Download this blogcast in MP3 Audio.
A society may be defined, primarily, by its' moral code. Those social rules that each member follows, every day and willingly, and from an understanding of their benefits.
Modern societies tend to latch on to outdated moral codes that served partially nomadic and tribal folk, but do not serve the needs and understandings that we now have.
The human condition is measured through freedom. The freedom to act, and freedom from being acted upon by others. We now know, fully and wholly, that the thing that makes us "modern" is that freedom that we have gained, from both technology & morality. However, the more free we become, the more evident are the chains that still bind us.
No person should ever serve another!
Not in coercion, not under threat, not with payment or barter, and not even willingly. It is evil for any person to serve another. In doing so, they give something that is not to be considered an item for trade or purchase; human life.
An analogy, to help see the logic behind this statement, would be prostitution.
At a quick glance, there may seem to be nothing wrong with a person giving, or selling, their body for sexual pleasures, instead of for romantic intimate love. It seems like an entirely personal, subjective choice.
Nevertheless, study shows that such behavior leads to post-traumatic stress syndrome, and all of the problems that follow, such as severe depression and self-harm.
All of that, without even going into the problems of unplanned children, their mistreatment, and the sort of adults they usually turn into. Truly a tragedy.
The entire service industry is akin to prostitution. When societies embrace human servitude, people sell themselves, and sell themselves short; because that is how trade works. Items always become cheaper and more accessible. In this case, the items are people's lives and freedoms.
An industry that sucks out the dreams of people, and returns instead mild comforts.
Some say that removing money from the equation will solve this problem. For example, The Venus Project and its' Zeitgeist fellowship go into detail, about the waste of human life modern societies inflict, and how it could all be solved through technology.
Even though they do acknowledge that it is trade in human service that is at fault, for them money is to blame. Anthropology begs to differ. Tribal humans, even without money, or coin, find ways to trade in services. After all, it makes sense to sell your services, at the expense of "some" freedom, when there is no moral rule to contradict such behavior.
On the other hand, there are those who claim that a free market will liberate us. The Libertarians, while adding to moral development in modern societies, embracing well-proven moral concepts, such as the NAP and Property-Rights, also turn a blind-eye to the evidence.
Free markets have existed throughout time, and even when and where they do, prostitution and the trade & enslavement of people were the norm!
Realizing that this problem can only be solved by a social decree - an enforced moral code of conduct, Anarchists claim the higher ground. A society of anarchy is not a chaotic society, at all. It is, rather, a society where social hierarchies are banned. No person is accepted as better than another. We are all equals, working together, and there is no authority above us; us consenting adults.
Yet, even those at the edge of experimentation and study, miss to clearly identify human servitude as an immoral practice. They would claim that as long as the servitude is voluntary, then it is fair. Obviously, wrong conduct is wrong, regardless of it being allegedly voluntary, or otherwise.
Nothing can stop a person, under threat and forced into serving another, from saying that they do so willingly. This behavior is well known in fascist regimes, where everybody loves the leader publicly, but secretly and quietly fear for their lives. No evidence to the contrary will ever be established, in such circumstances.
Religions had also embraced moral codes, but betrayed them through time, and missed out on developing their morality. Servitude and enslavement were, and are, encouraged by contemporary religions. Even regardless of money, people always were enslaved, or allegedly chose to enslave themselves, to churches and priests.
Many even became martyrs, the most extreme case of human servitude, and massacred innocents by the thousands, in the name of their leaders and creed. Pure evil willful-ignorance.
The concept of one person serving another, no matter why or how, goes against logic and evidence. It is evil. Servitude is unnecessary for societies.
People have always enjoyed working together, as equals in society, even when not equal in their own professions. After all, being good at something does not make that person simply better than another.
An inspiring read.
ReplyDeleteBy joining servitude with rape your definition of morality becomes more complete.
The remaining flaw in the theory is it's practicality.
Your idea only holds if it demonstrates a freedom to achieve great organisation and an ability to defend against hostile great organisations.
How does a person launch GPS satellites into orbit without a hierarchy organisation?
How does he defend against nuclear weapons, terror attacks and violent enslavement?
Thanks! And thanks for commenting here. It's good to share reviews and Q&A publicly, so others can enjoy it, and join in the conversation, too.
ReplyDeleteI entirely agree that an ideal, ideology, theory, or criticism is not complete - not sufficient - without practical examples, and at least one strategy for implementation, in contemporary life. Otherwise, what sort of a "guide" would this be, eh.
I actually disregard technological development. I have no doubt that even without hierarchies, companies and groups will develop amazing things. If you do some history study about technological developments, you will notice that most of them rely on comfortable conditions, and a few wicked brains, rather than a hierarchical organization. Our most famous scientists are guys and girls who worked mostly alone, at home, with minimal resources, and no public support. Often, they even had to move, to gain useful public support, such as in the cases of Einstein and Tesla, both of whom moved to the USA; but this was only an "extra", and not a defining requirement.
Implied above, and also the issue I consider to be _the greatest challenge_, is how to handle the *defense of a society* that does not force its' members to protect it. It's unfamiliar territory, mostly, and also we know of a lot of examples of failure; using mercenaries, or armies that would not obey, and thus led to defeat, and replacement of rule.
First, I ask if we know of any examples of a non-hierarchical group or organization that manages to defend itself, without a standing army? Obviously, being defended by other armies isn't a solution, so Costa Rica and the like are irrelevant.
There are many suggestions, in the Libertarian community, about how to handle warfare without a standing army. Ideas, such as a regularly maintained volunteer militia in every district. Ready to cooperate, against a larger foe. It worked before, even against bigger armies.
Personally, I like the example of Switzerland, and think it is optimal, in our current condition. An entire society designed to be trained in war, armed, and boobytrapped to the ceiling! The Swiss have remote-controlled mines inside every bridge that lead into their country! They are well fortified. In WW1 and WW2, as far as I understand - without researching the topic, they managed to pretty much avoid any warring. They were neither under assault by armies, nor did they choose, or feel the need to attack any army or nation.
Basically, a population that is so well trained and armed, already with great defenses ahead of time, is a very unattractive target, for any imperialistic bully. It's a strong argument.
Naturally, we could go into more extreme examples, like what if a large empire, China, Russia, or America, decided to conquer them. This is something I haven't managed to figure out directly, at all. A large enough power is simply unstoppable, regardless of ideology or power lust. I'm thinking that in such cases, there should be a political-economical strategy, to make the attack or conquest not worthwhile, for the offending empire.
What do you think? Feel free to brainstorm! :=D
How's this for philosophizing? Go fuck yourself.
ReplyDelete