Is control that bad?

[dueda]

A guy decided to visit a dangerous place and was killed by the locals. Should authorities predict and preemptively stop people from doing what they want?

Case in point is John Chau, killed by aborigines in the Andaman e Nicobar islands, tribes with no interest in contacting other peoples and very hostile; also they have no immunity to pathogens found around the world, can be eradicated by the germs we carry, and their culture can be completely changed just by inserting a new idea or object.

Any way, the guy decided he could to go there (with a few "gifts" including a foot ball), make contact, and return intact, knowing it was forbidden. He was no researcher, had no particular interest but taking pictures and feed his ego. He acted alone and was unprepared for it, just bribed some fishermen to take him there. Sounds like he didn't google; attempts like that usually result in tragedy.

As many other things that may be harmful to one self or others, this could've been avoided with intense monitoring and preemptive detention. Boats could've tracking devices, places could've cameras linked to artificial intelligence, motion detectors, drones, and so on; authorities could've been notified to detain those people before coming close to the archipelago or even bar the "romantic white man explorer" from boarding the plane by his posts on social networks, his phone messages, his travel history, and many other data. His behavior and capacities could've been recorded and analyzed from childhood, and his liberties adjusted accordingly, to the point a "supervisor" should be consulted to regulate his activities.

Should we do it? I believe so, as the guy clearly was infantile and orientation is not a bad thing. We all are, it's the nature of men. But then comes the collateral: It will not serve only noble and practical purposes, men will always abuse power. And it won't be used to detain all kinds of prejudice, like big corporations spying on people, manipulating the market, corrupt politicians, etc.

Maybe the worst part is it already being done, more and more, and we not even knowing how much, when, and where we're being controlled. We're in a world without liberties because some men turned others into product and merchandise; it's only natural to IoT and Big Data the peoples.

[RodneyYouPlonker]

I would have thought that somebody like Executive or somebody like that on here would be the best person to come and answer your thread dueda.  This is really not my field at all and I'm way out of my depth.  I know there are probably people who can add further discussion to this topic and I'm sure they will be here at some point, maybe not just right now but perhaps later on in a few days time maybe?

[waregim]

The guy competed for,and won a Darwin Award. The tribes deserve a reward, such as a cargo drop full of string, needles and cloth. And perhaps a few ant colonies as delicacies.

The very notion of precrime is an outrage against any concept of justice since the ENlightenment, even at a time when Western civilisatiion itself is circling the drain.

That said, Rockefeller's son was killed, and eaten by a similar tribe after he stole a totem. No action was taken. Or should have been.

Security is inversely proportional to freedom.
The safest place is a padded cell.

[dueda]

I can't see all of the equation in that.

Total freedom is a state where everybody can do or undo anything, anyone, any way or where, no limits. Absolutely no limits. As we are individuals, it's logical that a perfect condition would be zero interference. Nobody should interfere on what others do, but that would take them the liberty of doing it.

So, in a free world anyone can stop others from being free (quite wicked, uh?) and people could be free to gather in bands - To protect themselves from freedom takers or to empower themselves over others' freedoms.

IF those assumptions are correct, the safest place wouldn't be a padded cell, but being part of the strongest gang, at least being the guy "with the bigger gun".

Security is indeed inversely proportional to freedom, but it doesn't means we should have freedom. What do we do with it? Why don't we keep it?

[contrail]

Was he even using common sense at all?

[waregim]

Absolute freedom, as defined by by Ayn Rand Libbertarians, (teabaggers) is iindeed the total freedom to plunder, rape, kill, and torture others at will. It is the apex of feudalism and the logical conclusion of a 'free market' economy. It also defines a Master and Slave class, which was best defined by Goebbels, Himmler and Ribbentrop.

It is the diametric opposite of anarcho-libertarianism. Where authority is horizontal, and not hierachical. It can take many forms, but a good long term version of it is communalism in the form of the Amish. They are not even bound by Luddism, as many join the 'modern world' but maintain their roots as Mennonites.

Social libertarianism, anarcho-libertarianism, and communalism are essentially the same, and well typified by folks like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky.

Anarchism, as defined by Bakunin has been long demonized in the West due to some of its bomb throwing proponents, as well as some of its more extreme views oon the social order. Marx was not an anarchist, though he idealized the dissolution of the State. However his social theories were heavily influenced by the communistic, but somewhat authoritarian Jewish shtetls of the Pale, and Eastern Europe, which though largely 'liberated' by Napoleon, nevertheless had a strong influence on European socialist thought.

There are no Absolutes in nature, including absolute freedom - all result in paradox. Even Absolute Zero Kelvin is in theory breachable.

The problem is that among primate societies there are TWO natural forms of being. One is competitive and authoritarian, with a vertical pecking/grooming order. And the other is co-operative, social, where oder is consensual, with personal bonds of family and tribe.

Unfortunately for the latter, in humans they are largely matriarchal, and not testosterone driven. Making them easily defeated.

Good examples of the two living concurrently were the Eastern American Indians of the 17th Century. The Delaware River tribes such as the Lenape and the Nanticoke were remarkably amiablye even in the face of adversity - preferring peace and cooperation to war. Unlike the cannibal Hurons, and the genocidal Pamunkeys, who were just as nasty, if not more so than the Europeans. Of note: Pocohontas, the Pamunkey princess, married John Rolfe (not Smith) who was the first to introduce Black Slavery into the British colonies. Previously they used Indians, Irish, and the occasional wandering Dutchman.

Overall point being that 'freedom' is a totally ambiguous term. In leftist terms it means freedom of personal expression, and economic equality. In liberal terms it means economic freedom to exploit, and economic hegemony, with political rights secondary. In conservative terms it means expression constrained by the limits of the current social/religious milieu. with no inherent concepts of economic equality. The Clintons are liberal, Pat Buchanan is a conservative, there are no mainstream leftists in our mainstrain culture, perhaps except Assange.

A disclaimer here is that these are artificial and broad generalizations. Trump, like Mussolini is a fascist, where government and corporatism ase welded together. His main conflicts rest on the fact that his corporatism is ireal estate industry based, while the Deep State is primarily financial based, with armaments secondary.

[dueda]

Sorry for mentioning the theoretical extremes, but the quickest tool to elaborate. After your excellent explanation, I would quote two points:

1) There are no Absolutes in nature, including absolute freedom - all result in paradox.
Overall point being that 'freedom' is a totally ambiguous term.

2) The problem is that among primate societies there are TWO natural forms of being. One is competitive and authoritarian, the other is co-operative.
Unfortunately for the latter, in humans they are largely matriarchal, and not testosterone driven. Making them easily defeated.

We loosely label things to keep it short, but the definition of freedom, a valued(?) human right/need, is vague... We can't have what we don't define or at least limit in scope, so we don't value it that much. Of course it varies with time and place, but a few ideas are universal.

People in many countries think some things are unacceptable, but don't care for surveillance, data collecting, etc. Many think it's for the better or just unavoidable (as many things in life) so not worth futile resistance. Point being if it won't take the freedom to do what is legal, why should we care? It's like a safety device. In fact, most people aren't good to go without the side wheels and speed limiter.

Of course, under such a restrictive system, the law must serve society and progressively become more balanced. Poor law text and application are a couple things such system would easily point out - If not severely abused and obscure. In a Big Brother scenario it would be impossible to subvert or take down the system; once abused that model would become the perfect authoritarian tool.

So freedom will never exist if one can't hold it, for others will always be able to take it and many won't resist; what one individual refuses, others won't see, understand, or care for. And while we avoid more efficient systems, the current societies are already authoritarian and abusive. I see a chance for the Big Brother to become transparent, as every individual collect and post everything on an open platform - It's quite invasive, but will balance what corrupt governments, corporations, and individuals already do.

I vote to give the powers-that-be total control, they already fool people into a "soma", let them breed the weaklings in farms. OR we should have total access to the data (no commentaries, it's not for fun/bullying).

---

PS: Human females tend to negotiate and tolerate, but so do the males in power - Only politicians are more cunning than women. So matriarchal or not the circles of power seem to be the problem. I guess we are flawed because we don't live together, men and women, in search of enlightenment. Breaking the smallest human unit is an ancient tactic to break thinking, resistance, and ultimately what makes us whole (dehumanizing). Division by specialization works for bees, but I won't take it; don't want to be a "Delta".

[politux]

Was he even using common sense at all?

Clearly not.  I'm more disturbed by the fact that this tribe clearly wants to be left alone, and it is an amazing thing to have uncontacted peoples in 2018.  They are a window into our hunter gatherer past.  They should be studied without interference and left alone.

[dueda]

Was he even using common sense at all?

Clearly not ... They should be studied without interference and left alone.

That is what intellect dictates, but as individuals, we take for granted our 'right' to decide what we want to do (for any reason), even if it's nonsense, illegal, or immoral. So my idea of Big Brotherism, put tracking chips in people, huge surveillance networks, letting go privacy, stopping people before they actually engage into something dangerous. Just teaching them is clearly not working.

[politux]

Not sure how what you said has to do with the specific situation of an uncontacted tribe.