Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Allegiance To Thee Versus Allegiance To 'We'

I suspect we lost something when we switched from what was generally practiced, namely allegiances to persons, to allegiances to corporate bodies. The worst part is that we've lost functional corporate bodies- whether it's marriage, nation, church, etc... An oath to a person keeps one's moral compass steady; an oath to a corporate body sets the needle aflutter with a thousand false readings.

I also suspect we are reaching an inflection point, where we practically have no choice but to learn this lesson anew; how else do we provide an alternative to institutions crashing down around us? How do we defend life, liberty, and property? How do we set up courts? How do we trade?

There are a thousand more questions, not least of which would be how do we raise up a sane generation- a problem already become obvious due to the effect feminism has had on marriage. This is a cause for concern, because one might find the first starts towards valuing personal allegiances destructive- like gangs. It's not at all clear people will reach for solid, life affirming patterns; one would at least need to know that they existed first, and public school has done a pretty good job of shrouding reality in inanity.

It is unlikely that a similar corporate mentality can compete with and ultimately overcome the current system. First, the corporate mentality contains within it the seeds of it's own destruction. 'We' is an abstraction, which, when subjectively experienced, feels a lot like me+; with no person to anchor the other end of the agreement, no methodological individualism, 'we' becomes a tragedy of the commons.

Second, the current system still has power and will use it to smash any corporate entity it finds threatening it's existence. It also can and has grafted some of these corporate entities on to itself. If the conservative movement in the Republican party ever was a threat to Washington D.C., it certainly isn't now.

One can't use political means to enforce rights that weren't supposed to be touched by politics in the first place.

Rather, we must stake out our territories of control and defend them from the intrusion of the state. In order to do this well, we have to learn where we have been complicit with the state, where we have assumed it was okay to topple a traditional authority from his realm. We need the most robust patterns possible in order to build something that can survive and overcome.

No comments: