I don’t value society as an intrinsic good: its only valuable in so far that it services the individuals contained within it. Society is extrinsically valuable. So talking about what society is doesn’t matter that much to me unless we’re talking about it as a means to that end.
If society needs some of its individuals to suffer more than they would without one in order to make it great: it is not a worthwhile endeavor. No one chooses to be born, no one owes society anything. Society in fact owes the individuals because by its very existence it must be natalist in nature.
That said, many people enjoy contribution to a greater societal project. Some people don’t. I think we should enable people to do what they want without allowing people to impose their expectations of themselves on others.
The short answer I already gave you in the final three sentences of my last response.
The much longer answer is a heavily automated UBI supported Mutualist economy, with government healthcare because of its inelastic demand. As well as partially a government run housing system (specific percentage unknown, maybe a 50% mandate) that hyper emphasizes and incentivizes urbanization and disincentivizes rural or suburban living. I think these things would make the world significantly happier and healthier for the individuals living within it and would foster community building that is less dependent on religion.
The basic idea here is a sustainable number of individuals already naturally want to build society up. Hell, I used to be arguably one of them before this latest election. But a small percentage of sociopaths will accumulate too much wealth and power and then become tyrants. A mandatory mutualist co-op economy largely prevents this if its structured correctly, but still enables the individualistic choice and free association that a market provides without a collectivist pressure on the individual to work on things the individual doesn’t give a fuck about.
Outside of that, I largely disagree with virtually all non-economic “social” laws or socially/collectively pressured expectations upon the individual. I disagree with communists because they see individual workers as economic units for the whole collective of workers and they structure their systems through that lens. I relate most with anarchists, but disagree with them that a state needs to be completely dismantled for various practical reasons.
But of course I’m talking economics. Foreign policy however seems to be the reason a lot of the left dropped Kamala Harris, on foreign policy I’m purely consequentialist. And I think a lot of the left completely dropped the ball and myopically focused on a singular emotionally charged conflict/tragedy and ignored the potential of far worse mass death to be added on top of it by permitting a fascist to win to own the libs because they’re cushy with Israel. This was completely moronic and I do not respect people who base their voting decision on it. (and enough did that it likely effected the result, though it is hard to know with certainty) Obviously its bad that Israel is slaughtering Palestinians and the liberals are failures (at best) at stopping that but the fascists are exactly the same but worse on causing death on level (and worse for Palestinians as well). The only other justification for refusing to vote is some form of accelerationism and I absolutely despise accelerationists because they expect people today to suffer en masse for a possible brighter future that probably wont ever come because misery and death don’t work as a catalyst for a better world. Seeing the individuals of today as tokens to sacrifice and suffer so “society” can one day be great is anathema to my ideology.
And even if someone voted for Kamala Harris, but worked as hard as possible to post online about how she personally wanted Palestinian babies to be turned into ash, they probably influenced enough people to not vote for her to functionally nullify their own vote anyway. So I also don’t respect such a person either.
But yeah, IDK. It doesn’t matter anymore. This is just me doing some intellectual masturbation. A better world within my lifetime has been obliterated. I’m fucked. We’re fucked. And my soft anti-natalism has become hard anti-natalism.
No, I don’t view society and government as exactly the same thing. I do think there are overlaps and they influence each other.
I do think an informal government would naturally come to be if somehow a previous one dissolved or collapsed. And that government may or may not be benevolent but probably wouldn’t be. Things tend to get worse when a government collapses in a region, not improve.
Society is more of a sort of blob of overlapping social networks and social rules/expectations but they aren’t necessarily codified in law or formalized by a grander governing authority. They’re enforced by groups or collectives, sometimes on purpose and sometimes unconsciously. These rules often reinforce in-group and out-group thinking as well as pressure individuals to conform. Sometimes that conformity is reasonable (in that it prevents harm as a net effect) but more often its not.
I think a large and powerful arbiter group to steward individual rights but that is largely otherwise neutral is beneficial to have. Because otherwise smaller communities/groups will dominate and individuals will be at those community’s whims. This would need to be a government with its laws, court systems, (preferably) democratic norms for legislation, etc.
current social forms shouldn’t change much despite your disapproval?
“social forms” is an extremely broad category. I don’t have to want all of them or none of them.
Have you tried building something?
What is a society? What makes it work? How to start that shit? How to keep it going?
I don’t value society as an intrinsic good: its only valuable in so far that it services the individuals contained within it. Society is extrinsically valuable. So talking about what society is doesn’t matter that much to me unless we’re talking about it as a means to that end.
If society needs some of its individuals to suffer more than they would without one in order to make it great: it is not a worthwhile endeavor. No one chooses to be born, no one owes society anything. Society in fact owes the individuals because by its very existence it must be natalist in nature.
That said, many people enjoy contribution to a greater societal project. Some people don’t. I think we should enable people to do what they want without allowing people to impose their expectations of themselves on others.
Well what do you want from it and how would a thing that did that sustainably in ways that don’t disgust you look like?
The short answer I already gave you in the final three sentences of my last response.
The much longer answer is a heavily automated UBI supported Mutualist economy, with government healthcare because of its inelastic demand. As well as partially a government run housing system (specific percentage unknown, maybe a 50% mandate) that hyper emphasizes and incentivizes urbanization and disincentivizes rural or suburban living. I think these things would make the world significantly happier and healthier for the individuals living within it and would foster community building that is less dependent on religion.
The basic idea here is a sustainable number of individuals already naturally want to build society up. Hell, I used to be arguably one of them before this latest election. But a small percentage of sociopaths will accumulate too much wealth and power and then become tyrants. A mandatory mutualist co-op economy largely prevents this if its structured correctly, but still enables the individualistic choice and free association that a market provides without a collectivist pressure on the individual to work on things the individual doesn’t give a fuck about.
Outside of that, I largely disagree with virtually all non-economic “social” laws or socially/collectively pressured expectations upon the individual. I disagree with communists because they see individual workers as economic units for the whole collective of workers and they structure their systems through that lens. I relate most with anarchists, but disagree with them that a state needs to be completely dismantled for various practical reasons.
But of course I’m talking economics. Foreign policy however seems to be the reason a lot of the left dropped Kamala Harris, on foreign policy I’m purely consequentialist. And I think a lot of the left completely dropped the ball and myopically focused on a singular emotionally charged conflict/tragedy and ignored the potential of far worse mass death to be added on top of it by permitting a fascist to win to own the libs because they’re cushy with Israel. This was completely moronic and I do not respect people who base their voting decision on it. (and enough did that it likely effected the result, though it is hard to know with certainty) Obviously its bad that Israel is slaughtering Palestinians and the liberals are failures (at best) at stopping that but the fascists are exactly the same but worse on causing death on level (and worse for Palestinians as well). The only other justification for refusing to vote is some form of accelerationism and I absolutely despise accelerationists because they expect people today to suffer en masse for a possible brighter future that probably wont ever come because misery and death don’t work as a catalyst for a better world. Seeing the individuals of today as tokens to sacrifice and suffer so “society” can one day be great is anathema to my ideology.
And even if someone voted for Kamala Harris, but worked as hard as possible to post online about how she personally wanted Palestinian babies to be turned into ash, they probably influenced enough people to not vote for her to functionally nullify their own vote anyway. So I also don’t respect such a person either.
But yeah, IDK. It doesn’t matter anymore. This is just me doing some intellectual masturbation. A better world within my lifetime has been obliterated. I’m fucked. We’re fucked. And my soft anti-natalism has become hard anti-natalism.
You seem to think ‘society’ means ‘government’. Or that current social forms shouldn’t change much despite your disapproval?
Late response, work got busy.
No, I don’t view society and government as exactly the same thing. I do think there are overlaps and they influence each other.
I do think an informal government would naturally come to be if somehow a previous one dissolved or collapsed. And that government may or may not be benevolent but probably wouldn’t be. Things tend to get worse when a government collapses in a region, not improve.
Society is more of a sort of blob of overlapping social networks and social rules/expectations but they aren’t necessarily codified in law or formalized by a grander governing authority. They’re enforced by groups or collectives, sometimes on purpose and sometimes unconsciously. These rules often reinforce in-group and out-group thinking as well as pressure individuals to conform. Sometimes that conformity is reasonable (in that it prevents harm as a net effect) but more often its not.
I think a large and powerful arbiter group to steward individual rights but that is largely otherwise neutral is beneficial to have. Because otherwise smaller communities/groups will dominate and individuals will be at those community’s whims. This would need to be a government with its laws, court systems, (preferably) democratic norms for legislation, etc.
“social forms” is an extremely broad category. I don’t have to want all of them or none of them.