Welcome![[ fill in the blank ]](w/images/d/d8/Bees_BLM.jpg)
"A community instituted for the sake of the living and the well living of men in it. (Giorgio Agamben, "Means without end, p. 4)
"The power of reproduction is for the good of the species, and the human legislator acts on behalf of the species in establishing monogamous unions of one man with one woman. Individual genital organs are to be used only for a power of the species. The organs are, as it were, on loan from the species and – more important – subject to an exercise of eminent domain by the city." (Mark D. Jordan, "The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology", University of Chicago Press, 1997, p. 126)
Believe it or not this is real and it's important. I never thought "Little Debbie" would play a significant role in my political thinking, but starting to [apparently re-]read Giorgio Agamben's "Means without end" (1996), it's where it's at.
Debbie was the daughter of the owner of a donut company. She wa sso cute that her father named ht business after her and used her early childhood picture for his company's logo. So Debbie became a symbol: a function of her father's donut company. Like I am a citizen (of The Dunkin Donuts of America).
As an adult, either in reality or just in a cartoon, Dbbie rejected being a function. She wanted to be a unique individual person:
"First of all, I'm Debbie the person!"
There are no human rights, or any human responsibilities (obligations), either. Ther are human wants, and if one wishes to describe them in a polemical way: human needs. There are citizen's rights, and citizen's responsibilities (obligations). Human beings have wants and (again, polemically:) needs. Roles have defined rights and responsibilities. Human beings are substitution instances for role variables.. The roles endure; the substitution instances are replaceable.
Some time ago Iws looking at the Employees' Handbook for a ertain company which no longer exists. But the profits from that company continue to pay for the human lives of the owner's widow, children and grandchildren. The widow no longer has a role, just a life, except insofar as she is still filling her decease husband's role as a beneficiary of that role's death benfits to the role holder upon his decease.
That sounds a little ambiguous but it's not: This old lady is not getting her money because she is a human being, but because she fills a role. One can easily imagine the following: There is a benefit for the deceased's children's upkeep via their caregiver. The caregiver is his wife, i.e., his widow. She dies. Another person steps in and fills the role of caregiver for the children and receives the "widow's" benefits. Perhaps she is chosen by a person functioning in a certain attorney role. The children seem not replaceable but if the benefits went to the children and their spouses, then the spouse of child role can be filled by different persons if there are divorces and remarriages. More role variabbles and the substitution instances which fill them.
When men cannot play nicely together and form a community (per above quote) then, if they wish to avoid the Hobbsean war of all against all, they submit to a centralization if violence in a government. They exchange each being violent to all for the government alone having a monopoly on violence. Bu tthe violence remains and a few usually take advantage of this situation to aggrandize themselves in the name of promoting the well-being of all. The rule can be by Iron Fist (Stalinism) or Invisible Hand (liberal voterocracy). but the medium is the message: obey or Or else!. Keep Smerica beautiful: Get a haircut! I had no choice.
![[ fill in the blank ]](w/images/9/98/Sacrifice_499.jpg) |
 |
