Contractual vs Non-contractual Society, Government Authority, and Welfare Capitalism

[Blurry_Buildings]

In 1987, Virgina Held, a feminist philosopher, wrote in "Non-contractual Society: A Feminist View" about how she desired a society different from one built off of individual freedom and of relationships created through mutually beneficial 'contracts', as written about by John Locke roughly 300 years earlier (who is the father of classical liberalism and arguably laid the philosophical groundwork for the majority of modern day "western" governments).

In her essay, she argues that society would be substantially improved if instead of being solely contractual, it was based off of a personal obligation and responsibility towards the wellbeing of other people, in the same way an idealized mother would feel an unconditional responsibility towards her children.

I personally believe if everyone felt just a little more unconditionally personally obligated towards every other person in society, and if laws were created to promote this idealized version of a person who unconditionally and whole heartedly cares for the wellbeing of every other person (over the equally unrealistic idealized contract maker who lives a completely free life and only enters into any relationships purely for personal gain) society would be a much better place.

I like how Held emphasizes the personal responsibility of the individual, and the non-contractual obligations they have, and think it would be good if government institutions were similarly built with an unconditional obligation towards the people they are designed to take care of and the authority needed to make a real difference. Is a loving society really filled with chaos and anarchy, or a form of badly regulated anarcho-corporatism that leaves everyone for themselves? Or is it strong societal institutions, better regulated welfare capitalism, and a powerful government that loves you? I am interested in your thoughts.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/00455091.1987.10715932?needAccess=true

 

[R. A.]

capitalism is antithetical to mass well-being. no system that prioritizes profit and endless growth can ever be anything other than destructive, extractive, exploitative, etc.

the paradigm shift needs to be toward one more like what you talk about earlier in this post - one of stewardship. because it is just not enough to take take of other humans - because humans are dependent on the rest of planet, the animals, plants, the land, air, water. we cannot be well if these are not well.

endless unchecked growth is cancer and cancer kills. in order to survive, thrive, and actualise ourselves - as both unique members of a larger group and also together with the group - the focus needs to be sustainability. production without purpose is poison

...that said, i do think the innate tendency toward tribalism and "otherism" is a hard obstacle. i have often wondered, given the historical shifting yet widening arbitrary distinctions between "us & them", if the only thing that might unite us was the threat of invasion from another planet.
although i still think the problem of overidentification with humans vs. other forms of life would remain. realistically we'd probably plunder the planet's resources even faster building planetary defense and offence systems, maybe just under the guise of a united earth...likely still subjugating those already on the bottoms rungs to be the cosmic kamikaze pilots...

 

[Forever Sleep]

It sounds really beautiful and idealised but, I can't imagine it working. It's just so different from how we have thought from the start most likely. Even biologically speaking, we're not exactly a symbiotic species. Maybe in the wild, we had tighter communities but presumably, there would still be an alpha. People would still be competing to maintain dominance. While even one person is dominant, it means the others are subjugated. I just feel like it's one of those things that sounds nice on paper but, doesn't tend to work practically.

For example. Some people in this new society genuinely won't be able to contribute. They may be disabled in some way. It's obviously right that the rest of society rally round to support them. What if other members of society see this and think- I'm not keen on work either and I'm struggling with a more minor ailment. If I keep working like this, it will likely just get worse so- why should I? That person over there is being cared for. Why should I be expected to do all the hard work? Who gets to decide who is able to contribute and, how much? Can we really trust people to self regulate?

Will everyone even want to embrace this new way of thinking? I imagine they won't. I could see it happening as an experimental community. Who's allowed to join? Do they give them all their money? Who runs it? Do they have to accept instruction from a leader? Sure- everyone has to contribute to help another. What if everyone wants to grow food but, no one wants to dig ditches for sewage pipes? Everyone takes turns then. What if some don't have the strength to dig ditches? The intelligence to be an architect, the skill to be a surgeon?

Should exceptionally hard work and talent be rewarded in this society? Should a surgeon be paid the same amount as a retail assistant? Should both be expected to do the occassional thing for free? But the surgeon spent years of their life learning those skills to serve hummanity. Where is the compensation for that?

It's lovely to imagine everything being equal but, we're not even born equal. Some of us will have much 'better' genes than others. Some will be genuinely incapable of doing what's expected of them. Others will pretend that they are incapable. Plus, you need to convince people so set in an individualist mindset that they now need to give that up.

Imagine how that could be exploited too. Some will pretend to take on the new programe when in reality, they'll simply lap up all they can get from others. It might work if you could genuinely get everyone on board but I think (some) humans are simply too deceitful.

Not that I'm a particularly altruistic human but, I was raised to be polite. To let others go first etc. My Grandma (who primarily raised me) watched in horror once at an event at school where something was being handed out and I let all the other children push in front of me. The sad reality was that her teachings- while very honourable led to me being walked all over. How do you ensure that everyone keeps up with the programe? Do we punish those who push ahead?