[Qilin]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

Numerous political systems are capable of keeping society running smoothly over several years. The true value of a political system is in what it actually does (not in an illusionary sense, but in a concrete sense) to benefit people.

But Sybil has done a great deal to benefit the people. It releases people from the burden of decision-making. It even takes away the burden of judging other human beings. With Sybil on the helm, citizens only need to worry about their own personal needs and their Psycho-Pass hues. Of course, this is all at the cost of basic human dignity, but in they're the ones that decide to give it up in the first place in exchange for convenience.

With that, we have a society that's grown to be almost completely dependent on the Sybil system. What do you think would happen if you happen to just throw it away all of a sudden?

Originally Posted by Triple_R

If flaws are never noticed by the public then how do they ever get addressed in any real, concrete fashion?

Just because they aren't made public doesn't mean that they aren't trying to fix the problem. In fact, making it public would probably make it worse.

Originally Posted by Triple_R

Sybil has numerous flaws, which have been discussed at length on this thread. Why can't Japan simply restore itself to how it was pre-Sybil?

I don't see why they shouldn't. It's going back to the previous system isn't as easy as it sounds given the very real effects that the system has had on the human psyche. If ever, this something that must be done gradually rather than through a sudden revelation and revolution.

Originally Posted by Triple_R

I'd rather have an informed public that can make informed decisions on how they want their society to be ran than an uninformed public at the mercy of totalitarian oligarchs.

This is a fair stance to take, but it's being made increasingly clear that the society in this story prefers to be uninformed.

Originally Posted by Triple_R

If this was true, no new ideas would ever catch on. By their very nature, new ideas start out only having relatively few people share them. This is precisely because it's a new idea that many people haven't thought of yet.

Perhaps I failed to get my point across. I meant that a good argument can only persuade people, but that alone isn't enough. A counterculture only gains power once that argument manages for persuade enough people to form a significant portion of society.

Originally Posted by Triple_R

None of this stops genuinely good ideas from taking off, or society at large from seeing the societal benefit of such good ideas.

Just because unruly mobs can occur, doesn't mean that the majority is necessarily wrong and is doomed to be wrong. The majority can be legitimately swayed to adapt to new, good ideas. Again, the internet alone is a huge example of this.

My point there was that the majority isn't always right in its decisions, let alone derived from an innate sense of justice. There are times when a particular majority decisions correspond with common ethics, but this is not always the case. Sometimes it's all a matter of choosing the right propaganda to swing a majority to a particular direction.