Morality

What is morality anyway?
A set of rules that exist in order to make it easier for humans to live and to be happy.
The kind of morality people accept as being correct is certainly relative. It forms via ``memetic evolution``. A belief survives and thrives if it is beneficial to the people who hold it. And as conditions change certain beliefs become more or less beneficial to have. But the question:

Is there an objective morality, whether it is inborn, of divine origin, or to be discovered by intellectual efforts?

is yet to be answered.
But I will be trying that question in this latest little rant of mine.

First off is morality innate? Yes and no. People are born with an innate ability to tell right from wrong, and want to punish wrong and reward good. This is an evolutionary adaptation we have developed as a result of our community lives. Cavemen who were mean to other cavemen were exiled from the tribe and eaten by saber-tooth tigers. And obviously the opposite, nice cavemen were valuable to their communities and were treated better.

Of course just this innate morality is worthless, and even harmful, without our intellect.

If we see someone being harmed we feel a need to protect them and punish their attackers. But if we know this person is being punished we do not, however, feel the same way about them.

So we need to use our intellects to determine what is moral and what is n`t and that we cant ``just follow our hearts`` because what feels right is n`t always right, and what feels wrong is n`t always wrong. When people really are doing something wrong they either think it`s right, or are not thinking about right and wrong (usually blinded by rage, or grief)

So if we decide to create a social morality with punishments and rewards for antisocial and pro-social behaviors respectively, as we have an innate predisposition to do, we must give these rules a firm basis, make them into law. We have to compensate for the fact that people can be biased, and to try and make these laws as consistent as possible, and make sure people are judged by these laws and not by mobs.

And that is what has traditionally been done. And social moralities have certainly made their fair share of blunders. So, we need to decide which moralities are moral.

Well good news is, there are only two criteria by which we can see which moralities are moral. Both have to be fulfilled in order for the morality to be accepted as correct

Determine whether the claims it is founded on are factually correct.
Determine whether it is consistent (That it never contradicts itself)

Almost all moral codes are consistent, but are wrong because they are founded on false assumptions.
For instance, Hitler wan`t wrong because he was inconsistent, but because all the people he murdered were not ``untermensch`` Germany didn`t need to ``Expand or die``

Ideologies

Edenist ideologies
People who adhere to what I call Edenist ideologies believe there is some supreme commandment, from which all others stem, and that all the evil in the world exists because this principle is not adhered to. In this group we find Anarchism, most religions, Anacratic Capitalism.

In the case of Religions, the Supreme Commandment is divine will.

In the case of Anarchism it is what they call ``the cooperation principle``An idea of universal human solidarity, mutual help and cooperation to achieve common wellbeing. All for one and one for all. Like the novel ``The Dispossessed`` They believe in total and utter human equality. Therefore, they oppose Capitalism just as much as the State, as both perpetuate human inequality In their opinion, all evil comes from the fact that human beings strive towards their self interest, which leads them to subjugate and dominate each other. They think self interest is the motive for all evil, and that if people only strove to help others evil could not exist.(If you`re an anarchist and think I said something wrong feel free to tell me)

In the case of Anacratic Capitalism the Supreme Commandment is the Non Aggression Principle or NAP
They believe all voluntary human interaction is moral, and anything that involves the use of force is immoral. Also that people own their bodies, and therefore the fruits of their labor. That is why they are against the existence of government, but not of capitalism, as capitalism is voluntary, but government is coercive.

Relativist Ideologies
Ideologies that believe that  the world changes and develops and that morality needs to develop with it. They don`t believe there is a cure-all, or some underlying fault that can be fixed in order to set the world right. Here you will find pretty much every ideology you have ever heard of other than the fore-mentioned three. This is where you can find my beliefs

Now I believe the reason for much(not even most) of the evil in the world is class conflict.
There are two classes in the world. Those who work and produce, and those who own the means by which the workers do so. The Proletarians and Propertarians. The Propertarians I subdivide into capital creators(enterprising) and those who merely passively own what the former have created (non-enterprising) That would be the infamous 1% of people who own most of the stock(shares in the means of production) there is to own. The pyramid looks something like this

The uppermost wealth elite own a huge part of all the wealth there is to own, thanks to the fact they own the means of production. Regardless of whether it is moral or not, the working class, the vast majority of the population, will want to get their hands on that wealth. And the owners will certainly want to preserve it. In order to do this, they have to hire people to protect them. That is why states form. Because it is the only way for the rich to preserve their wealth. If they merely used their own money to protect their wealth, they would still be overpowered by the vast majority organizing to take it from them. Therefore the wealthy need to create a monopoly on violence in order to remain wealthy

History confirms this. The first states formed in river valleys, where agriculture first formed. Agriculture was productive enough for owning the means of agricultural production (the land) to make sense. The land was parceled out. Then it was bought and sold until it got concentrated in very few hands. Then these rich land owners created the first states to protect their wealth. That is why the rulers and ruling elites of the first states were landowners. For as long as agriculture was the backbone of the economy, all ruling elites remained landowners. When the Industrial Revolution happened the main means of production became industrial capital (factories)The old wealth elite, which relied on owning land was destroyed, but the monopoly over violence they created (their state) endured to serve their new industrial masters.
Now by this time society had become democratized to a certain extent. This process had begun in the late Middle ages, when a third class of merchants and craftsmen had formed in the cities, and started fighting for their chunk of power. This democratization meant that government had become, at least to an extent, a force of its own, which could serve the interests of  the Proletarians against the Propertarians or just go of doing its own thing and harming both. But overall it still maintained the monopoly over violence necessary to maintain private ownership over the means of production. Capitalism was still its Siamese twin. They could wound, but not mortally harm each other, like Harry and Voldemort`s wands. That is pretty much the system that dominates the world today.

So my solution would be to ban people from ``owning`` capital in the traditional sense. If capital could not be bought and sold, inherited, given away or bartered, like normal property, it could not be accumulated in such quantities that its owners needed to create a state to defend themselves. In other words, people should only be allowed to be the bosses of enterprises they have created, and should have no right to transfer that privilege to anyone. And after they die, their employees would spontaneously take over their factories. Worker cooperatives can function, it`s been proven. They would not own the enterprises in the traditional sense either. They would not be like shareholders. They would merely be people who earn a livelihood from willingly working together. They would take care of the enterprise and better it for the same reasons a boss would: They can make more money. They would kick out lazy workers and looters as well. Again for the same reason a boss would.

And, ironically we would need a state to accomplish that.

A state will always form to further class interests. The only difference is whether it will protect the Propertarian or the Proletarian class, and the default is a state which protects the rich.

Why we DO need government

What would really happen if we abolished government?

PART 1
Well what happens when an oil company goes bankrupt? Other companies buy up its assets.

But what if the whole world oil industry ceased to exist?
By which I mean went bankrupt all of a sudden, not all the physical stuff exploding or burning down or getting launched into space.
Who would fill that gap? Oil is supremely important for the modern economy. But it is even more important for busynesses that rely on oil production for their own. Like the automotive, plastic or tire industries for instance. They would have 2 options

1. They could wait for new oil companies to crop up and provide them.

The market is just opening again there is huge demand and supply has n`t caught up yet so prices are high.

2 They could decide to invest in some oil-wells and refineries of their own. Why not? If the old oil companies were ready to sell them their oil, that means they were charging them more than they spent to produce it. So the cost of production is X and the price they sold it for is X+profit. So it would certainly be profitable, especially given the circumstances.

Which do you think would happen?!

Lets try to apply this to the security and other government run industries.

Now If you are an anarchist, you believe the state is innately immoral. Ergo, all the state has done needs to be discontinued and where possible undone, right?

Lets say anarchists manage to convince 10,1% of the 20% of people who actually vote (in any country) that anarchism is the solution, come into office and abolish government.

America as an example.  You would need to let your entire prison and mental hospital population out on the streets. Everyone living of the public sector is suddenly unemployed. All those American soldiers are coming home from military bases all around the world. Now they find out they are n`t going to get a pension or anything at all from the government and that they might as well have been up their own asses the whole time they were in the military. The same applies for police officers. All of a sudden there is no Social Security no Welfare, no anything(And what the hell do we do with the Nukes?!)

As for people working in the private sector: You don`t know what you have until you loose it. Most people take police and schools for granted and have never needed to think much about them.

Even if anarchist-capitalists are correct, and (given wise consumers) free markets in those areas could do much better, the vast majority of the people have never had to think about which private fire company or which private police or private school to pay for. People in the private sector would be screaming with joy because they would get to keep their whole paychecks all of a sudden. So because of this euphoria (and gross inexperience) they would all but forget they have to PAY for all the former government services and go on a spending binge.

Have you ever said to yourself on a Friday evening:``Screw this, I have the whole weekend to finish this!``and then on Monday morning you realize you basically wasted your whole weekend?(Even though you had enough time to finish five times more work) Just replace `` I`ve got the whole weekend`` with ``I`ve got my whole paycheck now`` and you will get the picture.
This would make people sink into their own private lives and loose empathy. ``I am neck deep in worries, I don`t have time to worry about a bunch of lazy bums!``
And if they manage to thrive in this new system they would also loose empathy ``If I can do this well, why can`t those lazy bums at least feed themselves?``
Wealth disparity would become huge and this(combined with you know, letting out the entire prison population) would spark the crime wave to end all crime waves.

The most heavily armed places are also the most aggressive and ``self reliant``ones so they would think they can solve all their disputes themselves.

They would end up having blood feuds like the Crips and Bloods.(Or if you remember ``The Godfather`` oll di men are a ded from vendettas``)

If you have read books like Heart of Darkness you should know that people tend to go nuts when they sense weakness in external authority.

All it takes is for one person to go out looting and everyone else will pop.

Especially if that person is an angry ex cop or soldier, whom people are used to believing are the upholders of law and order.

Now who has the most to loose in this atmosphere of looting, shooting and lunacy?
Who has the most means to intervene?

The answer to both questions: Massive corporations. It would make a lot of sense for them to get together and mutually secure each other from crime by taking over the security industry for their needs (just like with the oil example). They could also make security into a new busyness that would certainly be profitable.

Now you have busyness men with private forces of armed men

If they have cooperated so well together to get rid of crime, why would n`t they also get rid of another common nuisance, competitors? The biggest (armed) corporations would ally and would use a mixture of aggressive pricing and mafia-style intermediary violence to oligopolize the market in......just about everything.

Most people would n`t give a damn because they would still have good services provided to them by those corporations. Just like most Germans turned a blind eye to Jews disappearing, because Hitler gave them VW Beetles and Autobahns.

Until the oligopolization is completed. Then you have a tiny, unelected elite that doesn`t answer to anybody, controlling all the means of production and enjoying the backing of an armed force. Isn`t it your argument anarchists, that ``the only way to maintain a monopoly is to use violence``?

What do you think happens next?!

PART 2 But hey, let`s say none of this happens. Let`s say Milton Friedman`s system really does take place.

If you pay little money for food, you get bad food. The same applies for pretty much everything right?

Why would it not apply for security? So you have good security for the rich and bad security for the poor. Do you think that`s fair? You think charity would solve that?

Also not all people would go to security companies. In fact, many would band together with their kin group or neighbors to provide security for each-other. Certainly sounds reasonable, and it is very much in the self reliant spirit of Anarcho-Capitalism don`t you think? And it is what we had before governments was n`t it?

This would be fine for solving crimes WITHIN the clans. But what happens when a person from one clan kills a person from another clan? You get blood feuds, because people in clans will tend to defend and avenge their people. That is the case with the Mafia, that was the case with any clan/tribe society in history.

But let us get back to the security firms. Let`s say George kills Bill. BUT he knew his busyness. He got himself an alibi, hid the body well, used a very common weapon etc. It is by no means clear to the public (or the clients of George`s security firm) who committed the crime right? No reputation loss there. So they decide to protect him.

Let`s say Bill`s security company does an investigation and finds George guilty and demands his extradition. George`s company will not want to extradite their client. Especially if he is rich and can make it worth their while. In George`s case they can get away with not extraditing him because the public does not know who is guilty. Hence George`s firm does not get a bad name for protecting criminals.

Then Bill`s firm demands they both hire an arbitration company. But George`s firm says something like``We will not waste the money of our clients on this. It is our job to defend them from aggressive thugs like you, and that is what we are doing.``

Now they will not always do this. They might even do this LESS often than not (when it is profitable), but sometimes they will still do it.

Anarchocapitalists claim that people would instantly boycott any security companies that protect criminals. As I said, most of the time they would not know whether it is true. Even if they did, deciding to change security firms would not be like switching from Pepsi to Coke, it would be a very big decision. Most people would not be paying monthly checks to their companies. People would know they could loose their jobs and not be able to afford it anymore. Most people would make long term contracts with security companies to make sure they never end up without security for themselves and their families. They might pay a large deposit upfront from their savings or a bank loan to ensure security for a year or two. Boycotting would mean loosing a lot of money and putting your loved ones and yourself in danger. You would have your spouse, your parents and in-laws wanting to kill you for doing it.
Besides, everyone knows jeans are sewed by sweatshop workers in Bangladesh(well not in my case cause I`m from Serbia and we mostly make our own jeans in factories here), from cotton grown by child laborers in Turkmenistan. That most electronics have minerals and metals in them mined by slaves in the Congo, that our chocolate is made from coco farmed by trafficked child slaves from Mali languishing away in the Ivory Coast, with no hope of ever seeing their families again.

And do we boycott any of these things? Even though it would cost us a fraction of what boycotting a security company would? We pretend we don`t know, we make up excuses, or justifications or blame it on capitalism or communism or government or corporations, reptilians, the Illuminati...anything really, to get the blame off of ourselves.

And I`m even assuming people will put in the effort to find out whether or not his/her security firm is protecting criminals. I mean we`re assuming this of people who don`t even want to do jury duty!

And this is where we get to the ONE place I UTTERLY AGREE with mister Milton Friedman

SECURITY FIRMS WILL NOT GO TO WAR BECAUSE IT IS TO EXPENSIVE

Hence George gets away with murder.

But let`s say he did a sloppy job of killing Bill and he knows he needs help quickly. Where there is demand there shall be supply(which is quite a capitalist thing to say). THE MAFIA WILL PROVIDE it does not need to worry about its reputation does it?

Now if a war against George`s security firm was unprofitable, why would a war against the Mob be different? The Mob would never dare openly protect criminals like this against the government, because the government is big enough to crush them outright.

Now you anarchists jump in and say ``But without the government to ban the drug trade and prostitution and prevent people from defending themselves organized crime could not exist! People should be allowed to do whatever they want with their bodies! If the stupid government focused its resources on preventing violence instead of enforcing fascist purity laws everything would be so much better!``
(Conveniently ignoring the fact that drug addicts are quite prone to committing violence, and that prostitutes, for obvious cultural reasons, often the victims of violence)
Fine you can legalize all that, but the old Mafia families are still going to be doing it. Might not be as profitable as in the old days but certainly better than nothing.

Also there are banks, but loan-sharking is still something the mafia makes money from. Why would n`t the same happen with legalized prostitution and drug dealing?

And if they were criminals before, why would they shy away from being criminals again? They could be strong enough to deter any individual security firm from going to war with them. A security firm would have to hire mercenaries to fight them. The mobsters might get military training for themselves. Who is going to stop them? All it takes is one soldier willing to teach them! So it boils down to who is more motivated. Mobsters are like a family, they take care of each-other. Mercenaries are just in it for the cash. Who do you think would fight better?

So what you get is basically a bunch of feuding, warring tribes on the one hand and corrupt security firms locked in an unwinnable struggle with a gargantuan Mafia on the other.

Now I don`t know, maybe that IS better than having massive Governments and States that CAN cause huge wars or send millions of people to death-camps. It is really up to you to decide.

The difference (at least to me) is states CAN do more harm but do not necessarily HAVE to. With a society where the state is just abolished outright I cannot imagine ANYTHING other that the two things described above happening. If you think I`m wrong please feel free to say so.
PART 3
But there is more to be said here. Not only is anarcho-capitalism not applicable to real life, its claims are logically incongruent. For instance:
AnCap claim 1:``If we abolished government there would be no need to fear the Mob or warlords would take over. Most people are decent and honest and would organize against it.``

AnCap Claim 2:``Government is just a criminal take-over of society by warlords, ruling via oppression over a mostly decent majority population that cannot or will not organize itself and resist it``

See anything wrong with that?

For people who consider government to be a disease, they take a very superficial stance when it comes to treating it. They just say ``Get rid of it and all shall be better`` If you look at the map you may notice those damnable government things are literally all over the place.

So clearly there must be some deeper reason for their existence, be it good or bad, right?
So where did we first start seeing symptoms? Mesopotamia would be ground zero for this epidemic then. What set ancient Mesopotamia apart from the rest of the planet was its wealth. It was one of the first places human beings were able to amass significantly more wealth than they needed to survive.(Because of the fertile land and developed agriculture)
This led to: Unprecedented population growth and specialization in labor and private ownership over the means of production (in this case land) leading to the first divides between rich and poor.

If you are familiar with Orwell, this is where things start to get interesting.

These ever-larger communities of humans had rising levels of anti social activity (i.e. raping stealing, murder etc)partly due to the fact it was easier to be evil to strangers,(just like big cities today have more crime than small towns) and partly because the farmers suddenly saw themselves as poor compared to the new rich class of landowners, merchants and skilled craftsmen. In Orwell`s language, the High had risen above the Low.

Now, in order to defend their wealth, the High needed a class of protectors to defend them against the masses. These protectors had to be organized and armed to supplant the fact they were still vastly outnumbered by the Low. In Orwellese, the Middle were born.

Now the wealth of the High was secure from the Low, but now the Middle were the threat. In order to preserve their position, the High turned the Middle against the Low creating a state of perpetual subjugation.

And throughout time and space the story has been much the same. The world and civilization have been shaped by the conflicting interests of these three groups. The Middle strive perpetually to become the new High, the High strive to remain the High, and the Low, when they have an aim and are not crushed by drudgery and the routine of their daily lives, strive to depose both groups.

And have we reduced wealth inequality? Have human communities become smaller and more tightly bound by morality and respect than they were through the thousands of years of human existence?

So would it be reasonable to think that states would stay abolished if we destroyed them?

If history has taught us anything it is that destroying the state gives us nothing but a far more brutal state, and that through long efforts, existing states can be molded and reformed into a force for good.

DEBUNKING ANCAP RHETORIC:
(Note I am not an anarchist myself)

The so called ``Anarchocapitalists`` love to tell us that Anarchy does not mean the same as chaos, and that we have been brainwashed to equate the two. ``What it really means, you subservient brainwashed state-slave is society without the state, WITHOUT RULERS NOT WITHOUT RULES`` (That is one of the favorites)

Except it does n`t........You see the Greek word anarchy, would literally translate to English as ``Non-above-ness``Meaning no human beings are to be ``above`` others in any way. If it was for society with no rulers or no-one being ruled it would be called something like ``Ancracy`` or ``Anacracy`` Because the Greek word for the verb ``to rule`` is ``kratein`` The very word which gave us the word ``Democracy`` which means ``rule of the people``(demos meaning people)

And does n`t capitalism have quite a bit of hierarchy? How can you have Anarchy, which means Non-Archy with so much hierARCHY??!?!!How can you have a Non-Archy with so much Archy in it?

In fact, all former anarchists considered the State and Church to be secondary evils, directly stemming from private ownership of the means of production, or more accurately, the need to protect it and desire to steal it. To abolish this was to remove the cause the Church and the State exist. As Rousseau put it:

``The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took it into his head to say this is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him was the true founder of civil society. What crimes, wars, murders, what miseries and horrors would the human race have been spared, had some one pulled up the stakes or filled in the ditch and cried out to his fellow men: "Do not listen to this imposter. You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all and the earth to no one!”``

Literally every normal anarchist thought this was common sense, including George Orwell.  Noam Chomsky also says this. Were Orwell alive today, he would denounce ``Anarchocapitalism`` as being no more Anarchist, than Ingsoc is Socialist. Anarchism `s original parole was ``No God No Masters`` whether master meant Boss or President or King or whatever.

CONCLUSION AND MY SOLUTION
Now If I believe the state is the product of evil capitalism, why don`t I want it destroyed? Well as I already explained we would just end up with another corporation-run one, or a mixture of clan warfare, mafia rule and inefficient security corporations. 

So we need to remove those massive accumulations of wealth that make states, in their harmful form, necessary in the first place. And the only way to do that is to abolish traditional ownership over the means of production. Whether it means private or government ownership over capital, both are equally harmful.

Now I know it`s hard to imagine an economy where there is no traditional ownership over the means of production, but here is what I envision:

It`s OK to start a company and be it`s boss until you die, but it is NOT OK to transfer that privilege to anyone, because that leads to the formation of a class of capital-owners who control much of the economy but have not contributed to society in any way. They neither work, nor manage, nor have they created the companies they own.

So what happens to a company when its founder and boss dies? Well the employees would spontaneously take it over. It IS their workplace and source of income. They want it to keep working just as much as any traditional owner would. They would kick out looters and inefficient workers just like a boss would. They could manage themselves or elect a manager if they see fit.

And how can we create or sustain such a society without government intervention?