So I did the lectures out of order, I did #2 first due to my greater interest in the topic, and then went back to 1, which discussed the lockean proviso directly. And, I'm gonna be honest, I dont necessarily agree with Widerquist on this one. He makes some good points about state violence over time. I mean, you ask a native american if they're better off under american systems over history and the answer is no. You ask a black person who was a slave, the answer is no. I mean, American and western history is a history of conquest and economic subjugation. And we often destroyed native ways of life in order to force capitalism on them.
At the same time, looking at things now...I dont really agree. Here's why. Who are arguably the worst off in society? Sure, the poor, but there's different grades of poor. We would argue the working poor are better off than the homeless. And then we gotta take into consideration the likes of the incarcerated.
But ultimately, what am I always arguing about? Well, wage slavery, duh. And what is the alternative of wage slavery? Propertylessness. And what's so bad about propertylessness? Well, you are going to live a very shortened life if you live that way. But is being homeless that much different than the state of nature? Arguably being homeless IS living in the state of nature. You get no resources for yourself. You end up pan handling and living under bridges. you might even decide to live in the woods in rural montana or something and make a living hunting. But honestly, the life is harsh, and unstable, and unsafe, because it's the state of nature. People who are homeless are more at risk from the elements, because they have to live like those who lived thousands of years ago. They are more prone to disease, like those who lived thousands of years ago, because they lack medical treatment. The problem with being homeless is largely lack. And while widerquist would argue the homeless dont have access to the commons, I feel like he forgets that without a state guaranteeing safety, the state of nature is a huge free for all. if you have good land, and someone else wants it, they might just kill you and take it. I mean arguably that's how states got their start anyway. And there's always been a dark side of humanity that wants to take what's someone else's. You think genghis khan or alexander the great were anything more than glorified warlords? I mean, they're just raider gang leaders, if raider gangs took over much of the world. Statist violence is, as such, often a result of the state of nature. Because humans come together to survive, some humans will steal from others and enslave others to survive. And our society of nation states arose out of the victors of those engagements, which is why so much of human history has such a tragic background, and why people like widerquist can now argue that states dont fulfill the lockean proviso...because they often used violence on others.
That's just...human history. Like, I like Widerquist a lot. I even consider myself an indepentarian which is based on his ideology. BUT, let's be honest. I like him more for his work on UBI. I don't agree with him on states necessarily being bad. If anything, a nice modern state with a military and police force is the only thing stopping a lot of people from living like the worst in our society currently do. And I'm not saying, in cases where they become genocidal or seek to enslave others, those people are arguably WORSE off than a state of nature, modern wage slavery is a bit softer in that sense. It uses the threat of living like in the state of nature to extract labor out of people, when in reality, we could be living better than such a state in the first place. And we should seek to strive to make our states better places to live in. With less exploitation, more freedom, more prosperity, and a higher level of well being. So...does a modern society largely fulfill the lockean proviso? Sure, if it's a western society. We can argue a lot about the nature of a lot of the third world, or the violence of communist states like say, North Korea or China or the USSR, I think those states you have a much less rosy picture given the state violence that can occur could make people worse then relatively "free" people living in a state of anarchy, but in say, 21st century US, or western Europe, or any country based on western ideas, even if they're in the far east like japan or south korea, or australia or something, yeah, you're likely gonna be better off in a society, even if you're among the worst off.
Arguably the only people worse off are people who are actively imprisoned or on death row, because, again, state coercion and violence. But even then, if they lived in an anarchistic state many of those people would be terrorizing others in some way so their lack of freedom of often legitimate.
On that subject we REALLY need to end the war on drugs though.
So are states and the social contract legitimate in my eyes? Sure. Does that mean that states shouldnt be pressured or strive to be better than they are? Of course not. There's always room for improvement and just because something is better than "nature" doesnt mean that it's optimal or ideal or should be accepted.
No comments:
Post a Comment