Chapter 18 Supplement D Alienation, Escapists, and Parasite Requirements

D Alienation, Escapists and Parasite Requirements In this section, I want to jot down a few thoughts on the things listed in the above title. 1.As we know, the conflict between personal feelings and what the extended order expects of him is practically unavoidable: an instinctive reaction tends to break through the web of learned rules that sustain civilization.But Rousseau alone offers a literary and intellectual affirmation of the manner in which civilized man once dismissed it as entirely barbaric.In his writings, seeing the natural (read "instinct") as good or desirable expresses a nostalgia for a simple, primitive, even barbaric state, grounded in a The belief that one should satisfy his or her own desires rather than submit to chains that are said to have been invented and imposed by man for self-interest.

Disappointment at the failure of our traditional morals to bring more pleasure finds a milder form in nostalgia for the nice little things, or in the "joyless economy" (Schumacher , 1973; Sitovsky, 1976, and much of the 'alienation' literature) on complaints. 2. Mere survival does not give everyone a right or moral right to compete with each other.Persons or groups can assume responsibility for specific individuals; but not all existing life has a moral right to exist as part of a common system of rules that assists humanity to thrive.What seems cruel to us, like the Eskimos leaving the old and infirm to die during their seasonal migrations, may have been necessary for them to raise their offspring to survive the next season.Whether there is a moral obligation to use modern medicine to prolong as long as possible the lives of suffering patients with incurable diseases is at least an open question.These questions arise even before we ask to whom such moral claims can rightly be made.

Rights emerge from systems of relationships, and rights holders become members of these systems by helping to maintain them.If he no longer does it, or never does it (or no one does it for him), there is no basis for these rights.The relationship between individuals can exist only as a result of their desire, but it is difficult to create obligations for others with only the desire of one right holder.Only the expectations generated in long-term practice can create obligations for the members of the community, which is why we must be careful in creating expectations, otherwise people will induce some obligations that they cannot fulfill themselves.

3.Socialism has taught many people that they have certain rights, regardless of merit or participation.According to the moral code that produces the extended order, socialists are actually abetting people to break the law. Those who claim to have been "alienated" from something for which they apparently do not understand much of its content, who would rather live the life of a parasitic misanthrope, sit on the product of a process for which they refuse to contribute, They are the true followers of Rousseau, who calls upon men to return to nature, and who speaks of the chief evils of the institutions which form the order of human cooperation.

I do not wish to question the right of any individual to voluntarily depart from civilization.But what "qualifications" do these people have?Do we still have to subsidize their misanthropy?Without the rules on which civilization depends, there is no qualification at all.We may be able to support the disabled and the elderly, but we will only have the means to do so if healthy adults obey impersonal rules. It is very wrong to think that these muddled views come from some young people.They reflect what was taught to them, the opinion of their parents—of the departments of psychology and sociology in educational institutions and the intellectuals they produce—Rousseau and Marx, Freud and Pale facsimiles of Keynes's ideas are passed around by some dreamy mind.