@Bones-O,
Good morning,
Right up front I'll beg indulgence for the long post (see
warning at bottom). Bones has brought up some great points that I'd like to ask about/address. Most people want to reply to one-liner posts with one-liner replies. This not only exponentially increases the chances for miscommunication, it feeds our collective lack of attention with nonsense and over-generalities. I'd prefer not to do that. So for those of you not disposed to read carefully, please go back to your cartoons and drool-bib.
As far as this issue goes, I should be fair and state my position up front: I believe that throughout our history as much damage has been caused by one form of government as another - as well as by one form of economy as the other [1]. The benevolent monarch is as rare as the intelligent democracy - that the downfalls of any particular nation (or condition of peoples) is due more often to the people and their implementation of any form of trade/government as another. This being said, I've no direct opinion on whether or not one system of economy is necessarily
better than another - it all depends on how it's done. This being said, I believe with our OP-Poster that basic sustenance and shelter (I'd even add healthcare to that) should be
paramount in the list of duties of
any government. Following, I'd like to address, comment on and ask for clarification on several points.
On the Main Point of the OP: I agree that there are enough basic provisions (sustenance, sheltering) to span the world over (at least I believe that to be so). And I agree that folks going hungry and without shelter is a travesty. What's ironic about this situation is that; likely, the REASON we have enough is due - at least in large part if not completely - to widespread profit taking and general quest for more money by people producing these resources. So, we have a situation where there's ENOUGH for everyone
precisely because profit can be made; now we say "Profit-taking is bad! Everyone should now enjoy"; when taking away likely results in there, then, not being enough.[INDENT] I'm not saying profit taking is good; or that it's OK to have all these resources and yet still have want and suffering - quite the contrary! But in order for ALL to receive a portion of the world's food and shelter, there'd necessarily need to be a worldwide system for distributing such resources. And if we've already concluded that the capitalistic mindset (and its accompanying denial-of-goods) is bad for this, what we have is something else that MANY won't buy into [2]. Further, if you're advocating anarchy (world-wide anarchy, for all this to be consistent), how might
the lack of any entity that can speak or act for any people, with no duties or constraints, muster the organization and discipline necessary to distribute such resources?
[/INDENT][INDENT]It almost sounds like a self-contradiction. What I'm hoping is that at least some proponents of anarchy have thought this through - there may BE a solution to these contradictions to large-scale organization - if so, I'd very much like to hear it.
[/INDENT]
Bones-O!;64326 wrote:In a state of nature, each individual principally has equal right to resources and habitat as any other - that is they are free to feed and take shelter.
[INDENT] Yes, and in a state of nature - in any way you couch it - there exists competition for such resources. How might these be resolved? For the other species of our planet, they compete - many times to the death - for such resources. Is this how you propose to resolve such disputes? (they will arise, count on it) If so, who thinks this is a good idea?
Furthermore, the instance such disputes ARE solved - let's say over a parcel of land - and one party 'wins' out; BOOM, you have some shade of 'ownership'; welcome back the lords and barons of power! See what I mean? [3]
[/INDENT][INDENT]In any case and as it is now, most local, regional or national governments have set up guidelines by which these disputes are solved. Take that away - now how do we solve them? And if we do, how do we avoid the paradox of 'ownership' imbuing power?
[/INDENT]
Bones-O!;64475 wrote:The key point to my argument is that the state criminalises direct self-provision - capitulation to the state's terms becomes a survival necessity.
[INDENT] Is this because simply due to the fact that all the means of self-provision are already owned? (i.e., unclaimed land and resources aren't available any longer, just for the taking) If so, how about we flip that to a society without government; land is used for whatever the current person wants, no "titles" exist, and either (a) everyone is utopianly respectful; never infringing upon other's claim to land use -or- (b) folks just fight over the 'right' to use the land until someone wins over. In either case, once the land's taken, it's taken.
[/INDENT][INDENT] In other words, if we're blaming government for "criminalising" self-provision (without paying, that is), wouldn't we end up with the lack of self-provisioning ability... anyway? When that comes, who will we blame then? Also, I'm curious on this whole concept of "criminalising". I've read your posts a few times here and I *think* I get it. Can you elaborate?
[/INDENT]
Bones-O!;64326 wrote:... we are born into a contract we could never have agreed and have no choice but to act on its terms.
[INDENT] I don't think this is a valid argument because to recognize it's legitimacy results in an unviable result. For example:
- I'm born into a culture that's anarchistic. I didn't agree to it, therefore it's not right for me to capitulate/cooperate as others! We get together and form a monarchy
- But then my children are born into a monarchy. They didn't agree to it, therefore it's not right for me to capitulate/cooperate as others! We get together and form a representative democracy
- But wait! Their children didn't agree to that...
Even some less-extreme example shows the paper tiger of this argument. Or did I get it wrong? In other words, we an ALL claim this! Shall we reform ever couple of years? Is this lack of stability a good idea?
Yes we should change what doesn't work and fix what's broken. But the instant we buy-in to the argument, "Hey, I didn't agree to this!" what generally results is a condition contrary to any <insert utopian principle here> ones advocating. It's logically spurious ground anyone can pick up on and fling at one another; and as such, has little releavant worth
[/INDENT]
Bones-O!;64326 wrote:
- The greatest needs of the individual are (i) to hunt or gather food; (ii) to find or build shelter.
- In a state of nature, each individual principally has equal right to resources and habitat as any other - that is they are free to feed and take shelter.
- The freedom to feed and take shelter is suspended by the state.
- One may 'rent back' this freedom by fulfilling obligations to the state either directly or indirectly via the corporations and landowners
(EMPHASIS MINE)
I find it interesting that we describe NEEDS...
Then say everyone has an equal RIGHT to these needs...
Then package it all into calling them "Freedoms"
As stated, it doesn't follow...[INDENT] Are sustenance and shelter "Freedoms"? Does the lack of such - specifically - have anything directly to do with "Freedom"?
I agree they're needs and I could even buy off on them being "rights". But it sounds over-inflammatory and unjustified to be termed "freedom" - no definition I can find seems to fit. Was this phrasing an attempt to garner support by using a pure & extolled word to amplify the effect of the word 'crime'? It sounds like it... in either case, it doesn't follow.
Call these needs a right - by all means! - but the lack or presence hasn't anything directly to do with freedom. What's more, "Crime" only has any meaning within a context that defines a law, rule or other maxim that's been violated. While we seem to agree all should enjoy the resources of this planet, shall we hang everyone whose been part-and-parcel to this denial? If so, lets you and I head the gallows together, because we too likely have played a part [4].
[/INDENT][INDENT]Now, one might answer, "But how can someone be free and not have these basic necessities?" and we'd have a valid point - that's not to say they ARE freedoms.
[/INDENT]If you're advocating some setup where all resources basic to human necessity are freely distributed to the peoples of the earth, I'm with you! But the paradox here is twofold:[INDENT]
- As mentioned above, I believe the reason such resources ARE attainable is due to the very condition that keeps them restricted: the motivation provided by free trade in a profit driven construct. Take away the one and all the natural elements are still present, but are they still attainable?
- The mechanisms needed to harvest, process and distribute these materials for everyone's food and shelter would require organization, effort, some kind of regulation as well as controls to stave-off those among us who'd still seek to steal and profit. Do this, and we've yet another government - another system of control. Play this out to it's likely permutation and we, again, have a system wherein not everyone receives what we think they're entitled.
[/INDENT]
On state control through the denial of resources: I've assimilated the correlation you've drawn here, and you're not alone. It seems a vast number of people believe that "the government" is controlling us by using <
this> or <
that>. But the connection between this accusation and the basic denial-theme of your post seems unclear.[INDENT]Are we suggesting that "the government" controls people by denying access to basic necessities? How might they control me if they've given me nothing and I either languish in squalor or fulfill my own needs? [5]
[/INDENT]
Odd Bedfellows: There are
governments/"the state" and there is
trade/the economy. Yes, they're intertwined on many levels (some nations more or less than others). Yet currently, between the world's states, any country can sell or buy from another (except for the restrictions they've placed on themselves).
... and if we're talking about a GLOBAL level issue here, how exactly does any single "state" or government bear the guilt or brunt of blame for hunger? We're all interconnected with some nations exercising virtually no control over the distribution of resources while others monitor every ounce. What I'm saying is that although we love to blame "the man" for every problem and woe we can conceive, much of these issues come down to practicalities having little or nothing to DO with ANY
single government.[INDENT] Were the world to have one 'government' that was doing ill by human needs blaming 'government' might be justified. Or, perhaps, are we just blaming ONE government for the ENTIRE planet?
We can't blame ONE government for this condition since no one government has that much control.
We can't blame MULTIPLE governments since the differences in how each operate differ so vastly; even of like-acting entities, there is far too much differentiation to justify a condemnation for such a specific condition.
[/INDENT]
Bones-O!;64326 wrote:I believe it is the duty of the state of any nation calling itself developed to ensure that the acquisition of food and shelter is not a determining factor in how the individual contributes toward his society, and that the state has never had claim over such freedoms - it simply took them as part of building a feudalism that remains intact today.
[INDENT] I'll happily applaud and stand with you on the first point here (although I'd love to hear how you're defining "determining factor in how [an]... individual contributes"). It
sounds nice though!
Granted our governments may be different but most large bureaucracies have similar characteristics and pitfalls. I don't know about you, but my government is far too inept to have so carefully crafted a structure so as to purposefully take, "... them as part of a building a feudalism" such as you describe. [6]
[/INDENT]WRAP-UP: Yes let's be angry about inequity, poverty and the lack of basic human needs. But rather than push the limits of reason through exaggeration (calling needs "freedoms", calling a sad condition perpetuated by mismanagement or resource lack a "crime", etc.), to blame some murky-undefined government entity, how about we set to defining how *it should be*.[INDENT]In virtually any scenario that seeks to eliminate world hunger and basic human needs (and I'd number health care among them), one ends up with a structure that's - by any definition - almost exclusively socialistic.
If we head down that road, I too will be right along side.
But with an organization THIS big - to cover all the logistics - aren't we just ending up, again, with a big government some future poster can point at at and call, "feudal thieves!"?
[/INDENT]Thanks, and I'll again apologize for the length of this post. Fortunately, most people are far too superficial to have read it all so there shouldn't be too much suffering at my hand. Still, you bring up GREAT ideas and IMPORTANT issues; I look forward to some clarification.
Thank you
~~~~~~~~~~~~
WARNING: Long post. If readers find themselves becoming dizzy, nauseous or otherwise faint, please STOP reading and resume your quick-clip, superficial wiki-mining. Do not read while operating heavy machinery, if you're pregnant or may become pregnant.
1. Which is to say that my belief lies in man's flaws which are reflected and amplified by the system he puts into place.
2. Of what worth is advocating a position that doesn't suit the propensities of the people involved? Where might this get us? J.S. Mill spoke well to this point; that any system applied to a people is worthless unless it suits the disposition of the peoples involved ("Forms of Government: Representative Government", Chapter 1)
3. The only decent definition/construct of 'land ownership' that seems to jive with practical application and respect of the aspects involved - that I've seen - comes from "Science of Right", I. Kant, Chap II, "Division of the Subject of the Acquisition of the External Mine and Thine", Para 16. - that 'ownership' only applies among and amongst those of a collection who are concerned - no objective 'ownership' exists without this collective, so to speak.
4. As having lived in relatively wealthy industrialized nations, we've not shared; whenever we've partaken of fruit while others languish, is there not some justice that says we, too, have erred? I'm not saying we should writhe in guilt because we eat well, but if we're to blame those who did not give what they controlled, then that accusation should apply to whomever did likewise.
5. I once saw a news story where protesters on the White House Lawn were claiming they had no right to free speech. There they sat, chanting and bearing signs; claiming they couldn't do what they were doing. In any case, there's always choice - even if the alternatives are difficult or outright unacceptable.
6. Yes the rich control the means of production (and by association, the goods and services they produce). But this notion supports the contention that the wealthy control <things>; do they control 'people'? Maybe so, but we need to take care; lest we mix the interrelated - but separate - concepts of production and employment.