the problem of the individual and the state

[Peter Kropotkin]

In this post, I am going attempt to relate the issues
of our times, the political, social, economic
and philosophical into a possible solution or course of action
for us, both individually and collectively..... the individual aspect
and the collective aspect of course represents the micro and the
macro theme of our lives.....

as a broad theme, it seems to me that, again broadly, that the left/liberals
tend to favor more collective actions and the right/conservatives tend
to favor more individual actions...this individualism and collectivism
of America is reflected in all kinds of ways within America.....

for example, capitalism is more individualism and communism is
more collective... I suspect, again, can't prove, but suspect that
part of the ''modern'' problem lies in the inability of ours to
be moderate in being both an individual and as part of a group.....
we lean too far on one side or the other... but personally, given a choice,
I would rather lean into the collective than individualism....

part of the problem as I see, it is also the fact that few, if any, seems
to present an actual goal or point to being an individual or part of a
collective/community....

so, we have two bricks, so far, in our little wall, one is this conflict
between individualism and collectivism and there being no goal in
either one....

''We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their creator, with certain unalienable rights,
that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness--
that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among
men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed''

for me, this passage brings out both the individual and the collective
nature of both being an American and being human....
but if I were to have a problem with this passage, it would be this,
it neglected our duties... of course, Kant writings are in the future,
what is our duty to the state and what is our duty to ourselves?

For being human is not just about our freedoms or liberties or happiness,
but also, about our obligations, responsibilities, and yes, duties to
both ourselves and to others.... and we have never really worked them out,
even though they are essential to our being human....

for we are born of evolution and the primary knowing of being human
is that we are social creatures... we are born of the society and state...
we cannot survive on our own, we cannot achieve our own personal
goals of achieving our bodily and psychological needs without
others... I cannot meet my bodily needs of eating, water, shelter,
education, health care, without others... and I cannot meet my
psychological needs of love, safety/security, being esteemed by others,
and a sense of belonging without others...

the creation of the state/government is a means for us to be
able to achieve our needs.. that is the essential point of the state,
to allow us a way to achieve our needs, both bodily and psychological.....
and now let us return to the tendency of the right and left...
given these idea's, we can see that the left has a better sense
of the value of the state... for we can achieve our needs, better through
collective actions, not by individual actions....

the bottom line for human beings is to achieve their needs...
and the question becomes, how best to achieve that goal?
and for this, we need both individual and collective participation
in what it means to be human....

Yesterday, a young kid came into the store... he and it was clearly a he,
was wearing a combination of women's clothes and men's clothes....
including neon green high heels, and was I offended? Yes, neon green
high heels, seriously? but do I have a right to prevent this young lad from
being who he is? No more than he has a right to prevent me from being
who I am.... and am I offended is enough to prevent him from dressing
the way he wants to? Entire state laws are devoted to preventing this young man
from dressing the way he wants to dress and by what right do we have
to prevent his way of dressing? It violates OUR sense of decency...
OUR sense of what is male or female... if he is trying to reach his needs,
and that is in this case, his psychological needs, then by what right do we
have to prevent this? the argument of the right wing, is that somehow, never really
laid out in full how, but that somehow, this young man cross dressing will
bring about the end of civilization we know it...
that this young man is violating the norms of behavior and morality....
which is really nothing more than an understanding of what it means
to be human.... Ethics is really just theory of being human....
Animals don't have ethics, they have no theory of being animal
or of the correct behavior of being an animal... they simply follow
their instincts... and when the right wing demands that we must
hold to a man and a woman being the only right way to exists,
that too is just another example of humans acting from instinct....
but why must we limit what human being must do to become
who they are? the conservatives have a very limited notion of
what it means to be human...we must be a certain type of person,
to be human...and yet, at the exact same time, the conservative
demands individualism... as opposed to liberals...

we can be individuals and still act within the needs of the state/
government... our individual needs of being who we are, doesn't
clash with our interactions with the state/government....
or how does that young man neon greens high heels prevent
him from working inside the state to achieve both his goals
and mine?

Our current problems, both socially and politically is that we haven't yet, worked out
our roles within the society/state.... what does it mean to be human in our
modern day society/state? Is the goal to become who we are, in conflict
with our expected obligations and responsibilities of being members
of the state/society? the right wing believes that becoming who we are,
is in conflict with the state/society... but this side of modern existence
has never really been explored by philosophers... how do we hold to,
maintain our own sense of self, given that we must also engaged with
the state/society? Do the two mesh or do they clash?

More after the break...

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

so, what is the solution to our problems?

Well, to begin with, we have to come to some sort of agreement
as to the exact nature of our problems.... the right wing denies
the entire global warming argument... and the left believes in
global warming being a problem, and the science is completely
on the side of the left...

and so, is this a social, political, legal, scientific, or philosophical
question? is this an individual problem or a collective problem?

and we return to the cross-dressing young man I mentioned earlier....
is he cross-dressing a problem? and if so, is it a legal, social, political,
or a philosophical problem? Is this an individual problem or a collective
problem?

Much of the confusion we face today is that unclear nature of what
is individual problem and what is a collective problem?
for me, the young man cross dressing is an individual problem because
it doesn't impact me... how does another person's clothing impact me,
exactly how does it impact me? One might say, as the right always says,
but what about the children? What about them? They might get the ''wrong
idea'' but who is to say that cross-dressing is the ''wrong idea?''
and that becomes a value problem... and values are a philosophical
argument....which values should we hold and why those values
specifically? The problem with the right is that they cannot find an
argument that precludes cross-dressing without bringing in god or
theology.... and religions are nothing more than arguments about
values... which values should we hold and why?

so, in the end, we come to the focal point of actions for
or against such things as global warming or cross-dressing...
that of values....which is to say, it is not a social or political
or a legal or even an Aesthetic problem... most of the problems,
and solutions for that matter... are a function of philosophy...

what values are your values, both individually and collectively..
that is the question really facing us today.... and that is a philosophical
problem... not legal or social or political, but philosophical....

so, philosophically, how do we face a problem and how do
we come to a solution? And we can see if we can apply
philosophical solutions to our modern problems?

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

part of the modern problem lies in its expectations vs reality issue
we are told from day one, that if we work hard and ''play the game'',
that we will be rewarded.... that is the expectation, but the reality
is that for most people, that simply isn't true...we spend our lives
working in the system and for what? a piss poor retirement after
working for 40 or 50 years? a retirement that most of us can't even afford...
one study suggests that most baby boomers, have little to no money saved up....
and how can we save up if we have homes to buy or cars to buy or send
our children to college? given the low pay most of us get, we are really
just better dressed slaves.. when all is said and done in my regard,
I might, might have $200,000 saved up...that will last, at best, 5 years..
more likely, 4 years.. and so, I am going to retire around 66, almost 67
years old... so, four years puts it at 70, 71 depending....
that is all the retirement I can afford...and if I live to 80, which is
a reasonable time frame given my mother's family history of living long lives,
my mother is 89 and her mother lived to 95.. soooooo...now what?

am I supposed to work until I die? what a terrible fate...my health is
failing as it is... I doubt I can physically work until I am 67 as it is...
and millions of fellow boomers are in the exact same boat..
and what it the solution? the solution as I see it comes from
a new understanding of what it means to be human....
that we human beings have value outside of our creating profits...
that we are more important than profits... the solution isn't political
or social or legal.. but a new way of thinking about what it means
to be human... the case of giving human beings value beyond just
making a profit...which is where we are today....
the minute you stop making a corporation profits, you are gone...
and with that goes your health care, your ability to eat and keeping
a roof over your head... that is the reality that is today's reality....
none of this bullshit that if you work hard and play the game,
you will be rewarded.... and that problem of expectations vs
reality is one that has created substantial problems in today's world...

but has anyone actually acknowledged this?

being a history buff, I can tell you that the expectations of the
average person was basically to live and die... and maybe,
if you believed enough, you might go to heaven...
and that was the promise of most of history...
there was no promise of advancement into society offered
by any society before us... The average Roman or the average
Greek, had no promises of a better life, if they just played the game....
and that is one of major differences from yesterday to today....
we, society has made promises of a better life if we just play the game
of working hard and being good citizens..... and we did just that...
and we were lied to....'

Much of the modern discontent comes from those broken
promises.... so, should have then avoided making those promises?
Promises once made cannot be walked away from...
just as modern-day politicians have now talked about
reducing or eliminating Social Security and/or Medicare....
Is this just another promise being broken by the state/society?
and when SS or Medicare no longer support us, what are we
suppose to do? Well, clearly the answer, according to the GOP/MAGA
party, is to die... and that is exactly what will happen if social security
and/or Medicare are reduced or eliminated...
and that feeds into the entire argument of the right, that if you are not
making, right now, profits for us, we need you to die..... you have no
more value to us... by by.... the entire retirement and death argument
are fed by the values of corporate America... money before people....
but that again, is an expectation vs reality discussion......
we were promised to have Social Security and Medicare.. at a level
that would support us in old age... and that promise is easily
broken by the right....

so, what values should we have? How about a radical idea...
that we put people before profits.... that we aid and help people
in their lives... instead of making it harder and harder to survive....

so, what expectations do you have and what is the reality of
those expectations? What promises have been made to you,
that were broken by the state/society?

what is the reality of our lives as opposed to the promise?

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

one of the modern expectations has been in the ism of nationalism
and country...
we are supposed to hold country before other values, but what
do we get in return? Am I supposed to be patriotic with
a country that will happily sacrifice me in return for profits?
a country that will walk away from its promises of Social Security
and Medicare? a relationship, any relationship can only function if
both side trust each other.... and I hold that the relationship
between America and its citizens are severely damaged due
to the lies of America toward its citizens....

the lie that if you work hard, you will be rewarded, that if you are promised
Social security and Medicare, you will get that when the time comes...
I feel, and I may or may not be alone, but I feel that America hasn't keep
its promises to its citizens... the problem with the ''entitlement state''
of today, is that America hasn't gone far enough to actually improves its
citizens lives... we still have income inequality and food disparities,
with many citizens barely surviving... is that really the promise of America?

or said another way... we are holding the wrong values and acting
on those values that dehumanize or devalue its citizens....
is an American that chooses to spend it budget money on military
defense, is that really a choice we should make? To say that another way,
a political budget of the state, be it local or federal, is really an
ethical, moral statement of the values that state holds.....
if we put the military first, that budget is a moral, ethical
statement about the values of a country....

if we spend our money on the military and very little on programs
to help and aid people, what is the moral statement being made?
is that an America that we were promised? Where the needs of the
people are put first?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their creator, with certain unalienable rights,
and among those are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.. that
to secure these rights, government are instituted among men
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed''

and if we put the wealthy and the powerful and corporations first,
then we have violated the entire idea of ''all men are created equal''
..''with certain unalienable rights among those are life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness''

if we put defending our liberties before we live our liberties,
then we too have violated or broken our promise....
any defense of America that puts the defense of America before
its citizens, is to make the military-industrial complex first, before
its citizens... what is the point of protecting America if we
do not put the idea of ''all men are created equal'' first or
that we have ''certain unalienable rights, among them are life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness''' it doesn't say, the pursuit
profits.. it says we are equal and we are promised the ability
to ''rights, among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness''

Chasing profits violates all three clauses of the declaration...
for in chasing profits, we are held to be lower than profits,
and we have liberty as long as it doesn't interfere with profits,
and we must chase money/profits before our pursuit of
happiness...more promises being broken in the name of
profits....

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

so given these vexing problems, how do we understand
this question of the micro vs macro?

what is the relationship between the individual and the state/society
at large? and we can see the disproportion impact of the government
on the individual but we really can't see the individual impact on
the state/society? Can one person really impact the state, as the
myths seem to go?

We have plenty of histories and stories about the single individual who
has impacted the state/society... Socrates to Jesus to Gandhi to MLK....
but as far as I can tell, the question becomes what came first, the
individual and their story or the state/society already being part
of that story.... we have Jesus and his impact, but that story
he was telling had already been in the air for decades before
he was born... it was already part of the environment of his life....
and what he did was focused the story... made it his story and by
doing so, make it everyone's story....a story that was already ongoing...

leaders don't create the story, they become part of the story that
was already there...and so it goes, for Socrates and Gandhi and MLK...
they didn't create the story, they came into the story as it was
already happening.. and made it their story...

the great movement of the last 200 years were stories that were already
in circulation at the arrival of the ''leader''...
Napoleon didn't create the story, he simply carried on the Enlightenment
story from years past...Napoleon carried the Enlightenment movement
into action... as that was the reigning paradigm of that time period....
Romanticism was still in its infant stages... and what other role model
did he have?

And that become the point of the various movement over the last
200 years.... that the civil rights movement and the homosexual movement and
women rights were all long in the air for quite a while before they
become movements.... movement like this don't just happen out
of the blue... they have a history.. and that history is important to
know to give context to our or any other story....

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

So, how exactly does the micro of the individual
connect with the macro of the state/society?

think about it... in your day to day life, how does your actions
connect with the state/society?

I get up, check the internet for news, eat breakfast, make myself
pretty by showering and the rare times I shave...
at no point in my house, do I connect with the state/society....

I get into my car and drive to work...at that point, I connect with
the state/society... the traffic laws are the state business...
I allow foot traffic to go first because that is the law around here...
cars stop for pedestrians... and I don't fight it.. it is a good law....
but it is rather annoying.. to have to wait for those really slow pedestrians...
in my drive to the freeway, I have several stops, both for stoplights and
stop signs... once again, I stop for the state/society... and I don't
have a problem with it... but it is interesting to note, that, so far,
all my interactions with the state/society have been passive...
there has been no direct interactions between the state/society and
myself.. I allow pedestrians to go and I stop at stop signs...
that has been the entire interactions with the state so far....
but I also go the speed limit... another passive interaction...

after several stoplights, I get the freeway...and there I am usually,
met with a metered light that dictates when I am able to go onto
the freeway....green and I go... but I see people all the time jumping
before the light changes and going onto the freeway... but I don't,
I wait.... and once on the freeway, I drive the generally accepted
way of driving on the freeway.. slow cars in the slow lane...
I stay in the slow lane, the right lane because I only have a couple
of offramps before I get off... if it is in the morning before 9:00 Am,
I will hit bad traffic.. and it can take over 45 minutes before I get
to work.. a distance of 6 miles.. but bad traffic is another example
of the passive interactions with the state.. we drivers, tend to,
tend to follow the rules of the road.. and in doing so, I am,
usually late.. a couple of minutes most of the time...
and inside the store, I have no direct interactions with the state...
it is all passive... the law dictates how we are to interact with
shoplifters and we follow the law... the actions that are illegal
outside the store are also illegal inside the store... and when
a homeless person, goes beyond just begging, and they do that
a lot at my store... we then have to call the police....
the occasional calling the police on some homeless person..
and there, right there is my first active interaction with the state...
sometimes they will do something, sometimes not....it depends...

and at the end of the day, I drive home.. again, with no
active engagement with the state/society... it is all passive...
I get home, kiss my wife... and continue my evening until its
time to go to bed....so, outside of the occasional police
call at work, and that isn't about me, but about the shoplifter
or homeless person... I have very little interaction with the
state/society.....I am one of millions of people whose interactions with
the state/society are no different than mine... we passively
engage with the rules of the state/government on a daily basis,
but we don't actually interact with an active member of the state..

so, when do we actually have an interaction with the state/government?
how would we interact with the state/society, given that my life
is very similar to most other's people life? Which is to say, we
passively interact with the state, say 99% of the time.... we follow
the rules and we obey the laws... with no personal interactions with
the state/society....

and does my interactions with customers, inside the store,
also count as interactions with the state/society?
not with the state, but within the rules of our generally interacting
with people on a daily basis... for we have the official rules of the
state/society and we have the unofficial rules of engagement with people...
now some of those rules may have legal ramifications, and some do not....
for I legally can't touch customers, and yet that rule is violated all the time,
when I shake hands with someone or touch their arms in agreement with
something they said.. and here it is all about intent...what are my
intentions when touching someone... but that is, as usual, rather
vague... when does the line go from passively touching someone to
actively touching someone, with intent to harm?
and the passive rules of touching changes when it is a woman, as
oppose to a man...

the entire point of this little exercise is to point out that
we have official laws and unofficial rules of our engagement with
other people....we have passive dealings with the state/society
and we have active dealings with the state/society....

and the way we deal with each situation changes depending on
the situation and the official vs unofficial status of the situation....

for most people, we passively deal with the state... we simply
follow the rules already established for us and we follow
them even if, even if no one is there to watch us...like stopping
at all stop signs... regardless...

and yet, even after all that, we still haven't gotten to the point
where we actually engage with either the state or the society....
where do we actively connect with each other, actively, not
passively?

Kropotkin