Many things on God's Earth are fungible to one degree or another. Money is the classic example, being almost perfectly fungible. Oil under normal circumstances is mostly fungible too---a few nations refusing to buy Iranian oil isn't likely to hurt Iran all that much if they can turn around and sell to China and India instead. Similarly, even if we were to miraculously achieve 'foreign oil independence', we'd still be affected by the market as a whole, because American oil producers are perfectly happy to sell to, for instance, freezing Europeans with a taste for expensive diesel fuel irrespective of the opinions of Americans if the price is right.
But the sort of fungibility I'm talking of here today is that of people. You see, I'm arguing that the Cathedral absolutely loathes any kind of real diversity. If you're a counselor, for instance, the notion that you might be willing to counsel a person who experiences unwanted homosexual temptation in a way that doesn't glorify or affirm the lifestyle associated with such gives them hives. They absolutely hate the idea that in a free marketplace, Joe, who hates the fact that he is tempted towards homosexual fornication and wants help from a counselor grounded in a reactionary Christian worldview in dealing with the fallout and stress assocated with his struggles can do so, while Jack, who likes the fact that he is gay but wants help dealing with the fallout and stress associated with his lifestyle can also find an appropriate counselor. They hate the fact that some pharmacists refuse to traffic in some sorts of wholely legal drugs for reasons of conscience. They detest the fact that an artist might not want to affirm a lifestyle that they consider degenerate, or bake a wedding cake in honor of it. In short, they insist that everyone be fungible and interchangible within their particular role and class, even those elements who on the surface appear to have an exemption (woe to them when they stray off the reservation!). God forbid you start talking about free association.
The classic reactionary position on this is that fungibility is anti-human. Human beings aren't fungible nor were they made by their Creator to be such. Large corporations love this zeroth commandment though, for fungible peoples are less difficult to market to and manipulate, probably explaining a lot of the alliance of the corporate and the Cathedral.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
>Large corporations love this zeroth commandment though, for fungible peoples are less difficult to market to and manipulate, probably explaining a lot of the alliance of the corporate and the Cathedral.
Well, yeah. How do you think compulsory public education happened if not via the efforts of Fabian Socialist industrialists to make Americans fungible, conformist and compliant? Check out Gatto's Underground History of American Education, available here: http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/historytour/history1.htm
On one (very real) level, everything that happened after the institution of public education (Wilsonianism, New Deal state, Civil Rights, fiat money, women's liberation) was just mopping up.
Jehu,
It ain't cathedralites. It's darn near every person since the dawn of time. The formal, historical "liberal" (J.S. Mill) position is to accept differences. As far as I know, every other historical position known to man is opposed to the accepting of differences. "Do it my way or die." (Ok. Fine. Rome's legal system was not this way...).
The only difference between the modern cathedralite, and the normal Santorum-esque Catholic is who wields the power. The cathedral has more power, so they enforce their preferences...while if Santorum were in power, he'd enforce his preferences.
This is a feature of all large institutions. Institutions have a huge amount of information to process, and the more similar everyone is, the easier it is to slot them into an institutional framework. There's a cool essay here referring to this trend, his moniker is "legibility." http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/07/26/a-big-little-idea-called-legibility/
Aretae,
Prior to the 1960s, folks didn't get bent out of shape over any of the things I described.
The Roman legal system, from which the tradition of free association from the English derives, was hardly an abberation---it was the global superpower for an awfully long time.
Very few Catholics would actually push to outlaw contraception---not even Santorum. I'm at least 3 sigmas on religious reaction, and I'd prefer to see contraception discouraged but not illegal. I'm sure you CAN find Catholics that are more hardcore on that issue than I am (and granted, I'm not a Catholic), but I bet they could all fit inside a single SUV in your average US state.
Jehu,
Contraception isn't the only topic in the book. Homosexuality? You can probably find enough folks (Catholics? Santorum!) moving to oppose that to fill every (college) football stadium in the country. (Lawrence vs. Texas?)
Rome was moderately accepting of some differences some of the time...I understand as a foreigner in Rome, you could be tried by your tribe's laws, rather than Rome's laws.
However, throwing folks to the lions for having the wrong religion was not unusual.
Inquisition in 1400s? Muslim equivalent in Spain in 11-1200s?
If you look narrowly enough...it appears that the progressives are more accepting of differences. From a global point of view...they're the current tribe with power, and as such they're attempting to force everyone else to follow their line...while historically, it was different tribes with power attempting to force everyone else.
I'll grant some space when enforcement capability required a live-and-let-live approach. But I think the trend is universal...if someone has power, they abuse it to force others to follow their plan. Every time.
Aretae,
How many people do you think actually want to throw material numbers of Homosexuals in prison? That number is pretty low. It was pretty damned low on the scale of law enforcement priorities also back before Lawrence. What they want is for homosexuality to be a discouraged, low-status lifestyle and out of their faces. That's frankly what almost everyone wants---for lifestyles they don't like to be low status.
Jehu,
1. What they want (in general) is for tribes they don't like to be low status. Not just lifestyles.
2. I had previously thought that it was 1/50-ish want homosexuality to be illegal...thrown in jail. Recently, I've come to believe that the number is closer to 1/10.
Aretae,
Pretty much everyone wants their group to be high status. The obvious consequence to this is they want other groups to be lower. Selectively becoming outraged at some groups for this desire is silly and patently unfair.
On your point 2, I seriously doubt even 1/50 supports making homosexuality illegal and actually enforcing it. Even extreme reactionaries like myself that recognize that long term, either homosexuality is illegal or it will become illegal to be in any way critical of it don't actually want significant enforcement.
> The only difference between the modern cathedralite, and the normal Santorum-esque Catholic is who wields the power. The cathedral has more power, so they enforce their preferences...while if Santorum were in power, he'd enforce his preferences.
I'm an antiliberal who cheerfully acknowledges wanting the power to enforce my preferences, by coercion. That's how a great civilization is born ; it is a work of art, a work of life, exhibiting unity, forged chiefly by superior men but also by everyone living its life. It evolves, but much is constant. And it continues after our limited lifespan. It's man's nature to want this, because of how it amplifies his life, his world.
Post a Comment