One of the most important commands in the history of humanity was inscribed on the Temple of Delphi: Know thyself. One of the biggest mistakes of humanity was not following it.
If humans truly knew themselves, they would have true social science—i.e., laws of human behavior which were indisputable rather than theories and debates which are interminable.
If humans had social science, they would not allow themselves to be tricked into tyranny. The moment a leader tried to abolish term limits, for example, it would be an undisputed fact that this person was laying the groundwork for tyranny. Unfortunately, though, the reality of human social science is that any idea, event, or personality can be interpreted in any way the speaker wants.
The critical difference between social science and physical science is that while the behavior of molecules can be predicted, the behavior of humans cannot. At some point, there will be a leader who moves to abolish term limits, and it’s not because he wants to instigate tyranny; it’s because of something else. Therefore, this disproves any scientific truth in the statement that a leader who is abolishing term limits is always laying the groundwork for tyranny.
But this is where the naivety and vulnerability of humans come to the fore. The fact that this exception to the rule can exist does not mean the rule isn’t a rule. And I know your mind is rebelling right now and screaming that, of course, the exception means it isn’t a rule, but I’m going to need you to escape the human way of thinking for a moment.
Instead of being a stickler for proof that the leader is definitely initiating tyranny, be a stickler for the effect of demanding proof. Because you refuse to believe in the rule ( because it’s theoretically possible he’s not abolishing term limits for nefarious reasons) you open the gateway for the rest of history for humans to be tricked into tyranny. However, if everyone simply believes in the rule, then every delegate and every citizen would presume that the tyrant was planting the seeds of tyranny and would have an opportunity to act accordingly and head off the tyranny.
“That’s all very well,” your stickler mind replies, “but the simple fact is that it isn’t a rule that’s 100% scientifically watertight, so none of the delegates or the citizens can believe it.” But the consequences of your stickling are that the tyrant can use the gray area of uncertainty and ambiguity to hoodwink them. So quite frankly, who gives a shit? In other words, there are certain political events which you cannot afford to demand 100% proof of what’s happening before you react because the stakes might be your entire political system and, by extension, if you don’t follow the laws of intelligent species survivaal… your world. So why the fuck are you going to start stickling about whether something is 100% predictable or not? Act as if it is, and always give a 100% predictable response.
To formulate it in clear and blunt terms: if there is a high probability of a dark outcome to a political event, then you cannot let the small probability of no dark outcome prevent you from acting.
Basically, I concede that if you want to be a stickler, then you’re probably not going to get a watertight set of scientific, predictable rules for human social science. But I hope that after reading this you will create a 100% predictable scientific rule for how you will act when anyone starts fucking with your democracy.
