Trust is a universal force analogous to gravity. Without trust people would literally fall apart, one from another. I walk down the street trusting that no one will start attacking me with a machete. I go into a shop to buy milk trusting that I will not be given bleach, and pay with money that I trust is not counterfeit or a card that I trust will register in some place I trust without the least clue where it is, the correct amount of money. — unenlightened

Do you guys not walk down streets or buy stuff in shops? Of course you all do. So at every point you put your trust in others. You are playing at the sophistication of mistrust for rhetorical or egotistic purposes. Stop it now, because this a is rather serious matter that requires some thought and a rigorous honesty.

Do you guys not walk down streets or buy stuff in shops? — unenlightened

I do but I also have to be aware that someone could rip me off or make a mistake on the total purchase amount so I might check the receipt or whatever. Healthy paranoia.

Such trust seems to me to be a default state. We always end up trusting something since doubt is always practiced on some ground, held up by trust in it. A state where such trust does not happen is one of utter paralysis; not even the world itself could reassure us of its continued function by continuing to function as it does. People play at that on the forum a lot, practicing Cartesian doubt while typing on a keyboard which allegedly is not reassuring enough to exist.

We're all skeptical of things that do not conform to our expectations, we can make a game of this and reassure ourselves by defeating all "enemy ideas", leaving the unarticulated position we inhabit the only thing that feels left standing.

If the ability to share the same sources of trust, those grounds that doubt leaves standing, is diminished, so is the social fabric those grounds together constitute.

But in such a state of alienation, things will still be trusted in this sense by necessity, people do stuff upon a background their expectations hold fixed.

When trust is lost, there are laws and punishments and hierarchies of watchdogs watching each other. But trust is not restored, except by honesty. — unenlightened

There's honesty and then there's truth. We only know if someone is honest if we are able to otherwise find the truth. And if we can find the truth ourselves, we don't need to appeal to any authority. We just go take a look for ourselves.

So, to restore honesty would make things more expedient because we wouldn't have to spend the time checking up on people, but it would also make us more subject to being conned by those who remain dishonest. Could all this really mean that we're just seeing the consequences of the information age come to fruition? We no longer need to trust Walter Cronkite. We can look for ourselves. And what we've learned when we looked for ourselves is that those we had trusted may have just been selling a point a view.

Maybe we've lost trust, but we've found truth. Is that so bad an exchange? Maybe the truth is that there never really was all this honesty.

We only know if someone is honest if we are able to otherwise find the truth. — Hanover

I know if I am honest. If I can otherwise find the truth, I don't have to care about your honesty.

Maybe we've lost trust, but we've found truth. — Hanover

I don't know who you think has found truth and lost trust, or how or when this happened. I ask you the same question - do you walk down the street and buy stuff in the shops, travel on public transport, fire bullets made in a factory, let the dentist near your face with his needles and drills? Then you haven't lost trust.

I don't know who you think has found truth and lost trust, or how or when this happened. I ask you the same question - do you walk down the street and buy stuff in the shops, travel on public transport, fire bullets made in a factory, let the dentist near your face with his needles and drills? Then you haven't lost trust. — unenlightened

Well, sure, total trust has not been lost. But do I trust the dentists like I once did, and do I just take my medicine as prescribed? I probably do a whole lot more research now than before, as I'd suspect we all do. And all this happened once that information became accessible to me, which is very much a Google thing.

too much power
— Harry Hindu

How much is too much? My milk provider has the power of life and death over me, because I drink the stuff without testing it. Think bus driver rather than supreme leader. — unenlightened

Exactly. It's subjective. Some people give some of their decision-making power to others because making decisions is hard for them. How much power someone is willing to give up is subjective, so how much power a government should have is subjective and therefore shouldn't be imposed on others who can make most of the decisions for themselves. There is no government that one size fits all. That's the whole point.

Well, sure, total trust has not been lost — Hanover

Excellent. This is where I want to start, with our inescapable mutual dependence. I switch the light on trusting that it has been wired up so it doesn't give me a shock or set fire to the house. We need to trust. therefore we need to be honest. We need to communicate, therefore we need to be honest.

All this mistrust is macho posing, and chronic anxiety. But at the same time it is being normalised by the media and by politics - and alas, by philosophy.

It's subjective. — Harry Hindu

What is subjective? That I buy milk? That I drink it without testing it? that I doesn't kill me?

How much power someone is willing to give up is subjective, — Harry Hindu

Well no Harry, the whole premise of this thread is that it is not subjective and there is no choice. Every aspect of modern live relies on other people behaving responsibly, as a matter of life and death and this is inescapable. I have already given many examples of everyday life that require trust, because everyday folks have each other's life in their hands giving injections, footing ladders, driving vehicles, building houses. The government merely conducts this orchestra of mutual trust. These are facts, not subjective at all.

Some people who have had bad experiences become paranoid or anxious, poor fellows. — unenlightened

Economists call it 'confidence' and measure it. It is real, it is social, it is the glue of society, and the media that betray it are more destructive than war and terrorism. — unenlightened

What about certainty? I have had a series of misfortunes in my life. I find it exhausting and rather not expose myself. Yet, I am afraid of dying in the sense that I do not trust the world or physical laws itself.

Should God be trusted if not Google?

I find it exhausting and rather not expose myself. — Shawn

Yes, if you have been betrayed by those you needed to trust, then the fact that you keep having to trust people causes anxiety.

Should God be trusted if not Google? — Shawn

I don't say you should or shouldn't trust either of them. I say you have to trust the world and the people who make your dinners and fill your prescriptions . Or starve in unmedicated isolation.

I'm saying we all depend for our lives on the decency of strangers and neighbours. The really extraordinary thing is that there should be any debate whatsoever about this; that I have come to an age, and the world has come to a state where this needs to be mentioned at all. The age of the rational self-interested man, and his trophy wife.

So what level of trust is enough for a functioning society? Do you trust scientists? Do you trust hospitals? Do you trust your mechanic not to tamper with the breaks? The building blocks around trust are many more than "if there's a chance of abuse, there will be abuse". — Christoffer

I don't look at this as a matter of trust. I do business with a lot of different people, many of whom I don't particularly trust, the question of whether I trust them or not just doesn't come up in my mind. The situation is more like one of need. I need the service they offer, so I do business with them without thinking about whether or not I ought to trust them. You, and unenlightened, might argue that the fact I do choose to do business with them implies that I trust them. I don't think that way, and I know that I do business with a few whom I particularly don't trust. I just need to be more wary of these people.

We can't get rid of the risk of abuse without losing freedom, so we can only minimize it. Repercussions to companies conducting such abuse, risk of closure, legal actions etc. Alongside that the risk of the business losing the trust of the customers which is a major part of having a business running. Risking that trust is not a good business strategy and doing so requires extreme measures that could be even riskier. — Christoffer

So I would look at the Google issue more as a question of need. If they offer a service which is needed, then we use it, whether or not we trust them. But doing business with someone whom you do not particularly trust means that you need to be wary. We could assume, that just like doing business with anyone else, the company would want to give us honest service to maintain a reputation, but such assumptions are what leave us vulnerable.

Do you guys not walk down streets or buy stuff in shops? Of course you all do. So at every point you put your trust in others. — unenlightened

I think you are giving trust too much credit here. As I say above, the motivation to shop, or to do any sort of business is a person's wants and needs. Because I do business with someone, doesn't necessarily mean that I trust that person. You might call this 'putting my trust in others', and that's an apt expression, because I am relying on the other person to fulfill their side of the deal, and provide for me, but I don't think trust even enters my mind in most cases, despite that expression. I just take it for granted that the person will do what is supposed to be done, and if they do not, I'm disappointed. It seems to me, like trust only enters my mind if I see some reason for distrust. Then I'll question whether I ought to trust the person or not. But lack of distrust does not necessarily imply trust. If you look up "trust" in The Oxford, you'll see it defined as "a firm belief in the reliability...". In my habitual day to day interactions with people, I tend to be more in the middle with my attitude toward these people, having neither a firm belief in the reliability of the person, nor a firm belief in the person's unreliability. I would hope, and I do expect, that the person will fulfill their end of the bargain, but I cannot say that I generally have a firm belief that they will. It's far too often that I've been disappointed. I can say truthfully, that I wouldn't make a judgement as to whether I trust or distrust a person until I got to know them reasonably well.

I switch the light on trusting that it has been wired up so it doesn't give me a shock or set fire to the house. We need to trust. therefore we need to be honest. — unenlightened

I still think you're giving trust too much credit. There are very many things which we need, and trust is not one of them. Trust is a luxury, which is extremely beneficial to have, but you seem to take it for granted. You switch a light on, and you think that you would only do this if you trust the person who did the wiring. But I don't think that's accurate, you most likely don't even know the person. How can you claim to trust someone you don't even know? I think you are switching "habit" for "firm belief". You switch the light on because it is your habit, not because you have a firm belief in the reliability of whoever it was who did the wiring.

I'm saying we all depend for our lives on the decency of strangers and neighbours. — unenlightened

I completely agree with this, but I think you are misrepresenting our interdependence as a matter of trust. We need to interact, but we can interact without trust, basing such actions in hope instead, for example. We need, and depend on certain things, and we can live with the hope that we will get them, without actually trusting that we will. Trust being a firm belief, hope being a less than firm belief. However, it seems very obvious that if a society could replace hope with trust, it would be much more pleasant and stress-free place to live, because we wouldn't always be looking over our shoulders. So it would be very good to try and keep levels of trust as high as possible. In the case of a corporate entity having respect for moral standards, good luck with that. I think hope is the best I can do here.

If there was trust money wouldn't be involved. It's a contract, and people that trust each other don't need them.

I don't look at this as a matter of trust. I do business with a lot of different people, many of whom I don't particularly trust, the question of whether I trust them or not just doesn't come up in my mind. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think you have hit upon the stumbling block for many here. This is the naivety of trust, that it does not occur to one to do otherwise. The veteran of Afghanistan who has a panic attack whenever he see[s a curtain twitch has lost his trust in the benignity of strangers. To those of us who have not experienced the constant danger of snipers, it seems a bit mad - we call it PTSD. Why would you think a moving curtain is dangerous?

Trust being a firm belief, hope being a less than firm belief. — Metaphysician Undercover

No. I don't want to get into a mere terminological dispute, but trust is not a firm belief. I have to remind myself that I am sometimes talking to the chronically anxious or mildly paranoid, who are always doubting, like the veteran, the stability of the environment and the safety of their persons. If you say that you conduct your life in a state of hope, not trust, I have to believe you, knowing you are an honest and thoughtful person. And I have to say that I feel sorry for you. But by trust I really mean the absence of doubt, not even wondering if there is a sniper somewhere across the road. This is totally different to hoping there isn't one.

I don't want to get into a mere terminological dispute, but trust is not a firm belief. — unenlightened

You and I have a different understanding of what constitutes "trust". You are willing to say that if you are carrying out a business transaction with a person, a complete stranger, and you put that person into a position where they might take advantage of you, you necessarily trust that person, or else you would not put the person in that position. I want to restrict "trust" to a higher level, reserving it only for use in cases of proven reliability.

So in the case of doing business with a complete stranger, I would not give that person trust. But this would not prevent me from doing business with the person though. If the person provided services which I needed I would do business with them even if I did not trust them. I would proceed with the requisite caution though, not paying in advance, etc.. The person might still take advantage of me though, in ways that I'm unprepared for (giving me inferior product or service, for example). And, the only way that I can rationalize doing business with this person whom I do not particularly trust, and might take advantage of me, is through the hope that they will not do that.

The person is a complete stranger, and I definitely would not say that I trust the person. You, on the other hand would say that you trust the person. I don't think it's the case that you would trust the person, and I would not trust the person, I think that you are using the word "trust" more freely than I. I think we both would have a similar attitude toward the transaction, knowing that the other person might take advantage, yet proceeding anyway, and this would justify a degree of doubt, in either one of us, yet you would say that you trust the other person, and I would not.

But by trust I really mean the absence of doubt, not even wondering if there is a sniper somewhere across the road. — unenlightened

According to what you've posted, doesn't this contradict your actual use of "trust"? You would "trust" a complete stranger, to do business with that person. How can you say that there is an absence of doubt in that situation? "Absence of doubt" is more consistent with my definition of "trust", "firm belief", and this is what you rejected.

How much power someone is willing to give up is subjective,
— Harry Hindu

Well no Harry, the whole premise of this thread is that it is not subjective and there is no choice. Every aspect of modern live relies on other people behaving responsibly, as a matter of life and death and this is inescapable. I have already given many examples of everyday life that require trust, because everyday folks have each other's life in their hands giving injections, footing ladders, driving vehicles, building houses. The government merely conducts this orchestra of mutual trust. These are facts, not subjective at all. — unenlightened

The whole premise of this thread is wrong.

How much power someone is willing to give someone else over them is subjective. It is why we have different choices of political affiliations. If there were no choice then why do you berate people for their political choices on this forum?

It seems to me, that if there were no choice (your premise), or that some type of government is the best for everyone is subjective (my premise), then it would be a waste of time discussing politics in the first place, just like it's a waste of time discussing religion. :roll:

If there was trust money wouldn't be involved. It's a contract, and people that trust each other don't need them. — neonspectraltoast

And we wouldn't need a police force or laws if we trusted each other.

All one needs to do is go back and read previous unenlightened threads to see how they don't trust Trump, conservatives, whites, or anyone that disagrees with them.

I don't look at this as a matter of trust. I do business with a lot of different people, many of whom I don't particularly trust, the question of whether I trust them or not just doesn't come up in my mind. The situation is more like one of need. I need the service they offer, so I do business with them without thinking about whether or not I ought to trust them. You, and unenlightened, might argue that the fact I do choose to do business with them implies that I trust them. I don't think that way, and I know that I do business with a few whom I particularly don't trust. I just need to be more wary of these people. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think you have hit upon the stumbling block for many here. This is the naivety of trust, that it does not occur to one to do otherwise. The veteran of Afghanistan who has a panic attack whenever he see[s a curtain twitch has lost his trust in the benignity of strangers. To those of us who have not experienced the constant danger of snipers, it seems a bit mad - we call it PTSD. Why would you think a moving curtain is dangerous? — unenlightened

I think that it's a problem of interpretation of the word trust, then. We use trust when we mean need or dependence. As we look at money, which is a social construct around trust, need, necessity for the cogs of society to work etc. As we talk about trust we will bend the word and its definition into many different types of interpretations. But they are indeed different versions of the same concept and the concept is the core we need to discuss.

So I would look at the Google issue more as a question of need. If they offer a service which is needed, then we use it, whether or not we trust them. But doing business with someone whom you do not particularly trust means that you need to be wary. We could assume, that just like doing business with anyone else, the company would want to give us honest service to maintain a reputation, but such assumptions are what leave us vulnerable. — Metaphysician Undercover

Exactly, but I think that's the thing here, trust is need, is a necessity, is a contract. It's a contract that works until society sees it not working. How many companies have died because of misconduct? It happens and the fear within companies to do things that destroy themselves is indeed a reality, just as the reality of people fearing the companies doing misconduct. This is why we have ethical boards, laws and regulations, in order to keep everyone in fear of doing things wrong.

It's also a question of morality. We have laws that force us not to kill each other, but people can also already have morals that prevent them from killing, as a basic result of empathy. As long as the company isn't corrupted by its own complexity, it will have some form of morality through the people working there. And of course, that morality fails, just as people fail and do crimes. But as a general rule, we have trust not in each other, but in the morality of others, which guides us even if we don't have laws.

So can we trust Google? I don't think so. Can we trust them to do their best to be moral against their customers? Yes. If they don't they will one day fall as a company as long as society is upheld as free and laws and morality can review them. Being morally bad in front of their customers is not good for business, so either they don't do it or they hide it. But hiding such actions is a very risky venture, possibly lethal for a company. All it takes is one person with empathy to speak out against the company and their misconduct is stamped out, or the entire company itself.

So, as you say, we can only assume them to be good, just as we can only assume others around us to be good. But outside moral theory, most people have empathy which guides many moral choices and people make up the companies we do business with. Google is a massive company, so there can be misconduct in some areas while others are perfectly fine, the key here is that we know we are vulnerable. As long as we do, we question.

To question a service we use, is a kind of agreement in the contract of trust. It's the "I can trust you with this, right?" -interchangeable with "if I can't trust you with this, I will take you down". This kind of agreement is a foundation of the trust we give and have; fear and trust is two sides of the same coin. If we are to trust someone we agree upon the fear of breaking that trust. The trust comes out of an agreement of that fear.

With all this "trust" in the world, one wonders how there is so much racism (distrust of others with a different skin color), xenophobia (distrust of others with a different ethnicity or nationality), sexism (distrust of others with different private parts), homophobia (distrust of people with different sexual orientation or gender identification), or at least that is what this "left-leaning" forum has led us to believe.

Just look at the level of distrust between different political parties today.

I want to restrict "trust" to a higher level, reserving it only for use in cases of proven reliability. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, I understand. It's a legitimate way of talking.

What you describe is exactly that sophisticated measured provisional trust. 'I'll put some cash on the table and turn my back and see if it goes missing', and that's an investment in finding out if I can trust you a bit further. I think you can see that in business situations such as you describe there is an element of trust and an element of distrust. And when one knows the builder well, one can give him the keys and let him get on with it. One reaches 'proven reliability'. I do not deny this to be the norm of many relationships. I just want to talk about the trust element and not the distrust element. If I don't altogether trust, I hope and I am cautious.

We use trust when we mean need or dependence. As we look at money, which is a social construct around trust, need, necessity for the cogs of society to work etc. As we talk about trust we will bend the word and its definition into many different types of interpretations. But they are indeed different versions of the same concept and the concept is the core we need to discuss. — Christoffer

Yes. I have been a bit loose with the term, and my ideas develop in discussion. So the core is the trust of a child that relaxes completely into the arms of an adult, with no consideration of negative consequences - being crushed or being dropped.

We want to trust Google. Nobody is asking if we can trust The Onion. Obviously we cannot, and obviously we don't want to. We want to laugh.

And that the question arises indicates that we don't altogether trust Google, at least not in that childlike unquestioning way that I think most people did maybe 10 or 20 years ago. "Google is your friend" we used to say when someone asked a straightforward factual question, that it was beneath our dignity to answer. No one has said that for a while. We used to believe in the freedom of the web, until the pedophiles spoilt it for us.

or at least that is what this "left-leaning" forum has led us to believe. — Harry Hindu

Harry, I'm really struggling to make sense of your posts. What have you been led to believe? It is almost as if you are saying that because there is a lot of distrust in the world, there cannot also be a lot of trust. Is that what you are saying? Do me a favour and try and put it simply and clearly, and without the political jibes.

Excellent. This is where I want to start, with our inescapable mutual dependence. I switch the light on trusting that it has been wired up so it doesn't give me a shock or set fire to the house. We need to trust. therefore we need to be honest. We need to communicate, therefore we need to be honest.

All this mistrust is macho posing, and chronic anxiety. But at the same time it is being normalised by the media and by politics - and alas, by philosophy. — unenlightened

Yes, but the purpose of your OP couldn't have been to convince us of the virtue of honesty because I would think that's largely uncontested. We all understand that thou shalt not lie.

The OP seemed to suggest a lament, that we've degenerated from a point of trust to our current dismal state of affairs where we look for angles and ulterior motives in everyone's acts and speech. For example, is Trump a great big fat liar of grander proportions than we've ever known such that we need to rethink where we are and thereby return to our purer state? Or, have our leaders always been big fat liars, but we're just now more leery? I think it's the latter really, as I think about leaders the world over and throughout history.

Since this is really a prayer of sorts, I'd more fundamentally pray for kindness and understanding and I'd expect the honesty you pray for to flow from that. After all, I just want to be treated as I'd like to be treated myself. The rest, as they say, is commentary upon that.

For example, is Trump a great big fat liar of grander proportions than we've ever known such that we need to rethink where we are and thereby return to our purer state? Or, have our leaders always been big fat liars, but we're just now more leery? I think it's the latter really, as I think about leaders the world over and throughout history. — Hanover

I agree our leaders have always been big fat liars, but I disagree we are more leery. Au contraire, we are much less leery; our leaders can now tell blatant lies that everyone can see are blatant lies, then contradict themselves, and then accuse their critics of being liars. In the good old days, they didn't usually get caught out, but if they did they were booted out. Well perhaps that was never the universal tradition, I'm not sure.

No, it was the rule. Even the priest had to be moved to another parish once he'd been caught buggering the choirboys a few times.

After all, I just want to be treated as I'd like to be treated myself. The rest, as they say, is commentary upon that. — Hanover

What you need is one of those lamps with a genie in it. P'raps Jeff Bezos will lend you his?

As we look at money, which is a social construct around trust, need, necessity for the cogs of society to work etc. — Christoffer

It would be questionable whether money is constructed around trust or distrust, if you take that approach, but more likely that is completely the wrong approach, and it was developed simply as a memory aid, an IOU; being written on paper, or in the form of coins, we don't forget, get confused, or disagree.

But they are indeed different versions of the same concept and the concept is the core we need to discuss. — Christoffer

This is what I disagree with. The different ways of describing "trust" exposed by unenlightened and I, are not different versions of the same concept, I think they are completely different ways of understanding the same word. Have you read Plato's Republic, where they discuss the meaning of "just"? Those were not different versions of the same concept being discussed, they were different ways of understanding the same word,

Exactly, but I think that's the thing here, trust is need, is a necessity, is a contract. — Christoffer

"Trust is need"? How so?

Can we trust them to do their best to be moral against their customers? Yes. — Christoffer

I don't buy this. A company consults lawyers to determine what they are allowed to do, and what they ought not do. You don't generally see a bunch of ethicists or moralists sitting around the boardroom, but you will find lawyers. In determining what the company must do, and what it must not do, the lawyers only have the laws to consult. If a new way to make money is presented, which is not illegal, but some moralists might think it is immoral, the lawyers can give the CEO no reason not to proceed with this new way. If the CEO says they ought not proceed because the procedure might be immoral (notice there's never any firm determination in this situation, just the thought that it might be immoral), the board will likely get the CEO fired.

So the core is the trust of a child that relaxes completely into the arms of an adult, with no consideration of negative consequences - being crushed or being dropped. — unenlightened

That's not really trust though, it's comfort. As they say, innocence is bliss. The adult loves and cares for the child, and would not bounce it off the floor, but the child doesn't know any of this, only instinctually feeling the safety of the warm embrace, which it has come to recognize as comfort. I don't think we can say that recognizing a situation as comfortable is the same as having trust.

We used to believe in the freedom of the web, until the pedophiles spoilt it for us. — unenlightened

I don't know about that, I think the abusers were lurking all along, we were just innocent and naïve, comfortable like the child in the adult's arms, until the child gets into the arms of the wrong adult. The illusion is shattered.

We all understand that thou shalt not lie. — Hanover

No we don't. That is not one of the ten commandments. And there are various arguments from ethicists concerning when it is and is not acceptable to lie. As unenlightened pointed out we are accustomed to having the rulers lie to us. That this is an acceptable principle is documented as far back as Plato's noble lie, and probably extends beyond written history, as old as communication itself. So we cannot categorically exclude lying, from our arsenal of virtuous acts.

It is almost as if you are saying that because there is a lot of distrust in the world, there cannot also be a lot of trust. — unenlightened

Well, yeah. That sounds logical.

If distrust is the absence of trust, then yes, more distrust equals less trust.

So you tell me, Unenlightened: how much trust vs distrust is in the world, and how would you know?

Do you guys not walk down streets or buy stuff in shops? Of course you all do. So at every point you put your trust in others. You are playing at the sophistication of mistrust for rhetorical or egotistic purposes. Stop it now, because this a is rather serious matter that requires some thought and a rigorous honesty. — unenlightened

You're confusing trust with expectation. Trust is analogous to faith. Expectations are strong beliefs in what will, or is suppose to, happen based on prior experience or knowledge.

Is it that we trust our milkman, or have an expectation that he will follow the law, and not poison me? In poisoning me, is he not ruining his reputation with the rest of society? Will anyone want to buy his milk if they know that there is a possibility that it could be poisoned? Because of these factors, I expect the milkman to not poison me.

If there were no laws, and no consequences to the milkman's actions, then I would have faith, or trust, the milkman won't poison me.

I think that Richard Dawkin's Selfish Gene provides an excellent explanation as to how complex social relationships, like altruism and cooperation, are established. It explains how many of our cognitive features and skills developed as a means of "tit-for-tat" strategies and finding better ways of cheating and detecting cheating in others and holding them accountable.

So you tell me, Unenlightened: how much trust vs distrust is in the world, — Harry Hindu

I am telling you, Harry. I started this thread for that purpose.

Imagine for a moment that no one ever told the truth. There would be no trust at all in what anyone says.
No one would bother listening or having any regard for anything anyone says, and the language would be useless and fall into disuse. Language only has functionality if on average, people tell the truth most of the time. Even lies only work if mostly people tell the truth.

Similarly, society only has functionality if on average, people cooperate most of the time.

So there has to be more trust than distrust in the world or society would collapse. I think society is close to collapse right now. So I am telling you, and anyone who is prepared to listen, that we all need to trust, and need the truth to be told, and need to cooperate, or we will not survive. Like the boy who cried 'Wolf' we will be eaten by wolves if we do not cooperate and tell the truth, because wolves do cooperate and tell the truth, and that makes them stronger than they are as individuals.

So there has to be more trust than distrust in the world or society would collapse. I think society is close to collapse right now. — unenlightened

I blame the russian government. They've been systematically trying to turn us against each other for years

Less of the 'us' there good buddy, and less of the 'them' too.

If there was a conspiracy, then it could be exposed and defeated. But the case is worse than that. The enemy is within, it is in all the fake friendship, all the fake unity, all the fake flag waving and sacrifice for the nation, all the glorious economic necessity and fake freedom enforced at gunpoint and so on and on. You cannot tell the truth yourself, but recite this trope about Russians on autopilot. It is exactly your lack of trust that leaves you open to such exploitation. Perhaps there are Russians sowing discontent, There are certainly plenty of Americans and Europeans doing so too.

Why are so many of the world's leaders complete turnips? It's not because there is a grand conspiracy of turnips to take over the world, it's because people prefer pleasant bullshit to truth.

I agree our leaders have always been big fat liars, but I disagree we are more leery. Au contraire, we are much less leery; our leaders can now tell blatant lies that everyone can see are blatant lies, then contradict themselves, and then accuse their critics of being liars. In the good old days, they didn't usually get caught out, but if they did they were booted out. Well perhaps that was never the universal tradition, I'm not sure. — unenlightened

When were these good old days? The days of the monarch or the dictator, or does that go back too far? At least now our leaders feel like they have to lie. Back then they could just tell you all the terrible things they had planned and there was no other recourse.

So there has to be more trust than distrust in the world or society would collapse. I think society is close to collapse right now. So I am telling you, and anyone who is prepared to listen, that we all need to trust, and need the truth to be told, and need to cooperate, or we will not survive. Like the boy who cried 'Wolf' we will be eaten by wolves if we do not cooperate and tell the truth, because wolves do cooperate and tell the truth, and that makes them stronger than they are as individuals. — unenlightened

This assumes that karma controls the world. I'd love to think that North Korea will fall due to the falsehoods and propaganda it imposes on its citizens. Sort through history and consider every time and every leader, and do we see that their demise is owed to the collapse of truth and honesty within the society? Do we really see that time and time again the innocent and pure rise and take power because there is no more assured way to success than by embracing righteousness? I really don't think so.

This isn't to say that a society built upon the foundation of dishonesty is one anyone would like to live in, but I think it's wishful thinking to suggest that there is this karmic system of self-correction that results in the collapse of those societies that fail to seek honesty.

At any rate, I have the exact reaction to the loss of trust, kindness, and compassion that you do, but mine is due to the inherent sacredness of such things, as opposed to whatever pragmatic pain I may suffer from their loss. I have full trust in the ingenuity of humankind to create a fully functioning, sustainable, and workable system that is propped up by nothing but bullshit. Such systems don't crumble under their own weight, but they are typically destroyed by the intentional acts of the heroic. We give them such names as "revolutionaries" and "founding fathers." Mothers too, of course.

You cannot tell the truth yourself, but recite this trope about Russians on autopilot. — unenlightened

Maybe I can't, but I also don't want tyrants and kleptocrats taking over the world

This assumes that karma controls the world. I'd love to think that North Korea will fall due to the falsehoods and propaganda it imposes on its citizens. — Hanover

You may have to wait, but it is not a magic justice system I am proposing but the bite of reality. Perhaps you can fool all of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool a virus, you cannot fool the climate, you cannot fool reality with propaganda.

For example, the UK government recently downgraded the status of Corona virus:

As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) in the UK.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid

This has not changed the virus, but it has changed the legislated protection that health workers are entitled to. So it helps the virus spread. There is no question but that a regime can kill millions of its citizens. Governments can and do betray their citizens, and parents can and do betray their children. And people die when they do, because ... wait for it ... people are dependent, and people need to trust each other.