Barbelith Underground > Conversation > Is it possible for everyone on Earth to be nice to each other?

Since we have talked this to death, I doubt that you will suddenly understand why your particular slant on the world, full of its non sequiturs and unwillingness to address economic realities, isn't universally accepted. But I'll try.

i. The basic principle that those who can and do work do not owe a living to those who can but choose not to

As a founding principle for social justice, this tends to emphasise the rights of the wealthy over those of the poor. Without context and with complimentary statements about equality of oppurtunity, minimum standards of work and the role of socio-economic class it can only be seen as a call for social injustice, in my view. It asserts the right of the wealthy to dictate conditions of employment and oppurtunity.

As a "living" is more basic than health, education and legal protection it can also be seen as an assertion that what I consider to be Human rights are to be denied to those without wealth. Marie Antoinette would have approved of this declaration.

Inevitably it ensures that any difficulty of the separation of the poor into "worthy" and "unworthy" results in the retraction of a "living". Human mistakes, if they can assumed to be present in leap's utopia, result in death as a matter of course. Unjust, perhaps?

ii. The basic principle that we do not as a rule require an elite to continually police us to make us sensible or moral, but that regular folks are capable of being charitable under their own guidance rather than have a state take taxes from them regardless of either that persons approval (which makes it theft) in order to enforce a system of charity (!) that is largely unconditional and which often runs contrary to the first principle mentioned above.

I disagree over the choice of the word "elite". I do not consider a plumber to be an "elite" when I ask her to fix my pipes. Neither do I consider the police an "elite" when they direct traffic. Especially taken with (i), what this reinforces is the idea that any kind of rights are contigent on wealth on the approval of wealth. It essentially entrenches hierarchy as an inviolable entity. One can easily see this as a justification for a system of near slavery.

iii. The basic principle that you do not combat hierarchy and power-elites by creating a hierarchy and a power-elite (govt).

Is just false. Civil rights movements have campaigned for hard won governmental recognition to some success. Any real desire to combat "elites" practically requires some form of collective bargaining tool in order to have any chance of competing with entrenched power. Again, one can only really see this as a declaration that those with economic and political power not be interfered with. Also, the use of the word "elite" is pretty ideological as it ignores the role of democracy. The populace cannot express their will, only individuals can - real elites need not lose any sleep.

iv. The basic principle that says a life where privacy and direct personal involvement form a greater part of said life than do supervision and delegation/resignation, is a better life than one that runs contrary to such a basis.

I have little problem with this, except insofar as I know that leap refuses to use words like "privacy" and "supervision" in any widely accepted sense. Also, taken with what has gone before, it is clear that "supervision" is the interference of anyone with the natural order of wealth and "privacy" is the freedom to exercise one's power as one sees fit. This is again "justice" for the haves.

What should strike one on reading this declaration of principles for "social justice" is that there is no mention of society. Also absent are any notion of freedom of speech, freedom from discrimination, freedom of religion. Instead we have a set of principles that asserts the "freedom" from any obligation of others rights and the "liberty" to act as one pleases. Doubtless, leap will ask me whether people are "good" or "bad", whether I am an "optimist" or a "pessimist" and whether his declaration is one of "love" or "fear".

That isn't the point. The point is that leap's declaration attempts to describe an order where the only rights are the rights of the powerful. One can summarise this list of principles as saying that there should be no mechanism for challenging injustice.

It is a call for the abolition of justice.