Don’t you think,
late at night,
alone in our room,
when we have
removed all the clothes and other accessories meant to cover ourselves with
identity,
when there is no
one to watch our performance and measure themselves to it,
Don’t you think,
when we are all alone, we all very well know that all humans should be equal
In their chances
to enjoy life?
When we are all
alone and not a part of our crowd, aren’t we all afraid?
And what are we
afraid of? Lions? Tigers? Snakes? Earthquakes?
Depends on where
we live.
Other humans? Most
probably.
And more power we
have over other humans more we must be afraid to be alone. More power we exercise though does put us in a
position where someone might desire to hurt us for some righteous actions of
ours. We truly might get in danger for being impartial in our implementation of
justice. But the fortress of protection we, when we reach such position, build
around ourselves, provides us with impunity (or at least immunity from the
immediate consequences) both for our correct and our unjust conductions.
Don’t you think
that power is wrong to be given to anyone over anyone? In most inclusive meaning
possible?
There is not one case where power over someone is a necessity. Parents must have power over their small children in order to save
them from injuries while kids don’t know. Others, under name of society, must have power over
individual who chooses to destruct someone’s integrity or any personal or
public property. (Yet the definition of
property should not conjoin more then what the individual can practically use
for himself or herself. It will be difficult to construct of how, but the private
property must somehow be limited and piling money restricted to the level of,
at least, what is expedient for the life of human being).
But giving power
to one adult human over another grown and fully conscious being, allowing a
decision power over life and death of that other to anyone, is not only beyond
what natural law should make us believe at the present state of our
intellectual development, but more importantly the permission and a frame for
unjust conduct to be and remain possible to perform legally.
Don’t you have
sense that it is equally important that others receive justice as for ourselves
to be in it’s favor?
Or, at least,
don’t you have a sense that, even if we don’t share the same destiny our
grandchildren with high probability will?
When we think of
fixing the system and improving the righteousness of the distribution of
resources, we somehow always start from the upper middle. As much as we pretend
to behave otherwise and as long as we are spitting on each others shoes talking
of helping poor and oppressed, the fact is that the right of the second, who is
next after first, to be more equal to first, is considered first.
Openly pronounced
or not, the salary of the high executive of some company is more likely to
rise, and more likely to rise more often, then the salary of his subordinates.
Yes. The market decides our value. But who is market? And to whose interests and
benefits we are of a particular value?
Aren’t we earning
our daily bread by serving those who are robbing majority of the world’s
population of their resources for life?
Private property,
as the primary notion of respect and ultimate object of legal protection, is a
dictator above any individual. Those who constructed the legal system to
protect it above all human rights, were for sure not ones deprived of such
possession at the time.
But when all of us
are consenting to such law, we are presenting it as just and it produces
thinking that poverty can be voluntary. Due to the comfort of the libertarian
philosophy we are ready to deny historical reasons of both someone’s poverty or
riches. But even if there weren’t any, domination of private property will
never allow majority to come out of poverty even if they want to. Rule of
private property in every human law is a key point of preserving the way
resources are distributed in a current order. It will allow the disparity of
distribution up to the point where it can protect own self. It will keep as
many people in a complete or in relative poverty as it can militarily or by the
sources of the system of corruption (which we all – willingly although not
always agreeably – support by our participation in it), keep incapable for
rebellion.
Now let’s
double-check this claim.
Do we feel that we
have a power to subdue those oppressing us? Do we believe that the rebellion
against the system that is oppressing us should dare to expect some success as
a result, or is it more likely that we shall lose our social options, our
freedom of choices and, very possibly, our life?
Don’t you think
that system is so twisted that we cannot change it by the decree? Doesn’t it
seam as equally unlikely that a violent rebellion would have any chance?
Doesn’t it appear as if this system is a paranoid schizophrenic who can be made
less harmful by some remedies, but never cured in his functional fault?
Are we not afraid
that humans that will live after us will have more horrible challenges to face?
That when we
deceive ourselves that we are doing best in our power to prevent it.
Do we think that
we can talk about equality and human rights while not questioning capitalist
legal system and the notion of private property as inviolable right?
Do we pretend to
believe that we can leave the notion of social hierarchy unexamined as such?
Can we in any real case distinct it from the ladder of corruption? If
corruption means taking undeserved value, which person higher in hierarchy can
claim themselves less corrupted then the lower positioned one?
Doesn’t it look
like the purpose of social hierarchy; originated to meet the need for
consensus, protection of the group and every individual, hence it was choosing
the strongest and wisest for leaders whose advice and orders others will
follow; is now (and by now I mean
since the beginning of what we call human society and is opposite from what we
see as primary community), as the structure has grown, turned out to serve the
opposite – quarrel and uncertainty?
Do we have any
more realistic reason to defend current conception of social hierarchy then the
definition of what it should be standing
for with it’s assigned authority? Or do we have any reason to believe that it is standing for it in reality?
Is the only
synonymous for the state without hierarchy – anarchy? Is that what we are
afraid of when we chose to participate in preserving hierarchy? Or is it just
us talking who see for own selves opportunities to climb the ladder?
But isn't the current state the anarchy of some?
It is one thing to
count lives from the safety of the UN palace in Geneva. You are simply not
capable of perceiving own life as the one in danger to become a number in your
count. Isn’t it most important for you for that particular fact (us to count –
not be counted) to remain as such? It is much more important then to stop
counting lives. Or isn’t it?
It is another
thing to count lives of own family and neighbors, not ever hearing formal
concerns of your government or seeing anyone come to rescue.
Aren’t we all, in
a first place, happy to not be them?
Isn’t our first interest and demand from the global justice not to become them? Aren’t we all, by
maintaining our ‘citizenships’, defending our birth right not to share their
destiny?
And if it is a
case that we believe in interference of some supernatural omnipotent entity in
sharing lots at birth, where such entity also decides of the merits to be
accredited to the particular newborn, we have good enough excuse to be content
with the comfort of such belief while exploiting our privileges. Our beliefs
support compassion, but do not oblige us to action besides one named as charity
and which is directed towards mitigating misery, yet not towards creating option
for them to become equal to us in their chances for self-realization
- which would involve, by any available means, changing legal structure that
allows their oppression. Or, and which is a same thing, our oppression as long
as we are not on the power end.
Didn’t we learn
already that counting lives ends once the interested party has achieved
preservation of own interests? Do we really think that other in power will be
merciful to us until their last breath? Can we afford to deceive ourselves that
we in particular are more valuable as a number to those who are deciding of who
to count off? Or do we actually think that, due to the potential that we
ourselves carry for contributing to the society being larger then of the one
who didn’t have our chances, we have more right
not to end up as cut-off? Person can agree to what they are used to. We are
used to be privileged. We can not accept less then that, or can we? As the lots
can change in a blink of the eye with the press on one button.
Human identity, or
- who we are in a course of our actions, is directly proportional to the
quantity and quality of information received by the moment of observation. And
that, again, depends on who had the right or monopoly to inform us in a first
place and what were their intentions.
Value of the
information, both quantitative and qualitative constructs the frame for our
lives. While receiving valuable information is not a guarantee for one’s
realization, not receiving it will most certainly deprive us of desirable
options; where by desirable options we can think of those that would be
preferred by persons who have a true possibility to choose.
Now, what is, in
the final end, our cause and our interest in global?
Do we, as
humanity, have a common interest of so ever? Or does the stand on that question
classify us into different species of humans? Do we, ourselves, need to make
that classification openly and be counted by this division? Shall we then give
each group of humans authority over own selves?
Didn’t the time come
already to make some kind of all
inclusive consensus? Some more human to more humans (or, be it an utopia, to all humans) social agreement? Isn’t it a
time already to stop leaving someone out in our arrangements? Even if we
consider own selves unreachable to anyone as a possible slave, even if we see
ourselves well enough positioned in an existing system, don’t we think that,
taking what we believe is a fair share and reward for our service to the
community or to, what we opt to call society
at large, and leaving issues of ‘less fortunate ones’ to ‘more fortunate ones’
- namely to those who are tailoring our own frame of destiny as well – has to
be exchanged with some more responsible attitude? (How is, in honesty, our conscience when we look at ourselves in the mirror in the evening after finishing our day?)
Isn’t it what should be done?
Expedient for the
apologist of the ‘step-by-step-within-a-system’ strategy; one that claims to have interest in bringing to some future generations of oppressed communities better
life in a long run, and where no one is able to tell which particular
generation the recipient of our good actions is estimated to be; is to run over
what straight to the question of how, knot themselves in to it and then dispose
what, labeling it as impossibility.
But how about if
it’s a necessity? If we decide to observe it as such at least?
No one knows how until what is determined as a direction and non-dismissible goal. Using
our experience to predict whether is possible to get there is only one course
that our reasoning must take. The other course must be the question of whether
is good for us to get there as a civilization? If meaning of life is no more
and no less then providing other humans, of present and of the future, the
opportunity for the same experience as a self-conscious mixture of matter, then
how are we serving our purpose? By taking a share that our position in a
society allow us to legally take for ourselves, regardless of what it means for
the interests of others, and enjoying it by the justice of God? Or can we
better serve our purpose by better calculating our takes in respect for every
living human?
If the purpose of
intended change is establishing a new line of hierarchy within the same set of
rules, which is to be presumed as if the
better (informed) and more moral,
or at least less immoral individuals
will replace the ones that got corrupted, it is reasonable to fear that, on a
current level of humanity’s saturation with darkest bitterness, such a movement
will not suck in much energy.
We have to change
human perception of what should be our legal and moral rights. We have to
oppose to this system of justice without trying to hide our intention to
demystify it, discredit it, de-root it from the human mindset and replace it with
more impartial and efficient one – if with any.
Social change needs leaders who are well informed about necessities and
equally in a sense of own purpose.
And the purpose
must not be setting ourselves on the top of the food chain instead of a current dickhead, but a decomposition of the system of hierarchy and rendering
the notion of authority to only just criteria – one’s moral standards, as we
must slowly start building new organizational constructions, alliances based on
interests and preferences of individual contributors and formulas for exchange products and benefits that came to exist by joined efforts of such
organizations.
Now, is there
enough of us to join efforts on this matter? Is there enough of us who are
willing to set such goal for ourselves of changing the tissue of social justification system? How can we know if there are
enough of us willing to engage for a change? If there is enough of us standing
openly for that purpose? How do we know that we will not ‘only get killed’ and
‘waste our only life for the sake of utopia’?
And while the
question is how can we know, it somehow seams that it is not enough yet.
