Tyranny

I had wanted to write something about tyranny, but realised that if I followed through with my original line of thought, there was a high chance that I would be painting a large enough target on my back such that the particularly vocal and vociferous minority would overwhelm the stupid algorithm through a carefully coordinated raid and there would be no recourse for me, since I'm no multi-million reader blogging superstar that the big G would try to protect.

Welcome to one of the first signs of self-censorship that I have to take on myself. I don't think it's the first though, considering that I have been writing blog entries here since 2006.

I can talk about them obliquely though, which can still raise my target profile, but at a less obvious rate. So here we go.

Alright, let's begin with a paraphrased definition from Merriam-Webster:

tyranny

1. oppressive power, especially oppressive power exterted by a government
2. a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force
3. an oppressive, harsh, or unjust act: a tyrannical act

In the Bad Old Days, tyranny is enforced through physical force---can't argue with anyone who has a Big Weapon that can threaten one with bodily harm.

That is still true by the way. In most places that we think of as being under tyrannical rule, the main enforcement is still through physical force. It may take the form of a direct threat of bodily harm to oneself, or it may take the form of indirectly harming one through harming one's family---the principle is similar.

Now, consider this: not everyone is some oppressive bastard hell-bent on total control. More importantly, tyrannies cannot exist if the one doing the oppression is in the extreme minority. So what enables a few people to tyrannise a majority then?

The answer, surprisingly enough, is through the rigid application of rules with no practical means of fixing the rules should they turn out to be ``wrong''.

There are two halves of the answer that need addressing, but let me first talk about the principle behind being a successful tyrant. It's the military concept of ``force multiplication''---a single tyrant doesn't have as much leverage as an army of them that are controlled by the single tyrant himself/herself. Thus, while there may ``only'' be one tyrant, there are many enablers under that said tyrant that end up creating a tyranny itself.

Enablers are formed when there are rules that need to be applied with no room for interpretation whatsoever. Interpretation allows free-will, and free-will is one of the ways to break through a tyranny. By making the rules rigid, there is the psychological safety that an enabler can hide into by saying something to the effect of ``look, it's not me who wants to do this, but you know, rules are rules, and we have to follow the rules because it says that we must do this''. It's a cop out, kind of like how execution firing squads sometimes have guns loaded with blank cartridges to give some moral escape through the reasoning of ``hey I didn't fire the killing shot''.

That alone isn't sufficient, because it would mean that much of the law-based systems that we have are tyrannical. Well, they are in some sense since there needs to be some level of consensus on how the society ought to be run before it can be run. But what separates a tyranny from not a tyranny is the crucial second half, which is having no practical means of fixing the rules should they turn out to be ``wrong''. There are many variables in that statement, but the most important one is ``practical''. Having a formal system to vote representatives of the people, combined with a lack of impingement of the exercise of free-will in the choice, and allowing actual freedom of options to choose are what makes the way ``practical'', assuming of course that the representatives chosen can actually pass new rules (laws) to update/fix the old ones.

If at any point the yay/nay of a rule is solely determined by a small group of people who cannot be practically rotated out, then we have a tyranny.

Modern social media platforms and other ``free'' hosted platforms are tyrannies under this definition. The rules are rigid (enforced by algorithms), and they cannot be practically changed (can't re-program said algorithms and/or petition for a reprogramming with any hope of success without using other external sources of tyranny). Thus, when using such platforms, it behooves one to be careful to not trigger the algorithm's enforcement, because for the vast majority of us, there is just now way to appeal against it.

These rules are often abused by other people who intend to oppress others too. And that's why I have to self-censor my original line of discussion on it.

The more astute should have this in mind now: ``hey MT, by your definition, isn't God's law a tyranny then? Rules are rigid, and there's no way to change them.''

Yes, they would be correct. God's law is a tyranny. But the big difference is that God Is, and God is not human. He outclasses us in every way that we can measure, and is unknowable. His Will creates reality. To violate God's law is some sense, trying to violate reality. No, don't bring up Leviticus without looking at what the New Testament has said. I keep emphasising that there is a reason why the Bible comprises both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

``But MT, if the reason why we accept God's law despite it being a tyranny is that God outclasses us in every way, then why the same reasoning cannot be put on an algorithm?'' Because while the algorithm may not be easy to explain (see the mess that is from artificial neural networks) within the lifetime of a human, it can be explained in a finite amount of time, because they are still finite systems representable as a large system of equations, and are substantiated by mathematics. God is self-substantiating; He is His own truth. Can't beat that in terms of class.

But that said, just because God's law is a tyranny that we ought to accept is no grounds for accepting the tyranny of anyone who claims to be enforcing God's law---this is a very subtle nuance that most people will not catch. My current understanding of this is this: for the non-believers, they will be cut off from God in the end times, regardless of whether they follow God's law or not; but for the believers, as long as they keep their faith and truly repent, they will be with God in the end times. As to who counts as a believer and who counts as a non-believer, the ultimate arbiter is still Christ Himself, and not any of us yokels who still walk on the earth.

Alright, that's enough out of me.

Till the next update.