A bit of Politics, Philosophy and Religion

Post Reply New Topic

A saying attributed to Che Guevara is "Those who have nothing to lose have nothing to lose" or similar. Often thought about this within the context of attempts by western societies to affect controls on it's members. Essentially it's a system whereby "assets" are taken away from you if you do "bad" things.

For example, if you exceed the speed limits when driving they will take money off you - fines. If you cause an accident they will take your driving licence off you for a period of time. If due to gross negligence whilst driving you injure or kill someone, they will take your liberty off you - prison. And in some countries if you kill someone deliberately they may take your life off you - death penalty.

In essence the whole western judicial system is entirely based on the premise that control can be maintained by taking assets off people when they fail to meet societies laws or expectations. And it is fatally flawed. Why? Because society using this philosophy has absolutely no control over it's members who having nothing to lose.

I have no particular political leanings - right or left, but would suggest that the greater the divide between the "haves" and the "have nots" - the rich and the poor, will further exacerbate this situation. Capitalism, as practiced in most countries, leads to the ownership of increasing assets by the few. Yet this judicial philosophy will, in my opinion, lead to the destruction of society. With limited effective deterrents for the "have nots" means they will have little hesitation in breaking the law.

So how can society stop the rioting and looting in the poorer neighbourhoods of some cities? How can society persuade terrorists, homegrown or otherwise, not to carry out their plans? If a person has no assets, and places no value on their liberty or even their lives (IS), then what can society do to prevent them disrupting said society. Currently I believe very little.

So what changes can we suggest that would lead to a better implementation of societies needs for the acceptance and adherence to it's rules? Should society reward those who don't break any laws? Would that help?

Alison

I agree, Alison. Only in some tribal societies do we see true egalitarian notions, and even then there's usually a policeman or a court.

In most societies, the have-nots are at the low end of the pecking order and have the least to lose. But for some reason the west seems on the slippery slope to the nanny state. More rules, more fines, more ways Joe Average is gonna slip up and lose. A millionaire can lose a $100 fine and not feel it. A struggling worker is fined $100 and goes without essentials, just to stay out of jail. Yet which of the two has more care-factor over their misdeed?

In older times we had sexism and child labour, racial intolerance and a lot of other ignorance going on, but people were generally more decent in so many other ways than they are now. Today, people think rules before ethics. If it's legal, then that's all that matters. But not everything that's legal is ethical.

The moral compass is disappearing from our social makeup. We have lost our ignorance, with regard to sexism, racism and many other negatives, but we are also now content to be told what to do. There used to be a social penalty for wrong behaviour. Now it's a hip pocket penalty. Does that mean the hip pocket has become more important than the social?

It is almost over.
sigh......

You've touched on a powerful truth here. I believe that this is also the primary motivation for the taboo against suicide; that taboo is the keystone of a cultural crusade to force those with nothing to lose to ignore the dis-utility of continued life. Without that taboo, there is nothing to keep one with truly nothing to lose, from becoming a kamikaze or suicide bomber.