
Terry Pratchett famously said that sin is treating people like things. You can debate that however you want. I mean, I was properly brought up and learned the ten commandments — whether you’re religious or not, they’re the ur-foundational-stone of western civilization.
Sure killing someone is treating him/her as a thing, his life not his but ours to end. And the same for stealing from him: things can’t own anything. I’m going to say that bearing false witness is also treating your neighbor as a thing, and beyond that that worshiping him or her is just as bad, as it steals his or her humanity and replaces it with a tonkenized image. I’m going to say the same for coveting his ass, (or any other part of him) or his wife and husband.
But that’s weak tea, in a way. You can say it’s treating him/her as things, and that’s not wrong. It’s perhaps more accurate to say that if you get yourself into the state of mind where you think it’s fine to do all of those things to others, you’ve put yourself beyond humanity — or below humanity, if you prefer — into a state in which you are the only real being in the universe, moving through a landscape where everyone else are just… tokens in a game, yours to move around or ignore. (\
Oh. I get it! Sorry, I just had a click-it moment. Much has been said about the original sin, including thinking it’s about sex, or — in the dopey seventies — about nuclear war. But it is in point of fact this sin, because this is both the sin of Satan — knocking G-d from the heavens and filling the world with only you and no one else is real — and the original sin of humans: we’re all born like that. If what I understand of neurology is true, we’re all in the beginning of our lives, the only consciousness in our universe, and we think everything is under our control, like our hands and feet (which to be fair aren’t under our control at all. And also our universe at the time is just a little further than our body.)
Okay. I’m not going to turn into a baptist preacher — theological snap-click, come out of this woman! — and you non-believers need not be alarmed. That was just a sudden realization and neat from a philosophical point of view because it clicks with human physiology and development.
The point is that we are born like that, and empathy — understanding others are also human and have their own will power and their own agency — comes later, developing slowly and — frankly — by fits and starts. In many people it cuts off at a very rudimentary level, and it can, I think, be knocked down to almost nothing if a human is in survival mode. Yes, we hear much about total strangers dying to save children and that of course happens, but we also know about the herd of humans that tramples others when panicked. (I was once almost caught in one of those. Thank you mom, for grabbing me and flattening me to the wall while the herd passed by.) I can tell you no one in that crowd is thinking of the others as being as important as themselves, or as having their own rights and their own lives.
Which brings us to the point of this post: the type of human who never really learns to consider others as true people seems to have an advantage, at least in modern society (say since we stopped living in small tribes (maybe even then)) because they don’t feel any compunction in doing horrible things to others or horribly manipulating others to obtain power. And they need power, see, because they’re alone in a universe that is all them. So they must control all of it, and for that they need power.
This is the original sin of governments: it tends to be populated by people for whom every other human is chattel: a piece on the board to be moved by the sole real human in the universe.
The only curbing of this is for society to hold onto and zealously protect every human’s rights, and every human’s dignity. Not because they are useful, or because they can do things, or — even — because they enjoy themselves. Those are all nice things, but if you start putting that condition — any condition — on “these humans are worthy of life” you end up finding reasons to remove those impediments “they only think they enjoy life. How can they when–” And the type of people who get power over others are very good at those game, because, you know, no one else is real.
Giving the government ownership over who lives and dies — MAID and euthanasia, and “these children will be made comfortable and left to die, comfortably” — for any reason, whether for “their own good” or for the good of society always ends in piles of dead, because those in power have no respect for human — or any other — life.
Making yourself dependent on government, with UBI or any of the abominations the socialists love to propose is just as bad.
The government giveth, the government taketh away, and to the government you are just chattel. Something that has a use and that is looked after as long as it fulfills its use and doesn’t cost too much to maintain. And after that? It’s disposed of. Because it’s just a thing. To be used, or not, looked after, or not, by those that have actual agency.
Can anyone explain to me why, in point of fact, that isn’t — in all but name — chattel slavery?





















































































































































































































