Humanity in its form of social organization works like a large living organism. There is a well defined structure into which we all fit like pieces in machinery. Like all living organisms this social metabolism has many self regulating mechanisms to maintain it functioning correctly. In our case we have developed a culture which is based on the exchange of goods and capital as the primary form of social interaction, thus our society has established a tie between wellbeing and the acquisition of capital though profitable exchanges. The primary objective in every individual’s life is achieving happiness, and since we are completely reliant on commodities to be able to enjoy life we must attain the necessary capital to purchase these commodities. While in practice we organize ourselves into smaller cultural subgroups (nations), and these nations have politically democratic systems that allow us to elect those in charge, on a primary level our scale of priorities does not vary regardless of who is boss.

Like any life form, the cells, in this case us, are subject to the will of the brain, the culture of exchange and capital, which regulates bodily functions to maintain functionality, so while in appearance we have free will, society has developed certain control mechanisms to eliminate dissidence in the better interest of the organism as a whole. Like a tumor, the brain has to maintain a dictatorship over the body to protect its own life, and in our hypothetical social organism this is likewise. Our culture has evolved to a point where our educative systems and laws foment conformity, not because there are conscious individuals that want to keep us under control, but because if dissidence grows too powerful societies structure as a whole can be threatened. Difference is looked down upon, poverty, which makes us feel bad and empathic, is viewed as the extreme of human suffering, so anyone who questions the establishment is automatically associated with conditions of pain and distress, because the representation of lack of property is poverty, and the only possible alternative to a property based system is one where property is inexistent. Thus we automatically associate the alternative to the establishment with undesirable conditions.

If this scare mechanism isn’t enough to dissuade people from dissidence there are many active forms of control and repression. Sometimes these are embodied be humans who are pleased with their position in the establishment, for the sake of a comparison we’ll say they are the brain cells, the part of the organism that holds the most power. These people, frequently the rich, are aware that a destabilization in the system will damage their position as recipients of wealth and power, to protect this position they will use their influence, always through their economic power, to silence voices that challenge their position. This may be through reforms in education, control of the media, etc…

The last point is politicians and corporate entities. While society as a whole tends to view politics and the corporate world with skepticism and mistrust, it is generally accepted that they are the flexing muscle that guides and molds society. They impersonate the only form of conscious leadership in this super organism, so threatening their wellbeing is unacceptable, because they are responsible for society’s cohesion. They can be compared to the bone structure of the body. Notice, by corporate entities I do not necessarily mean corporations, but simply large economic powers embodied by diverse forms of private enterprise.

Finally, how does this relate to a student getting tasered for asking political questions, or like some of you believe, for disrespecting the established order of things. An upstart at a public hearing or political debate is a form of dissidence, had the student been and ultra right winger questioning Kerry on abortion or on religious matters they would have detained him anyways, not because the message in his words was considered inappropriate, but because he was challenging social structure by carrying out an action that challenged social hierarchy and organization.

Being anti-establishment doesn’t mean I want a communist government that confiscates all form of wealth and redistributes it equally, or an anarchist society in which everyone can do as he or she pleases , although both of these alternatives would be better if carried our correctly. No, being anti establishment means that I would like to rewind human cultural evolution to a point in the past where we could skip the creation of property, not because I think it would be better, but because I’m simply curious as to what the result would be.

This implies that to a certain extent free will is an ilusion, as our actions and our integration in this machinery are mandatory to maintain social functionality. We can decide, but only within certain limits.

Discuss.

quote:

This implies that to a certain extent free will is an ilusion, as our actions and our integration in this machinery are mandatory to maintain social functionality. We can decide, but only within certain limits.

This doesn't necessarily mean free will is an illusion. If there is no society (no establishment, so to speak), our actions are not confined. There is no law to govern what we do, no one to punish us for "breaking" the social order.

Even in society, one could say that we do still have free will. Indeed, if you murder someone, you are punished for it. But you still have the ability to do so. It's not a very good idea considering the consequences, but it's still possible. Free will is about what is possible for you to do. As long as you have the ability to do something, you are free (at least in terms of will). Punishment only limits you if you allow it to.

Of course, society would fall apart if everyone just did what they wanted. It's in everyone's best interests to maintain order in society. But that doesn't mean they aren't able to break that order if they so wish. Hopefully I'm getting my point across. It's late and I'm not thinking my clearest.