So, I probably should have included this in the 7-8 umbrella as 9 discusses similar content, but hey, i didn't plan on reading 9 today, but then I realized microsoft edge (what I use for PDFs on PC) actually has feature that will read ebooks to you if you turn it on. This changes everything and has the potential to make me more productive. Anyway, listened to it while playing COD, and then reread the chapter on my own to make sure I understood it properly.
And yeah, this one discusses a priori reasoning for propertarian theory. And much like I said previously, I really dont know why we leave society in the hands of philosophies developed by 18th century colonizers. Like really, Widerquist concludes there is no a priori argument to assume specifically private property ownership, and yeah, no crap. Because this stuff is made up. I feel like my more meta idea of worldviews really helps me cut through the BS here. All of these guys rely on all of these unproven assumptions and insist we run our entire societies on them, and it's just...ugh.
As I see it, property is a reasonable concept to make in an advanced society. I dont believe it's a natural right, and I think that Widerquist and McCall are making good arguments debunking the typical narratives we see. Given my humanist "reason and evidence" mindset, they make a case that is quite devastating to followers of Lockean theory. Honestly, my justification for property is "does this serve human ends"? Is this good for society? Does it improve peoples' lives? Property in some form does, but this strict Lockean crap...doesn't.
Heck, a lot of the thinkers discussed in this chapter seem to have zero issues with forced labor, which given my anti work mindset is specifically distasteful. Oh, asking for a minimum standard of living is too much but you have an "opportunity" to work to get your needs. Opportunity, opportunity, opportunity. We are a society obsessed with "hard work" an "opportunity". It's a freaking religion in our society. And after reading these books, I have zero issue with the idea of considering it akin to a LITERAL RELIGION. Belief in it is functionally not that different from Christianity in my opinion. It's a false narrative based on false pretenses that people believe has the power of objectivity and governs a large part of how we think as a society, and it's just nonsense, But yeah, now I REALLY realize why I cant stand ancaps. I always feel like I'm arguing with religious extremists, and they are.
If you like Lockean theory, that's fair. If you legitimately believe it's the best we can do, that's fine. I would question your understanding of political theory in terms of broadness, and would consider you to reevaluate your assumptions, but let's face it. Sociologically, we can say, "this is functional" and "this works" and that "many of the alternatives" (ie, socialism), are worse. I wouldn't disagree. I'm not fully against private property. I just reject this idea that there's something MAGICAL about it and that we cannot infringe on it and that there's so objective injustice being committed by TAXING PEOPLE. ALL OF THIS CRAP IS MADE UP, PEOPLE, WE ARE MAKING UP THE RULES AS WE'RE GOING ALONG, IF WE WANNA CHANGE THEM, WE CAN!
And that's my big point. Once we understand that this is all subjective, and that we can change the rules, well, we should evaluate the alternatives and decide to do so if it's prudent. I'm not asking for completely demolishing our existing social institutions. Keep in mind, I AM a reformist, mostly for practical reasons. I don't see a point in completely reinventing the wheel here, but let's face it, I am for modifying such wheel to actually work better in a modern context. I mean, I don't think taxing people for a UBI, or universal healthcare, is some great sin against...idk, nature or whatever.
And to go back to "opportunity", I don't want opportunity. I don't want to work to secure my needs. if we can make a society where no one is forced to work, and it works, then we should. All of this work fetishization we have in our society is directly related to property rights and Locke's theory here. We don't believe in just giving people crap because "muh property" and "but god said we had to work" and BS like that, and honestly, it's all nonsense. All these philosophers think they're so smart, but they're just running in circles regurgitating myths and trying to spin BS justifications for stuff. It's like watching nvidia shills on hardware forums trying to justify high GPU prices and crap like that (since I'm still on about that). Oh, but I have a choice of work to do. What if I don't wanna do any of it? But then I starve. Great, wonderful.
Like, can't you guys see that we're basically enslaving ourselves and each other with this nonsense? What I want to do is to dig us out of all of this nonsense that we are in.
Oh, and liberals aren't off the hook here either. Nor are leftists. As we know they're job fetishists in their own ways too. Liberals still adopt locke's theory to some extent, and still believe in the opportunity nonsense. Social democrats justify it in a social contractarian way of arguing for "reciprocity". Marxists will repackage the Bible's "those who don't work don't eat" quote and attribute it to Lenin, while going on about their "labor theory of value".
All of these systems are as made up as lockean theory here. We made them up, we can change them as we want, and we should. I imagine re-envisioning the "social contract" (not sure I'd even call it that any more, it's not really a contract we can voluntarily choose to sign, more something forced onto us) and changing the rules to make these institutions serve us, and to maximize our freedom.
No comments:
Post a Comment