There are two types of power that groups attain. The first comes from the power of physical dominance. This power is where "might makes right" and is the source of the government's power. Then there is the power that comes from wealth. This is the power that comes from trade. Capitalism has created financial powers that rival that of nations and while both are corruptable only one source of power is rooted in volunteerism. Because the government's power comes from the threat and enacting of force it's power is predicated on violence and subjugation. What can we do to fight the corruption that a system based on violence and subjugation creates?
Can we protest? Can we revolt? Can we withdraw support?
Then, we look at the corruption that arises from the capitalists such as fraud, subjugation, and manipulation. What can we do to fight this sort of corruption?
Can we protest? Can we revolt? Can we withdraw support?
To protest is to speak out to others and expose corruption.
To revolt is to enact force and violence which tends to result in more destruction.
To withdraw support is to cut off the source of the corruption's power.
Capitalism is fundamentally the free exchange of value and has the potential to create good, bad and neutral moral outcomes. Strip it of its corrupt bits and you are left with a voluntary system where both members must agree and therefore have the opportunity to end up mutually better for the exchange.
Governments exist to consolidate power and enforce an order. They rely on compulsory adherence and contain a range of involvement from its people from few to many. From dictatorships to democracies they are all based force. Strip away a government of its corruption and what do you have? I'm not sure you can strip corruption away from a system predicated on violence. I'm also not sure how to ensure the free exchange of value without an agent enforces the rules of free exchange. I'm not sure one exists without the other. Even a black market has to have some arbitrator of disputes or do they simply resort to violence? So then the black market is a hybrid between a free market and a collection of small sub-governmental factions (the mob, gangs, etc...) fighting for capital.
Ultimately it comes down to individual interactions. When a person decides to engage in violence as a means to an end they are choosing a chaotic position. One that if it were to be made universal would justify violence for all. If one chooses to engage in free exchange then they are choosing a peaceful moral position. One that if it were made universal would justify peace for all. How do we get more to engage in free exchanges of value (volunteerism) instead of violent exchanges? How do we get nations to choose peace? Are the "better angels" of our nature going to win out or has humanity always been a back and forth between chaos and peace?
Is violence the opposite of order or is it how order is attained? How do we know if the violence is justified? You would hate to find out later that you were on the wrong side of history. That your war was unjust and that you created more suffering and misery.
Where does pacifism lead? To never defend your self or others seems to allow evil to rule. But if after evil takes power they create order then does it cease to be evil? How can something founded on evil actions not be corrupt at its core and inevitably lead toward more evil?
Is the existence of the nuclear bomb the inevitable outcome of the struggle between chaos and order; peace and corruption? Representing the pinnacle of control and power over nature and each other. Or is it just about defense and survival and there is no evil. There is only to live and die. For what wouldn't you do to protect yourself and loved ones? What is evil when it is life and death? One can not be an angel if one is dead. But the same is true of devils.
No comments:
Post a Comment