“Pragmatists”: Who’s Gonna Pick the Cotton!? [YOUTUBE VERSION]
Saying that societal models based on consent and voluntary interaction are unfeasible and unrealistic, and thus impossible, is the same conversation had hundreds of years ago in the agricultural industry:
I know holding slaves is wrong, but the reality is that slavery is real, and the agricutural industry needs the work to be done, or thousands will suffer and the industry will collapse. Without the slaves, who would pick the cotton?
The answer? It doesn’t fucking matter.
Societal systems based on ISO (individual self-ownership) are not only infinitely more practical (do you know of any successful economy based solely on an authoritarian system of value?) more importantly—and this is the critical issue—societal systems based on the perceived “necessity” of violence are always morally wrong, and unethical.
That is, unless you think violating non-violent people is okay.
~KafkA
Graham Smith is a Voluntaryist activist, creator, and peaceful parent residing in Niigata City, Japan. Graham runs the "Voluntary Japan" online initiative with a presence here on Steem, as well as DLive and Twitter. (Hit me up so I can stop talking about myself in the third person!)
authoritarian system of value is like bending people to your will. They will never do anything with there full heart. Humans don't like to be boss around, they are created to be free. If they work on their freewill they will do the unimaginable. Freedom is key to every progressive society. Thank you
Society needs X, so that justifies immoral act Y! Uhm, no. Fuck, no! It's infuriating to me too when people suggest that some things justify immorality. The ends justify the means, right? /sigh No, I don't think so. Does your action protect and further individual liberty or not? If it does not, it is not moral. Period. Well spoken, brother!
Same here man. Blows my mind, in a way.
P.S.
RE: "the Needs of the Many" within the context of "justice"
Here's an old post that addresses this lame rationale.
https://steemit.com/life/@jaichai/ijch-revisiting-spock-logic
Namaste, jaichai
Did you know that the land promised for freed slaves was authorized by Lincoln, but immediately rescinded after his assassination and the swearing in of his successor (Jackson)?
The reason?
The public outcry by elite white people of "reverse discrimination"!
WTF!?
Thanks for the solid post.
Namaste, Jaichai
I write to you from the perspective of my experience, yes, it is necessary that someone pick up Cotton and other things ... in my country there is a model of government called Socialism of the 21st century, where its main vision was to create a broad social class , the result of bad economic and social policies, led us to a collapse with an annual inter-annual inflation of 13,000%, and you asked how it happened ?, the Government began to draw in circulation large amount of inorganic bills to cover the debt acquired for the payment of pensioners, single mothers, scholarships (education of low quality), which in reality does not reach the most needy (without any social studies), when you teach people to work and that for the fruit of your efforts you get a remuneration, you are dignifying it, you make it feel useful and you give it the same possibilities of educating him and his children no matter their social class, you lead them to rational hoist, create and look for more effective methods of collecting cotton.
It will be interesting to see how artificial intelligence impacts society. The lack of need for low skill labor will make many individuals obsolete and will lack purpose. At that point, how does society rationalize who "deserves" food, housing, education, etc if there simply aren't enough value added roles in society for humans once robotics have become more efficient?
Society, as such, has no legitimate moral or ethical grounds to determine "who deserves" any of those things mentioned. This is why individual self-ownership is the only reality-based, non-arbitrary, and fair way to structure any society, because reality does not make these types of arbitrary conscious decisions. The whole premise of voluntaryism is that individuals are never "obsolete." An individual's basic value is inherent in being human.
So the individual is accountable for their own value and as a result responsible for their own demise should their ability to earn enough to survive fail when faced with competition from machines? Or do you propose that all human life be sustained by society even if their contributions are minimal/non-existent?
Of course everyone is responsible for keeping themselves and their families alive. It’s nature. Cavemen didn’t complain about being oppressed. They went out and got food. Thomas Sowell didn’t complain about being oppressed, he made a name for himself with his mind.
Take out the state’s violence, and the ability to survive becomes a million times greater! But, yes, it’s still your responsibility to take care of yourself. Of course!
I only write this to see if you are flagging me or not..
It seems dissenting voices in the voluntarism utopian are be met with
threats of flagging. (pretty authoritarian behavior, especially if taking up votes off smaller minnows for no other reason than disagreement).
...as you put it..
I won't bother wasting my breath on a flagged post.
I would welcome your comments on the post I am doing (about yesterday).
It highlights my points very well re - ideology and ideologues.
I won't act aggressively to your comments on my feed (flagging).
I don't act authoritarian to people saying things I don't like to hear ...or views I disagree with.
Nor do I wish to display such personality traits.
But I'm not a voluntarist.
Thanks for your time.
Flagging a comment on my blog is not aggression. This space is akin to property, and I can manage it as the platform allows. Flagging your bullshit is no more "aggressive" than locking you out of my house. If you feel that that is "aggressive," then I don't know what to tell you.
ok fair enough, I'll do all my responses to you on my own posts.
thanks.
So by that metric, flagging on some one else post is an act of aggression?
Logically, it must be....
I'll screen shot this...
....Seeing as your blog is akin to property, I mean.
...but I have so much to tell you. But you flag me so that you don't have to listen.
Seeing the ideologues weaknesses yet? Probably not.
No, all I see are your desperate attempts to appear somehow morally and intellectually superior, I could care less.
And no, flagging anywhere is not “aggression.” Jesus. This is an open platform where a flag is an acceptable market action.
Nice on ignoring the crux and central point of my comment though. You are exceptionally adept at that, to your credit.
So, who will pick the cotton!? It’s unrealistic to free the slaves!! Maybe once we get some pragmatic cotton gins up in here we can justify freeing them.
🤪
Wish I could help this fellow, but I’ll be damned if the cotton gin hasn’t been invented yet to make it “pragmatic”!
But you perceive you blog as your property? Correct?
'akin to your property', as you say.
That being the case then , to go onto someone else's 'property' (someone else's blog) and flagging would be an aggressive act on their property?
Isn't that just an excuse to allow you to participate in actions and in doing so, absolve yourself of you own moral responsibility.?
The moral ethos of non aggression principal?
(based on your own definition of what constitutes ' your property on steemit', ...in this context?).
It's almost like you are falling back on the authority of steemits rules to permit and justify your own actions....
A dilemma? Or not?
If I fail to address a point it not avoidance,I can assure you - it is me wandering off point.
Please feel free to point it out, as it is a bad habit of mine...
It helps me!
See my final comment in our other exchange, you seem to have some pretty serious misconceptions about what voluntaryism is, and what I personally believe/advocate.