to make a “new man” is doomed to failure as it ignores the biology of individuals. Communism was doomed because it used a “Blank Slate” theory of the human mind that people could be molded to buy in to the new ideology and when they didn’t violence was inevitable, Cambodia is another example.
If you want a model that will change the world for the better it is one where there is a strong commitment to the local community. At the biological level we are not “ants” and terms like consumers are very empty at their heart.

FYI

Parts one and two are available here:

Part 1 -
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/03/11/18375640.php
Part 2 -
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2007/03/18/2_the_lonely_robot.rm

Part 3 was a bit disappointing. He just can't accept that some Western politicians don't always act with an altruistic heart.

Some discussion and commentry of the ideas covered in the documentary here:

http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2433&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=3d628875aec63b890d8f1bb817dd73fa

and here:

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2007/03/were-not-worthy-two-cheers-for-adam.html

mike65

It was the weakest episode and as a "series concept" not as strong as his previous outings overall. The conclusion also suggests we hav'nt got the wit to pick and choose bits of both. Also if it was a straight choice, I'd take my chances with what we have rather than the alternative, thanks.

Mike.

democrates

Akrasia wrote:

That sounds very much like the "copyleft" principle. There are different kinds of copyleft licenses with different conditions attacked. Most of are simple enough "You can use and modify this work of art, academia or computer program as much as you like but you are forbidden from copyrighting any subsequent product if it uses any copyleft components.

Another kind of protection is where intellectual property is made available for free for all non commercial uses, but requires those who use it to generate a profit for themselves to pay for a commercial license (which may or may not be granted)

Spot on, free software uses copyleft in the GPL (general public license) or compatible. It means once the four freedoms are granted they must remain available to all, I can't take it and then charge someone else a license fee, even if I modify it, so it can never be privatised.

What I want is a license to give freedoms for personal users, charities, credit unions, schools, public hospitals etc, but also to co-operatives and such commercial entities who do not require the economic castes of owner and employee.

My rationale is that a great deal of the worlds problems stem from the domination of the working many by an owning few, so the answer is to begin to replace traditional captalist entities with democratic co-operatives and such who balance the livelihood imperative with a social mission and do not fuel class division within or between nations.

Add credit-unions, micro-finance, insurance, and as such a movement grows into capital-intensive areas bond issues to pension funds can be used. Share capital is unnecessary and you can still have limited liability ('guarantee company').

I've never been a fan of the planned economy idea though, it sounds dangerously like a recipe for overly diminished individual freedom. Neither does the free for all fight to concentrate wealth and thereby freedom appeal. I'd be happy enough with a balance, the freedom to become whatever I want so long as that does not amplify inequity too much, but where to draw that line, how to ensure it's upheld. Can of worms.

FYI - The last link was spot on, ignoring the corporate elephant in the corner. I'd love to see the accounts for the Iraq war. How were flows of wealth altered and what effect on share prices? Halliburton, Raytheon, a big list of beneficiaries, a windfall for the military industrial complex. As with many decisions the strategy is to find a way to channel tax revenue to private interests instead of social services. Same thing with needless space excursions. Audi are bragging about how few patents NASA has, but you can bet their private contractors have them.

Money = choices, money = freedom. We can look at microsoft and google and see that anyone with the skills can get to the top, but we can't all simultaneously be on the top half of the heap. I'm not a begrudger, but if others grab freedom and it reduces my freedom then I'm not pleased.

We can print more money, but the total supply of certain freedoms is bound to the finite limits of our planet. We wouldn't be happy with one person having it all, and most people fear a system that ensures everyone gets exactly the same, so just how much concentration of those freedoms do we find acceptable?