I was told by word of mouth today at work of a conspiracy theory about the connection of some participants in the Libor scandal to the school shootings that occurred in Massachusetts and in Sandy Hook.
Supposedly the shooters or someone killed in the shootings were the sons of a couple of people who were related to the scandal.
One of these fathers was relieved from duty to testify in court because he was so grieved by the involvement of his son in the shooting. I think that was the Sandy Hook shooting. This basically prevented the court from making that father testify and expose names of some of the people involved in the scandal. The other father had a similar situation in which the grievance got him out of something.
I thought, well I could kinda see that, I mean the banker capitalists involved in this scandal have a lot to fear from the prison systems. They would be brutalized and anally ravaged by all the people who they pissed off by being greedy stingy propertarian anti-social fucks.
These are the people who persist on the laws and massive system of violent enforcement that allows them protection of property and their massive accumulation of property, have created the prison situation into which they might be driven.
Their slender bodies and shitty background would render them extremely vulnerable in a place where many people have been forced into or believe in or are provoked to living a life of violence.
It is the accumulation of property and protection thereof which has largely instigated and expanded such systems of fostered and concentrated violence. Without this motive, it is actually pretty hard to determine whether they are necessary to exist at all.
The above anecdote is interesting because it is a case that accentuates the dynamic between property motivation, the drive to accumulate and keep, and the drive to avoid the punishment and exclusion that are the tools used in the protection of that same property.
The drive to accumulate with knowledge that the accumulation will be protected can cause a person to subvert society to accumulate more than what the society perceives that it can safely sustain, which is many times more than it can actually sustain.
This mechanism of subversion, distinct from the sole drive to accumulate, exacerbates the occurrence of violence within the society and the necessity of violent and exclusive systems of property protection.
Why does propertarianism even exist?
The social contract has manifested itself in many forms and arrangements over the course of human history. One form of social contract that has been perceived to be advantageous is the contract of property ownership between groups.
Property can be shared among groups or owned by a single group, but it is the property ownership that is respected and enforced with authority. The authority of one group in a breach of the property ownership contract can be held over many aspects of another group’s livelihood, including the authority to physically punish or deprive livelihood or terminate life. The deprivation of livelihood defined in property ownership contracts can focus on the effects of the property itself, like as in starvation when food is the property transferred from one group to another or destroyed, or could be based on some rational or cultural principal. By the way, when I say groups I am referring to any arrangement of societal participants, down to a single person or part of something. A group can consist of one person. A group may be considered a group or a certain group even though it has not agreed to participate as such.
The social contract.
Social contracts can be struck by any societal groupings between each other. Many times these agreements will authority the transfer of authority over some aspects of life from one group to another under defined circumstances. This can include authorization of violence of members of one group over the other.
Social contracts in practice are struck as new information about the relationship between the social groups is discovered. When enough information becomes available about the perceived importance of regulation between groups to some or all members, some or all members of the groups can be stimulated into action which results in the formation of a contract.
Contracts can be terminated, by one or the other group. Contracts can be terminated by either group. When enough information about the perceived importance of terminating a contract has been accumulated, some or all members of the groups can be stimulated into action which results in the termination of a contract.
Contracts such as adherence to a group can be considered. One of these contracts may be impacted very strongly by the effects of other contracts, namely because adherence to a group involves adhering to the social contracts that group has become engaged in. Adherence itself may be loosely defined and have complex implications in the meaning of adherence to different members across the group or transcend temporally.
The important thing to note about the social contract as it is being defined here is that it is something that exists even though it may not be agreed to be referred to as such, and is thus inescapable.
The ability to break these social contracts in a coordinated way as to avoid violence from being part or the coordination and to avoid violence when a previously upheld contract starts to result in violence happening, or other undesirable things, can be beneficial to society overall.
Maybe as more information is gained as to the effect and necessity of violence or other forms of forcible deprivation we may decide to terminate contracts involving property ownership and maybe create more flexible, breakable contracts that do not involve property ownership.
What kinds of motivations are there to accumulate if you can’t ever guarantee that your accumulation will be protected for yourself or your group?
Would this result in more or less violence or more or less strict contracts?