what am i trying to accomplish?
change.
so that the law recognizes that people need help. that the legal political economic structure is getting in the way, or actively preventing, what's only right: that everyone have a fair share of political and economic opportunities.
why?
what do i mean?
what do i want for people?
maybe it's about what i want for myself. the kind of world i want to live in. why give it preference? because that gives my life meaning.
i can structure what i want in such a way that it's based on what i think is best for everyone, not just me.
because i am like all.
that's a useful presupposition. a beautiful one.
consider the possibility that you wil be better off if we are all better off. a rising tide lifts all boats. consider that everything that makes us human and at all proud of our species, at all unique and self-aware, comes from each other. self-awareness itself, which of course is all the self is, the illusion of itself, the beautiful illusion - the essentially human art - is all the creation of not you, but the species as a whole. men are nothing, man everything. [i propose rather than trying to get rid of this use of man, we get rid of the use of man to describe a male person.] collaborative creation is the highest accomplishment of all animals, exhibited at its utmost in humans. dolphins too can create coordinate a series of actions through communication, but what separates humans and dolphins is the having of purposes.
the idea that everyone should look out only for themselves is obviously having disasterous consequences. it stops people from acting as humans.
i can only do that if i have a degree of personal security met.
but if we all did that, we'd meet each other's needs.
they must be simultaneous
it's always physical needs that gets between people.
[why the fuck can't i write like this for a journal article?]
we don't realize what animals we are.
nor how we are different from other animals.
all that distinguishes us from dolphins is the ability to manipulate the earth with our opposable thumbs and our consequent ability to think technologically, (our technological virtue).
but what distinguishes dolphins from other animals is the ability of collaborative creativity. or is it domination? is there a master and slave dolphin? must there always be master and slave in creative human relationships?
they are useful, but limited. we can move beyond them. we do so already in many instances. look to those models.
capitalism has been useful in many ways. but limited. because of this way it conflicts with human nature. it utilizes very well, but ultimately underutilizes our ability to work together (our collaborative virtue).
it has us work for ourselves, think only of the benefit to self. which would be fine if we realized what helps each other helps oneself more than you can do on your own. but there's a cognitive obstacle: as with all public goods, there's resistance to bearing a cost that others may benefit from more than or as much you do.
