What Niall Ferguson left out: Human rights with Marlene

My voice and noise on subprime bank regulations: What Niall Ferguson left out: "What Niall Ferguson left out
Niall Ferguson in “Civilization: The West and the Rest” argues that the west's ascendancy, is based on six "killer apps": competition, science, democracy, medicine, consumerism and the work ethic. Those are indeed ingredients, but unfortunately he misses the willingness to take risks... the oxygen of development.
Perhaps he does not remember psalms calling out “God make us daring”… and that is why he fails to understand how the bank regulators, with their stupid nanny-scared capital requirements, based on doubling the importance of ex-ante perceived risk, are now slowly but surely taking the Western World down.
Ps. Here’s a link to… Who did the eurozone in? http://bit.ly/t3mQe0 and as you will read, it really was the butlers… and here´s also a video that explains a fraction of the stupidity of our bank regulations, in an apolitical red and blue! http://bit.ly/mQIHoi"

(from LinkedIn http://lnkd.in/9qvnNj )
Human Rights  
Here's the problem: No one has defined human rights. Or, more correctly, there are too many definitions of human rights.
Is there a fixed list? Or are human rights emergent? (developing as technology, philosophy, and civilization develop?)
Even if there were a universally (or at least world wide) definition of human rights, who's going to enforce them? If the answer is governments, then we have a problem. What governments define is civil rights - rights defined under law.- and that becomes problematic. There is no higher civil power than government defined law, right?

So first we need a list of human rights.
The UN has one, but it keeps growing. Access to the Internet has become a human right according to the UN.
FDR put one together that extended the US Bill of Rights. It looks like the list of all the topics under attack in political debate.
Is there a list that can be acceptable to most, if not all?

Are human rights emergent?
If we assume human rights are emergent, then we don't need a complete list. We still need compliance.

There is no way to enforce human rights on individuals in one-on-one or one-on-many situations.
Your discussion of nurture vs nature begins here.
For example, if we assume human rights are enforced by nurture - which would include humans rights emergent with technology, philosophy and civilization - then how long will it take to nurture a generation that understands human rights? Based on recent events, there's been no such nurturing so far. You're talking about starting a whole generation - not just part, but whole - on a very different child development concept.

If that's not difficult enough, assume human rights are enforced by nature. Here you're not talking about training just one generation, but possibly many.

How many generations does it take before someone recognizes natural human rights?

Based on history, it took about 98,250 years for someone to even declare there were inalienable rights endowed by a creator.
Of course, now we have to figure out for everyone if there was a creator.

Nurture or nature?
Whether assumed to be either nature or nurture, or some combination, human rights are still emergent as technology and the shared understanding of human rights is defined. New human rights are defined based on previous human rights.

For example, if we assume - as has been declared by the UN - that the Internet is a basic human right, then we must assume access to some sort of connection - wireless or wired - and some source of energy are also human rights.

The human right to self-rule was such an emergent human right. It emerged as a reaction to monarchies and merchants, and the declarations of the Reformation, as the Enlightenment.
At one time it would have been considered a human right to have a king, for example, along with an aristocracy and nobility.

Many of the human or civil rights we think of as "natural" to day were really emergent rights.
Property rights, for example, is the basis of all economies today. But it wasn't always true.
While it makes easy logic to understand how a king can own or rule everything within the borders of his/her kingdom, the idea of individuals owning small parcels has always been problematic.
As the American Indians will tell you, the idea that a man can own the land is ridiculous.

Governments and emergent human rights
In order to have property rights, you have to have some form of government.

It was the rise in the financial power of mercantilism and banking during the 10th to 14th centuries that provoked the emergent right to property. These classes became more wealthy than the kingdoms. Their wealth put the kingdoms in the position of having to ask these classes to finance state functions, such as wars.

It was the emergence of the new social technologies of trade and banking the kingdoms had to deal with.

In the UK and Australia today, it's still true officially that the king or queen actually owns and rules over all the land. Land ownership is only a grant that can be withdrawn at any time.

Even in supposedly capitalist countries, the government defines limits to property ownership. Taxes are the way governments assert their control, and can reclaim ownership. There are mineral and air rights defined that can limit the individuals' ownership.

Yet merchants and banks can't exist unless some government(s) defines money.

And then there's the media...
Allen Funt, host of a popular show, Candid Camera, was once asked what was the most disturbing thing he had learned about people in his years of dealing with them through the media. His response was chilling in its ramifications:

"The worst thing, and I see it over and over, is how easily people can be
led by any kind of authority figure, or even the most minimal kinds of authority.
A well dressed man walks up the down escalator and most people will turn
around and try desperately to go up also...
We put up a sign on the road, 'Delaware Closed Today'. Motorists didn't
even question it. Instead they asked: 'Is Jersey open?'"

'via Blog this'

Time or Understanding

Marlene,
(taken from a LinkedIn discussion on the White House group http://lnkd.in/9qvnNj )

How many ways has this been said? And by how many people? Is the answer simply reflection? Or is it some structural change?

Your post refers to the Moral Molecule, psychopaths and sociopaths. The references discuss all of those topics along with narcissism.
The problem is two fold:
 ♦ The words psychopath, sociopath and narcissist are meaningless buzzwords to most people.
 The terms are understood to be negative, somehow, but what do they really mean? Or do they all mean the same thing? Do the terms describe different aspects of the same mental disorder? -- Because most people cannot answer these questions, the terms drift into cognitive dissonance.
 ♦ Is there enough time to make the changes that seem necessary?

Over 35 years ago, I submitted an essay to my teachers relating the fact that people think in dichotomies and models. I was just a high school student in a small California high school.

Essentially, the paper said people's perceptions are not one-sided. For every Yes, there's a No; for every black, a white. I argued that language tended to describe only one side of a discussion without becoming bogged down, overwhelmed by volume, and was inadequate to describe the whole meaning of an issue as the author or speaker perceived it.
I put forward the idea that the real meaning of any words required some statement about the perspective and experience relating to the development of the topics and ideas discussed in order to understand the dichotomies involved.

The most controversial idea in the essay was the people do say what they mean. In fact, because there is always a dichotomy involved, the apparent meaning has both meanings: affirmation and the opposite.

Therefore, people often say one thing and do another, but it's unfair to expect anything different.
I went on to say that people form models from these dichotomies that are applied to other issues. In order to understand a person's words, it was necessary to understand the models they had formed.

You can imagine how my high school literature teacher, who was teaching from Shakespeare's plays, reacted.

What I didn't realize is I was talking about aspects of pathological thinking; that the models became ideologies which serve to allow the person to place any sense of conscience into mental bins of denial or cognitive dissonance. In effect, the person is training themselves into mental illness.
We call that training personality.

We admire those who walk the talk because it is rare.
Most people say one thing, or many things, charming and evocatively, but will do something anathema to their words. It's not just individuals. It's groups and parties and nations that do the same thing.
It's human nature.

 Game theory offers an interesting insight. (from a link off the pages you refer to)
 ◄In short, in this game, the government always does better by not being ethical and we can predict the government's choice of strategy because there is a single strategy - no ethics - that is better for the government no matter what choice the public makes. This is a "strictly dominant strategy," or a strategy that is the best choice for the player no matter what choices are made by the other player.

What is even worse is the fact that the public is PENALIZED for behaving ethically. Since we know that the government, in the above regime, will never behave ethically because it is the dominant strategy, we find that ethical behavior on the part of the public actually costs MORE than unethical behavior.◄
Official Culture - A Natural State of Psychopathy?
 by Laura Knight-Jadczyk
 http://bit.ly/rQmYce

 The concepts are not new. They go back to the beginnings of civilization.
◄(T)he warnings of Innanni (Ishtar) from ancient Suma, 5500 years ago.
 ====
 (T)he goddess Innanna brought the arts of civilization from the god of wisdom, Enku Eridu, like a Pandora's box
 Here were the delights of society exquisite craftsmanship, beautiful clothes, the arts of sex and music, But civilization has a darker side. said Enki, which has to be accepted along with the good. There is the art of being mighty; the art of being kind; the art of straightforwardness; the art of deceit; the art of kingship, justice, and the enduring crown; the resounding note of a musical instrument; the rejoicing of the harp; the kindling of strife; the plundering of cities; the setting off of lamentations.

Fear, pity, terror - all this is civilization, said the god of wisdom. All this I give you. And you must take it all with no argument. And once taken, you cannot give it back. ◄

 This is from TechRepublic today.
 ◄That’s why the premise of The Sociopath Next Door, a book by Martha Stout, gives me the major creeps. Stout claims that as many as 4% of the population are conscienceless sociopaths who have no empathy or affectionate feelings for humans or animals. Sociopaths (or the more politically correct term, someone with antisocial personality disorder) show a lack of regret in their actions, with a common trait being the violation of the rights of others.

This book was brought to my attention by a friend of mine in response to my telling her about one of my son’s friends being bullied at work by her boss. I don’t know if Stout’s 4% metric is accurate but I know that I hear an awful lot from readers of this blog who are dealing with bosses that I believe could be characterized as sociopaths.◄
Your boss could be a sociopath. No, really.
 TechRepublic
 http://tek.io/uGQvGi

 ♦Evil Genes 
It's not just the 4% who have the sociopath gene that's the real problem. It's the fact that people have learned the advantages of this model of behavior, and train themselves to it.

We call these people 'leaders', 'visionaries', and 'professionals'. Subject the concept of professional to the merest scrutiny and you can see the concept is sociopathic. In fact, narcissistic.

In short, we reward and admire most in our society that learn to lie best: lawyers, actors, and salespeople. 

Based on the reception my essay got and the 5500-year old warning from Ishtar, is it realistic to assume there is time to make the changes you propose?

Business and the social contract

A part of the thinking behind the conceptualization of Regulatory agencies as information repositories is, I think, what you're talking about here.

"Ergo, our valiant words are burped out of the orifice of the money drunk. We have and continue to lose credibility in the global expanse. I agree that transnationals are likely the answer and do not support that we dominate. I am saying we a no example of any sense of the "common good" or wishing to see humanity survive. "

In my terms, you're saying the transnationals have the power, but don't consider themselves parties to the social contract. If so, I agree.

Business has taken the political position of being antithetical to government. It's a straw man. Business cannot exist without effective government. Business requires both the law and enforcement of the law or there are no property rights (other than that provided by thugs and warlords.)
All incorporated organizations must be licensed and registered by a government, or they effectively are those thugs and warlords.

Business has chosen the political position as antithetical to government in order to oppose taxes, regulation, and unions. Those roles are better understood in terms of the monopoly stage of capitalism, where business sought market share.

The present stage of capitalism can better be called global capitalism, where business seeks to control governments across national borders. In time, all levels of business will be forced -- as we're already seeing -- to respond to the goals of globalization and global capitalism.

Business will be networked as defined in management science. Much of transnational business already is. (see the excerpt above) The networking aspect is an opportunity for the concepts of networked innovation to be applied. The key goal for government and regulators is to develop a network to include all stakeholders and avoid becoming increasingly insignificant. 
That goal will only increase in importance as capitalism moves into the state capitalism stage; where business and government effectively form controlled economies.

These changes and goals will draw business ever deeper into the social contract.