For the human predator population, Capital's less-lucky cousin, there is not a lot of choice. They support a system that rejects it, forcing it to remain marginalized, while it faithfully makes itself available to Capital as a population of willing killers willing to repress the majority of normal people; or to travel to other lands to participate in foreignist activities such as annexation; or to exterminate natural animals in the forests while destroying the environment. When society's Humanist aspect does occasionally attempt to embrace the marginalized, then the hatred of the marginalized is dealt with as a disorder, and marginalized may become institutionalized in a psychological sense in the vast out-patient system called social services.
This idea of "marginalization or institutionalization" is especially true for the homeless. Many of the homeless are not just unlucky, but deliberately seek to separate themselves from society, often because society has hurt them in significant ways, such as by attempting to force them to go to other countries to kill innocent people, usually natural villagers. Or they may have become marginalized purely as a result of Capital control strategies, such as racism.
Because of the significance of psychology in contemporary society, and hence in the controlling Capital structure, then perhaps the "marginalized or institutionalized" model can even be extended to us all. Either we belong to (or in) one kind of institution or another by drawing a paycheck from a corporation, a welfare check from social services, or at very least getting "three squares a day" in prison. If we are not "institutionalized," then we are very nearly completely on our own, relying on our own survival skills, creating or trading for products such as clothes, food, and medicine, as humanity did before the development of complex societies. This is how the homeless live; and they do so successfully, but with great stress.
To help the Capital families to survive in society, a vast context of rules has been created to guide them. It is likely that the idea of rules as a concept has in its roots the early annexations of land and capture of humans as assets, as prior to the formation of rules as in tribal forest or village culture, we see no rules. Over time punitive rules have transformed into to tools to balance society by moral peoples who can be thought of in terms of today's Humanists. Rules are now meant to help keep the peace, moderate capital exploitation, and implement social support to offset the damages of Capital. But the very rule-sets that have been created by Capital to secure its operations and modified by society to create balance, are continually assaulted by Capital to free itself to return to its original states of unlimited exploitation that can easily be shown to be its cause for collapse: the boom and bust cycles of the Capital markets that are consistently (and stupidly) rescued by society that we read about every day in the papers.
Capital is caught in a lethal paradox that society forever tolerates. The Capitalists; their activists the Liberalists; and their marginalized killers think of freedom as the removal of the very rules they need for guidance lacking natural morality. Ultimately freedom for them represents a return to their unencumbered ability to take freedom, or alternatively life, from others, and hence the American revolutionary meaning of "right to life." And the perversion of this phrase to mean to mean anti-abortion terror on behalf of the Christian far right by marginalized defectives rather than an implicit guarantee by society and the government to protect the very meaning of life and its self-preservation.
What we know about the mind is learned not from what we have, which we tend to take for granted, but what we have lost--what we see when significant portions of the mind are missing. If it were not for the uncontrolled affection of the Down's victims, then we would not know that affection, our greatest gift, is throttled by a specific neurological facility whose design is written into our DNA code.
Developing this document
The contextual setting of the document seems to be concluding. Having implemented the model successfully in debate, I am learning that the idea hinges as much on the relationship between family capital and communities as it does on the relationships between capital structures, such as Capital, Education, and Medicine, and perhaps Government. The large structures have their historical basis in the family structures, as we are all human after and presumably come from families, and the underlying neurological constructs that guide normal society that are missing in Capital are key components of the family, either active or missing.
Constructivism: family and community
The relationship between family and community is best described by the Constructivists who show a child's initial growth, and learning, with in the family, but historically (and naturally) the child leaves the family at a relatively young age to join the community as a novice. Over time the child learns, or absorbs big pieces of the community's knowledge, or the community of knowledge, and at a certain significant moment, may offer new information into the community of knowledge that improves life's processes, or perhaps even its meaning. The child-novice then becomes an expert. This is not necessarily a requirement in community, as community is about caring--the goal of evolution according to Darwin. Extending the community of knowledge in a Darwinian sense is not only the caring facilities written in the DNA of the community, but also the surrounding environment in the animals with whom a traditional community has relationships. Capital, of course, seeks to either exploit or destroy this DNA, and with the Darwinian goals of evolution.
Family business contradicts community and the child's growth
On the family-level, the concept of a family business contradicts the Constructivist model, which has the child leaving the family reasonably early, supporting the validity of young marriages we see in the Bible. Rather than seeing pastoral images of a secure village or a healthy tribe, I imagine scenes from the movie The Godfather that show introversion and displacement.
In the real picture, family business is hardly an issue, except in extreme cases where Capital is implemented as family abuse. Capital is widely dangerous only in size.
If the constructivist model is applied to, say, suburban society, which is so homogeneous as to be nearly generic and devoid of traditional culture, then one has to look hard for the community component that the child is supposed to join to move from novice to expert. This kind of society offers school, possibly sports clubs, and shopping structures such as malls as places to go to expand. The children are entirely within their own age group so there is no possibly of the natural progression from novice to expert, except how teachers and coaches, and even retailers, see fit. And from my experience, the parents are always there, inserting themselves into every aspect of what these limited communities may have to offer. Perhaps television, and now the Internet, replaces the traditional constructivist community for growing youth, so much so that the only path to a natural-seeming community path is often that of the street: gangs. What is most frightening about gangs is that they adhere to a family model, and are purely rules-based. An exception to this narrow path is the Church, but Churches for the most part are tightly controlled for the benefit of family--family is inescapable.
There is little hope for success for children growing outside narrow channels created purely for the benefit of Capital: human capital (Spring). In other words, stress will prevent the majority of children from completely self-actualizing, unless parents can form, or perhaps restore, what Constructivists would think of as "natural communities of knowledge." Considering that Capital functions on cycles of boom and depression, and that nearly all of our efforts are specifically focused to support Capital structure, and that material benefit is the only goal of Capital, then the formation or restoration of natural communities must be exceedingly difficult for families who seek to supply their children with natural growth path, and this is perhaps only achievable by wealthy families, who are also the beneficiaries of Capital.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).