NO, DECEPTION ISN’T NECESSARY @ Mea Culba I do make sense of what you are trying

NO, DECEPTION ISN’T NECESSARY

@ Mea Culba

I do make sense of what you are trying to say, but all I see is that you defend a prior intuition that you understand not that you describe a good or a necessity, and it is not clear at all you can make a rational choice without choosing between the alternatives.

A man does not study comparative theology, philosophy or literature without studying that which conflicts with it. I have taken it upon myself to eradicate all falsehood no matter how comforting and to question whether all goods can be produced without falsehood. And since they can, there is no need for falsehood.

And while I realize less developed cultures and states (those with less influence of commerce and law and greater influence norm and religion) cannot imagine that it is possible to create a high-roman or high-anglo-saxon order in the absence of falsehood the fact of the matter is that the only controlling factors are (a) demographic: elimination of the underclass, and (b) the scope of suppression of falsehood under the law. All else follows.

If you have a judiciary and a military (police/sheriff/militia) that will do as it is commanded by the judiciary then the judiciary in fact serves as a cult of truth and the various religions serve as cults of lies. It is this competition between meritocratic and hierarchical law and non-meritocratic equalitarian deception (religion) that describes the past 2500 years or more.