Fairness Doctrine
At risk of being labeled a Utopian, I propose the following principles to formalize the elusive quality of society, known as fairness. To be labeled a Utopian is to have ones ideas dismissed because they do not imply a sufficiently realistic contempt of natural human character. No people has ever endured cruelty without the inflictor first establishing a solid rationale, which boils down to: a) They deserve our cruelty as retribution for some crime; b) They’d do the same to us, given the opportunity; or c) If we aren’t cruel to them, they will be even crueler to one another. All three options are perfect justifications for the escalation of divides, via the ignorance to fear to hatred to violence pipeline which has become a daily commute in modern western society.
The media kicks off each campaign with rigorous disinformation, targeting in most cases a weak minority segment of society or a weak nation with rich natural resources. For example, the US press zealously spread the unevidenced rumor that Iraq had WMDs. This was untrue, as we should know, because we are the ones who armed Saddam in the 1980s. Not only that, but we also had already made clear by this point that Sadaam’s war crimes didn’t bother us. The same machinery spread the claim that immigrants bring crime to the US, in spite of abundant government statistics proving the legal and illegal immigrant crime rates are lower than those of naturally born US citizens.
Step one is known as scapegoating, the willful and strategic engineering by the powerful of ignorance among the masses. A rational and compassionate public need not be corrupted — a campaign of disinformation and uninformation can ensure that even the most moral and ethical public will tolerate and even support any degree of evil. Therefore, it seems that the solution to the darkness of our times is the light of reality. Empirical facts and exposed secrets should surely heal our divides. If only it were possible.
More realistically, I propose that disinformation will always abound and bad actors in opportune positions will always use their advantage for personal profit at the public expense. When the public is being misled into support of some atrocity, the only sure defense is a principle.
Here’s a quote we all know: “Your either die a hero or live long enough to become the villain.” This is the perfect presentation of the narcissist socialist dilemma. Should one hold onto power past the point where that power is legitimate, just to continue enjoying being important and in control as an individual? Should our institutions do the same? I think they should be disarmed by the same principles upon which they were established. Good things must die when their time comes, or they become bad. A great example of this is the oil industry. Nobody questions the incredible contributions to human progress made by fossil fuels and the technologies they enable — but now the owners and institutions are inflicting terrible damage to the public and the world, just to hold onto their privileged positions onboard the Titanic. If the petroleum industry had bowed out to renewable energy, or even invested in it, they would be the great heroes of our time. But instead, they were incentivized to hide the evidence of global warming, lobby the government to corrupt public officials, and even work to undermine renewable energy companies through undercutting. How can we build productivity and commerce system where this abhorrent behavior is not rewarded, but rather individual and institutional incentives are aligned with the impact their activities have on the public.
Intuitively, the majority of non-sociopaths can agree that if someone decided to make money by dumping sewage in the city drinking water, then used the proceeds to buy bottled water and evade the consequences while saving a substantial to build wealth, this would be unfair to the town’s public. In fact, the towns public should take action against this jerk to stop his activity, compel him to undo the damage, and pay reparation to the people he harmed. In our current system, our man can simply create a fund with some of his profits to bribe the public representatives, blocking them from taking any action on behalf of the people they supposed act on behalf of (this is called lobbying). This is the difference between a political system in which the highest power structure represents the interests of the public, or just a handful of wealthy sociopaths.
For example, it would sound absurd to say that congress is made up of public representatives. We all know that they have much stronger financial ties, friendships, mutual dependencies, and even intermarriages with business interests. So really, Washington D.C. is full of Private Representatives. Sure, they disagree — Senators bought by Wall Street are fighting tooth and nail against Senators bought by coal companies for limited taxpayer handouts via government contracts, tax breaks, and all manors of anti-capitalist assistance. There are the Silicon Valley Senators and the Military Contractor Senators, the Big Pharma Senators and the Car Company Senators. They can all agree on a few subjects, however. The public is an easy target for exploitation, surveillance, and compulsion.
