interdependence as proof of peace as the default

[dsayers]

Hello, all. I am somebody who only began the journey of self-knowledge a year ago after 36+ years of propagandized obfuscation of reality to serve the preferences of others. It began by trying to understand philosophy and psychology and applying them to my own life. I've evolved to the point of having thoughts of my own, but am still a babe in properly assessing the truth or Socratic disproof of these ideas. So I wanted to share one for scrutiny if that's okay.

 

I hopped into my propaganda time machine and traveled back to the beginning of human existence in the presence of other humans beings. Apparently, there was a time before communication where it was realistic to simply club your neighbor to take his wife, pelt, mutton, what have you. Even though working together would be a much more sustainable prospect, particularly in a world they faced many dangers in as they hadn't yet begun to take control of it beyond the scope of their next meal.

 

Anyways, it would seem that this evolved into people dominating each other. Like perfecting their ability to control the world around them via improved tools and techniques, they also tried perfecting their ability to control the people in the world around them. Even though their ability to communicate and the usefulness of working together would accelerate their perfection of tools and techniques. Fast forward to today and millenia of momentum finds that people still subjugate and accept subjugation.

 

Now, early on in my exposure to the concepts of self-ownership, the NAP, and objective morality, I understood that the initiation of force was immoral and that that was binding, but I couldn't effectively articulate it in the presence of the assertion that people can (and will they posit) initiate force against others. As somebody who had half a decade prior gotten into guns and self-defense, my counterpoint was that initiating force against others actually threatens one own's survival. The hypothetical being that if I attack you, I need to kill you or else you can just come back at me with weapons or more people and that even if I did kill you, people might witness it or miss you and eventually come looking for me.

 

I do not think that this is a flawed concept or even an unimportant one. However, it deals with calculations. The people arguing that we need violent government people pretend is moral to protect us from the much smaller assailant that everybody would understand is immoral, are used to people who cannot think. Therefore they feel people could not be trusted to make these calculations so considerately. Thus it has not been an effective argument. Not that I believe logic, reason and evidence can be used to dissuade somebody from a conclusion they did not arrive at via logic, reason, and evidence.

 

I've since built on this concept. Incidentally, the year before I began pursuing self-knowledge, I had been thinking about my social station in life. I was not one for benign conversation or small relationships even before I could accurately identify what exactly I felt was important. Still, I was getting older and that can be perilous without some form of support network. It made me conscious of our interdependence on one another. Then after I began pursuing self knowledge and heard Jeffrey Tucker point out that there's no such thing as homemade ice cream, it became even clearer.

 

Considering the two together, I've come to the conclusion that our interdependence is proof of peace as the default. I guess this is another way of saying free market. For example, I thoroughly enjoy having a computer, but am not willing to mine the various elements etc required to make one. Meanwhile, I can provide or help to provide goods and services more efficiently than those that do not provide that specific good and service, so I have value to the people I need to acquire the things I want but am unwilling to entirely make myself.

 

Is the titular claim a valid one? Is it one that was invalid in the folk stories of humans living in caves that we are now enlightened enough to be able to sustain? Put another way, could it be said that there was a time that our desires did not outweigh our means, thus nullifying any dependence on others? I'm inclined to say no because you'll have a much easier time slaying a bear or even carrying a dead one with others than by yourself.

 

Sorry for the length. I get overrun with people that think that the way you protect against immorality is to amplify it and place the amplified version in the hands of the few despite people not being fundamentally different. I've tried pointing out that all good, all evil, mostly good, mostly evil all do not benefit from a state. I think it would offer me peace of mind if I could logically prove that peace is the default and that those who didn't coalesce would become marginalized once we as a species begin to think on the whole.

 

[EDIT]

PLEASE be critical to the point of being what others might call nitpicky. I'm only interested in the truth, so any correction/clarification would be a welcome one. Thank you.

Edited January 5, 2014 by dsayers

[Mishelle]

Interesting thoughts, thanks for sharing!

 

My immediate reflection, since you posted on my topic and that's where my thoughts immediately go, is that self-reliance and interdependence are not mutually exclusive.  We are all producers and consumers, let's assume.  The greater control you have over the means of your own survival, the more freedom you have to contribute meaningfully to the free market.  Collapse will always be a possibility, there is no other possibility.  The society needs to be structured so that minimum impact is felt on the individual, family, community when natural or man-made disasters occur.  Central planning in these things can never work.  Local control of food, water, energy resources means you are not a slave or a master.

 

My 2 cents so far, but maybe I'll blog about this today, if so I'll include the link later.

 

thanks for the inspiration and discussion!

[dsayers]

Does anybody know what happened to Mishelle? I was gone for a few months a while back, but before I left, she was a great poster who availed herself of the call in show and everything.