Kleptocracies and How They Gain Public Support

I'm reading a very interesting book right now called Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond. In it he talks about kleptocracies and how they maintain their power even though they basically take from the common people.

Kleptocracy: a government or state in which those in power exploit national resources and steal; rule by a thief or thieves; a government where officials are politically corrupt and financially self-interested; A government characterized by rampant greed and corruption.

I'm reading the Kindle version, so this is from location 4794 of 8299:

What should an elite do  to gain popular support while still maintaining a more comfortable lifestyle than commoners? Kleptocrats throughout the ages have resorted to a mixture of four solutions:

1. Disarm the populace, and arm the elite.


2. Make the masses happy by redistributing much of the tribute received, in popular ways.


3. Use the monopoly of force to promote happiness, by maintaining public order and curbing violence.


4. Construct an ideology or religion justifying kleptocracy.

Sound familiar? Here's the rest of what Diamond says about number 4:

Bands and tribes already had supernatural beliefs, just as do modern established religions. But the supernatural beliefs of bands and tribes did not serve to justify central authority, justify transfer of wealth, or maintain peace between unrelated individuals. When supernatural beliefs gained those functions and became institutionalized, they were thereby transformed into what we term a religion.

Hawaiian chiefs were typical of chiefs elsewhere, in asserting divinity, divine descent, or at least a hotline to the gods. The chief claimed to serve the people by interceding for them with the gods and reciting the ritual formulas required to obtain rain, good harvests, and success in fishing.

Chiefdoms characteristically have an ideology, precursor to an institutionalized religion, that buttresses the chief's authority. The chief may either combine the offices of political leader and priest in a single person, or may support a separate group of kleptocrats (that is, priests) whose function is to provide ideological justification for the chiefs. That is why chiefdoms devote so much collected tribute to constructing temples and other public works, which serve as centers of the official religion and visible signs of the chief's power.

Besides justifying the transfer of wealth to kleptocrats, institutionalized religion brings two other important benefits to centralized societies. First, shared ideology or religion helps solve the problem of how unrelated individuals are to live together without killing each other - by providing them with a bond not based on kinship. Second, it gives people a motive, other than genetic self-interest, for sacrificing their lives on behalf of others. At the cost of a few society members who die in battle as soldiers, the whole society becomes much more effective at conquering other societies or resisting attacks.

Very interesting! As I read this, I noticed some elements in how the U.S. is run or how certain parties are trying to steer the country. Of course, there are elements in other countries as well, but I know the U.S. better so I won't comment on them. What are your thoughts on how governments today use these methods to maintain their comfortable lifestyle at a higher rate than what the common people have?

Thought Experiment 7

Here's another question for you. I really would love your answers:

Do you think the world will be a better or worse place 100 years from now?

That's a good question. Of course, no one knows. Anything can happen in an instant. Just look at Japan for example. Of course they live on 4 fault lines, and it wasn't a surprise that a big quake hit them, but how big it was, how it affected them, couldn't be anticipated properly.

I guess this question is more about the answerer than the asker. What kind of person am I?

Optimistic? Do I foresee a utopian society where everyone is happy and healthy like onboard the Starship Enterprise? Where basically everyone has all of their needs met, has satisfying work, has great healthcare, and has an exciting life?

Or Pessimistic? Is it going to be a dark, grim, distopian society where there are a few Haves and many more Have-nots? Where health is only for the Haves, as is good food, clean water, and justice. Where most of society is basically enslaved to the few Haves, and the lives of the Have-Nots are miserable and horrid.

Or, perhaps I am Pragmatic (ooh yes, that's me!) where I think things will probably be pretty much the same as they are now. Yes, that's how I see it. Although really it can go any direction, and I'm quite aware of that. But I think that there will still be some people with all the power and all the money, and most of us will be getting by here in the US. Other countries like China and India will probably change so drastically with their budding economies that no one can predict what they will be like.

Determinism and Free Will 2a of 4

Recently, I wrote about Determinism and Free Will. It was basically an introduction and consisted of a transcript of the Reasonable Doubts guys. Well, this is the first half of their second episode on the subject. I decided to break it up into two posts because, as you can see, it's incredibly long. And it was taking me forever to transcribe it.

So in this part, the guys are talking about determinism again, especially in regards to how to deal with people who break the law or do something wrong. This is a very touchy subject but the guys explain it well, especially when they talk about parenting.

Here you go:

1:56 Dave (D): So in our previous episode, Free Willy vs the Determinator part 1, we talked some about determinism and free will, but we didn't get to the moral implications associated with a hardcore determinist world view like the three of us seem to share. And not all naturalists do.

Jeremy (J): No, we need to acknowledge that there is diversity amongst naturalists. I will say I don't feel bad going further in saying, though, I think they're wrong. I think they're demonstrably wrong. I think accepting determinism, unfortunately or not, is necessitated by a consistently naturalistic world view. But there are people who disagree.

D: But it's a very hard thing to do, and it took me a very long time to just decide that, "yes, in fact I'm going to follow the evidence", because you're giving up a lot of things, apparently.

J: You're giving up things you never had.

D: Well, yeah. But things that I thought I had.

Religion Needs Dysfunctional Societies

So, I crawled out from under my comfy rock the other day and found out about a study that was published last year that I thought I'd share with you in case you missed it too. Gregory S. Paul published a study back in 2005 called Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look. I remember it from awhile ago and thought it was very interesting. Basically he looked at the health of prosperous societies and then looked at their absolute belief in god. If I recall, he found that the more religious a country was, the less societally healthy it was. He looked at things like crime, abortion, sexual dysfunctions, and other factors.

It was an interesting study but it was criticized in the scientific community. Well, he did another study in 2009 and this time was more rigorous. The follow up study is called The Chronic Dependence of Popular Religiosity upon Dysfunctional Psychosociological Conditions. Now I haven't read the whole thing, but Tom Rees of Epiphenom has. He was attracted to the charts, as I was, which I've added below.

What societal ills bring a country down from being successful and healthy? Paul used indicators like murder, suicide rates, size of prison populations, mortality, alcohol consumption, poverty, unemployment, sexually transmitted diseases, abortions and deaths. I think he had some positive indicators like marriages too.

Results? Unhealthy societies are more religious. Religion needs a dysfunctional society to flourish, which explains why a first world country like the U.S. can still be so religious, as you can see in all the charts. (click for larger versions)

It's About Time That The Religious Are No Longer A Protected Class

The following is a question asked of Daniel Dennett, and his answer which was in the Washington Post the other day. My comments are below.

Q: Is there widespread media bias against Christianity? Against evangelicals such as Brit Hume and Sarah Palin? Against public figures who speak openly and directly about their faith? Against people who believe as you do?

There is no media bias against Christianity. If it appears to some people that there is, it is probably because after decades of hyper-diplomacy and a generally accepted mutual understanding that religion was not to be criticized, we have finally begun breaking through that taboo and are beginning to see candid discussions of the varieties of religious folly in American life. Activities that would be condemned by all if they were not cloaked in the protective mantle of religion are beginning to be subjected to proper scrutiny.

There is still a lot to accomplish however. We need to change the prevailing assumptions in the same way that public opinion has been reversed on drunk driving. When I was young, drunk drivers tended to be excused because, after all, they were drunk! Today, happily, we hold them doubly culpable for any misdeeds they commit while under the influence.

Amusing Ourselves To Death

I saw this comparison of Aldous Huxley to George Orwell the other day. I thought it was extremely well done and thought you might find it insightful:

Amusing ourselves to death by Stuart McMillen - Aldous Huxley, author of "Brave New World vs. George Orwell, author of "Nineteen Eighty-Four"

What Would An Atheist Free America Be Like?

The other day Mark over at Proud Atheists posted an article titled What If All Atheists Left America? What he wrote is based on the video that he had in the post. It's very well done, in my opinion and I had to share it with you. It's 2:18 minutes long:



What is even better is if you go to youtube's page for it, in the description, the creator, ConversationWithA, lists all the sources used to put it together. Here is the list: (I've added a few notes where relevant. My notes are marked with an *)

Do People Need To Worship? EDITED

This is not about church so much as society and culture. Recently Farrah Fawcett died. Later in the day Michael Jackson bit the dust as well. The world seemed to forget about Farrah immediately and focus on Jacko and how much of an amazing person he was.

Do people have such short attention spans and memories? Do they so easily forget what a freak he was? Do they so mindlessly get selectively nostalgic when someone dies or a big event happens?

I am so over Jacko, not that he was ever big on my list. He was a pedophile and a full-on freak. Why is he being revered? Has the catholic church's silent acceptance of pedophilia made most people numb to such horrors when committed by the exceedingly rich? I question the cognitive processes of anyone who feels the need to worship at the feet of such sickness.

On the other hand, Farrah died at age 62 of cancer. She was a good person who actually contributed to our entertainment. When she made The Burning Bed in 1984 (which was based on a true story), she was forever changed by that experience. Not to mention, as a sex symbol, she was willing to make that movie in the first place.

I found out a few minutes ago that she left donations to shelters for abused women, as well as some of her belongings. That's wonderful and thoughtful.

But it's not as interesting, apparently, as Jacko, who slept in a hyperbaric chamber, drank "jesus juice",  was a jehovah's witness and liked to diddle little boys then pay their families off for the privilege. So the world weeps for him? That's disgusting. Why would anyone feel the need to worship such a horrid person?

Then again, why do people worship god in whatever barbaric religion he is in? Do most people need to worship and look up to someone or something above them? Is it some vestige of evolution that we have yet to shed?

EDIT: My most awesomest husband Butch has written an excellent article about Whacko Jacko, along with an exclusive photo of said molester holding some damning evidence.

Also, here are some Smoking Gun articles that may interest you:

Jackson the Predator

Jackson's Legacy (with transcript)