[Qilin]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

If Sybil was initially sold as this flawless, "Silver Bullet" system that will make the perfect society (and hence this is why we can tolerate its obvious downsides), then Qilin is correct.

If Sybil was initially sold as this imperfect but helpful system that will make a better society (like, say, the modern education system including post-secondary), then Anh_Minh is correct.

Good point. But really. Given current evidence, especially the irrational trust that most people seem to attribute to Sybil, I can't imagine that it could be anything but the former. It's a dystopia under the guise of a utopia.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Public Enemy Number 1 is still Public Enemy Number 1, even if there were others before, and those others were (eventually) caught. So, no, it doesn't excuse their nonchalance. It doesn't excuse how unequipped they are to deal with the situation, on the contrary.

On the contrary, it would indicate that they can reliably deal with such situations despite being unequipped. Given how nobody is aware of any similar incident in the past, I'm left to assume that it was dealt with silently and effectively, assuming such a thing even happened in the first place.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Nope. Like any other system of governance, people just have to believe it's good enough.

I'll repeat what I said. It's no good to compare this with the governing systems that we are familiar with. This system is much closer to a form of subtle brainwashing than anything else, and this brainwashing is dependent on the assumption that the Psycho-Pass hues are absolute. The society from Orwell's 1984 is a good comparison in this case.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

No, it depends on them being willing to sacrifice freedom for comfort and security. That's not a value judgment, by the way - that's just the trade off they've made.

But is that a conscious decision that the people go through in the first place, or a prerogative implanted through socialization and indoctrination?

As you note, if that belief in the security that the system provides is proven to be a sham, the society would disintegrate and crumble due to the loss of trust in the social contract, and that remains to be the worst case scenario that everyone is trying to avoid. I don't see the problem with my reasoning here.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Yes. But the director's claim that people need to be kept ignorant is a nothing but a self-serving lie. She just doesn't want to explain herself to the masses.

I'd agree with your ideas on governance if this was anything but an authoritarian state. The way things stand, the power of this authoritarian state hinges on the people's unwavering trust in it.