Courtney’s latest Spotlight added a piece of a mental puzzle for me that completed a circuit. I am very glad that he said this one line about “messy consent” and it basically affirmed my suspicions about the “good ETs” and how they are best to be identified.
Now I want to assert two main propositions, according to Farsight ethos.
*Humanity is trapped together (a “voter-consent” basis)
*Humanity is judged by a “messy consent” model, rather than tacit consent.
What that means is you are indeed trapped, if other humans outnumber you and make terrible decisions for you. It sucks, but that’s the deal. It is *NOT* a “your own personal choices and consequences” model. I know it sucks! Stop believing it to be just because you want it that way. Or if you do think it’s “your own choices and consequences” at least try to look for evidence not just internal dialogue and echo-chambers.
What that also means is that messy consent is valid and so it’s not just about people making immoral decisions. Stupidity (call it “innocent stupidity”) has a large role to play and unfortunately in this model it’s not so innocent.
Let me just say the mean part here. If you think consent is simple . . . I don’t know how to help you, jump off a cliff or something please, hopefully you’ll have a better brain in reincarnation, I just don’t know.
Consent is not simple. However there is, I believe, a plateau where consent can be well understood. Perhaps, like most things philosophical and scientific there are a few loose threads that once a civilization advances much further a whole new “layer” of understanding opens up and the concept is yet to be rethought. But for the position that our civilization is at, a certain plateau can be reached. The model of consent can be looked at holistically but it doesn’t just happen instantly. It requires some work and unfortunately a usage of the convoluted language we were bred into, which slows you down further.
First of all, consent exists in gradients not absolutes.
Let’s start at the very base which basically says that there is no consent required. Civilizations under this philosophy probably always will exist, or exist for a long time, and those who disagree with them will probably need to be in direct conflict with them, either at a military stalemate or a full war. There could never be “peace” between them really. Because ignoring their betrayal of consent means ignoring your own internal philosophy, which becomes contradictory. Anyhow, these civilizations still don’t exist completely devoid of a “consent model”. Their consent model has more to do with whom are the “haves” and “have-nots” and the have-nots are property, slaves, while the haves retain some sort of a business transactional power. This is why commerce models are so key across such a broad perspective. It works for both consent-based and non-consent-based models.
Let’s jump to the other extreme. You have models of tacit consent. They feel that the appropriate cut-off point for delineating consent is to suggest that any reasonable doubt whatsoever, that a point was unconsented, is reason to deny that consent exists in that point. This is probably a good civilization for those denizens to thrive, who would believe “consent is simple” but they would need to be governed by those a bit wiser. Here’s an example of the problem. Parent says “could you watch my kid for a few minutes?” , you say “sure” , after a few minutes you decide it’s not your responsibility so the child is left and let’s paint the most dire example where they get abducted by a good old epsteiner like Trump or Fauci. Anyways, what happens to the child – there could be a number of fingers pointing to blame. The parent, the epsteiner people, etc . . . but you. You walk away scott free. There is reasonable doubt to say your consent was tacit. So go on with your life, it’s ok.
Let’s jump to somewhere more in the middle. In this model consent does not need to be tacit. Reasonable doubt must outweigh the evidence for consent in order to conclude that there was no consent. This decision will be undoubtedly complicated, and in cases of critical problems (like leaving a child undefended) will need a serious investigation and some serious consequences. In this model, statements under duress are not warranted, however that duress must be established clearly not a pseudo-duress. If someone finds your hand to put your signature to a contract, whatever that contract says – this is your consent unless of course they also find a gun pointed to your head. Now it becomes not your consent. But suppose the gun was a prop and they had told you earlier that it is a pretend gun. Now it’s consent again. And even if you had bad neighbors and you live in a world of so much unfairness and convoluted rules etc . . . it’s still not under duress. In this model . . . *YOUR INTELLIGENCE ABOUT CONSENT IS ATTACHED TO YOUR ACTUAL CONSENT*
That is to say: If you haven’t had the opportunity to think about these things somewhat deeply, then it is tantamount that you insist with other influences in your life that you need the time to do this. If you have to call sick, take vacations, go homeless, go in a “crazy but not needing medication” kind of temporary setup, you just ought to do it until you feel you have a good grounding on consent.
Does that mean you need to understand the legal system as it exists today? No. The legal system is a huge convoluted mess, but here’s a part that you don’t want to miss, at its core there is a foundation that is undeniable and probably spans throughout the galaxy not just this planet. Understanding things in trust law like the difference between beneficial ownership vs legal ownership. Case law vs constitutional law. Prima facie vs ex facie. Things outside law (that really should be prevalent in law) but inside philosophy, like deontic logic using normative concepts like permissible or obligatory. These are examples of tantamount necessity in understanding consent.
My tone is mean because well I do think there’s enough evidence for a sort of “voter consent.” If your stupidity takes me down with you, I will make damn sure to put up a fight to change the situation. And I can understand, then, that if you see a lack of intelligence on my part, then your aggressive rebuttal is only to be expected because you perhaps see at least the same problem of “voter consent” basis. So let the trolling be.