Not many are mavericks, in this world. The real tragedy of our “modern” civilization is that it is purely normal, when a mob assents to any incoherent fact; whereas, the one who valiantly imagines to look beyond the reality and illusion is collectively disdained by the society. Well, society is an important organ, in the process of socialization, but this society is axiomatically “asocial” because it has no respect for the individual rights. Is society really social, when it believes in the philosophy of transcending over the individual rights? The theory of “tragedy of the commons” vociferously proves that any amount of regulations or authoritarianism will obviously influence the rational beings to go the other way than with the common way. Family, an agent of socialization, is not antithetical to the principles of “mass society” and therefore I term this social unit as “socioterrorist”.
What is a family?
familia is a latin word; meaning, “family servants, domestics collectively, the servants in a household,” thus also “members of a household, the estate, property; the household, including relatives and servants,” from famulus “servant,” The Latin word rarely appears in the sense “parents with their children,” for which domus (domestic ) was used. In English, sense of “collective body of persons who form one household under one head and one domestic government, including parents, children, and servants, and as sometimes used even lodgers or boarders.”
Socialisation obviously occurs through the interaction with various agents during an individual’s personal lifetime and these comprise of the family, the peer group, the school and the mass media among others. The family: this is the primary and chief agent of socialisation for most people, especially in the first five years of their life. The family provides the child with his/her first social contact with the social world and it is through it that the correct(?) patterns of behaviour are internalised and learnt. However, learning is done in an INFORMAL manner and the right (or wrong behaviour) is approved (or rejected) through rewards and punishment. This clearly indicates that the so-called animal spirit of the family is driven by the mythical incentives of cardinal utility. Family, as an institution, is not only against postmodern thinking but also against subjectivism. Studies confirm that the family has a very significant role to play during socialisation, since it is the only one that allows that adjustments are made when necessary, since there are strong emotional ties and motivations that are fused during such informal learning.
Certain social scientists have advocated the abolition of the family. An early opponent of the family was Socrates whose position was outlined by Plato in The Republic. In Book 5 of The Republic, Socrates tells his interlocutors that a just city is one in which citizens have no family ties.
The family being such a deep-rooted and much-venerated institution, few intellectuals have ventured to speak against it. Familialism has been atypically defined as a “social structure where…a family’s values are held in higher esteem than the values of the individual members of the family.” Favoritism granted to relatives regardless of merit is called nepotism. The Russian-American rationalist and individualist philosopher, novelist and playwright Ayn Rand compared partiality towards consanguinity with racism, as a small-scale manifestation of the latter. “The worship of the family is merely racism, like a crudely primitive first installment on the worship of the tribe. It places the accident of birth above a man’s values and duty to the tribe above a man’s right to his own life.” Additionally, she spoke in favor of childfree lifestyle, while following it herself.
The British social critic, poet, mountaineer and occultist Aleister Crowley censured the institution of family in his works: “Horrid word, family! It’s very etymology accuses it of servility and stagnation. Latin, famulus, a servant; Oscan, Faamat, he dwells, “[T]hink what horrid images it evokes from the mind. Not only Victorian; wherever the family has been strong, it has always been an engine of tyranny. Weak members or weak neighbours: it is the mob spirit crushing genius, or overwhelming opposition by brute arithmetic. In every Magical, or similar system, it is invariably the first condition which the Aspirant must fulfill: he must once and for all and for ever put his family outside his magical circle.” Whereas, the American journalist Marty Nemko considers family to be overrated.
Terrorism, today, is said to be the greatest threat, but is it terrorism to question the authorities? Is it terrorism to believe in the principles of non-aggression principle (NAP) and coherently reject the establishment of family, society and government? Is it terrorism to disobey paying taxes, for the purpose of self-welfare? What responsibility do you owe to society and why? Whilst paying taxes regularly and obeying the state makes one a “good” family member, what makes you believe that you are the above the rest of mankind? Just because I am propagating against involuntaryism does not mean that I am a greedy beast. Read this: bit.ly/1vQTkoi to examine how cruel these “good” people are. The prime objective of terrorist is to generate and sustain fear at household level and social level. Terrorism is not only about chaos in the middle-east nations. It is much more than what you can intend to believe. Well, it is socioterrorism, when a kid is given no choice to brace autodidacticism. It is socioterrorism, when family gives more importance to the social judgments than to your voluntary consent [when it comes to your sexual orientation, relationships, marriage, principles and values]. It is socioterrorism to intimidate any member with social consequences, without welcoming the topic of individual responsibility. It is socioterrorism to not only “divide/define and rule” the members on the basis of age, but also prefacing the other social members on the basis of race, gender, caste and religion. It is socioterrorism to expropriate the privacy of any family member. It is socioterrorism to snoop over any family member. It is socioterrorism to psychologically coerce your ideas upon other family members. It is also socioterrorism to force career choices upon any member. It is socioterrorism to physically abuse and emotionally torture any family member.
Just because a person is born into a family does not mean that other members have any right to violate the natural rights of any one. Family is a superficial concept and it is high time to hamper pretending that we owe to the social contract of a family.