Untitled

As I enter the BP convenience store -- it is the store connected with the pumps where you pour gasoline -- I think that they are like fascists here and that the persons running the BP do not want the customers to have personal contact. I think that the operators of the gas station do not want the human beings to socialize. Of course, there is a lot of truth to these observations of American society. I experience it that way and I imagine the clerk barking out to customers: "you are not allowed to interact!!" I do not like the world. I am disturbed by it.
But yet I am not sure that the BP store is intentionally reducing human social interaction. I'm going a little bit too far? Maybe the Pope smokes dope, too, it's not impossible. It's a relationship --- between the BP store and the customers.
And (a slightly different query) what is the relationship that involves both capitalism on the one hand, and sociality on the other?
Sociality first of all is not against the law --- you could not outlaw it --- it is not something under the purview of the law at all. Sociality is not regulated by law, and neither can the law can induce it, or create it where it is not. That is not really what law does.
Social contact is not under the purview of law because it is more up to the persons themselves. Socializing is your own choice. Isn't it? It is more something people do on their own. But my theory is this.
It is that this however is not to say that white people do not need a little help socializing. Oh there I go being controversial. But they are just too cut off from one another; and capitalism helped them get that human contact, in a round about fashion. There are the known attempts to regulate socialization. But these attempts to control human sociality are authoritarian, and they are extremes. Of these, first we come to fascism (or I could also call it the fascistic kind of authoritarianism), which attempts to regiment people and regards social behavior as a weakness; then the other main method is what we call socialism, which goes the opposite way and promises utopia trying to force or induce cooperation. But at any rate, both wind up in the losers' circle, as far as I am concerned. They are authoritarian, with the caveat that the left does dress itself up in the sily dress of a kind of fancy talk. They might have a more compelling silkier dress with lots of fancy theory. It's a fancier version of fascism. I'd better truncate this discussion at risk of becoming a fancy Dan myself.
Social interaction in most cases needs to be improved. Obviously the BP is not doing that. It is questionable that the state is the one to do it, either. On the other hand there must be something someone can do to keep us from being so isolated and alone.

How would one preserve the peace?
How would one preserve the freedom?

The human system is always a hard thing to understand. We normally live in it --- rather than it being the case that we “understand” it. That is to say that the kind of understanding that is relevant is participatory rather than being judgmental. We do not necessarily understand it and we do not necessarily have access to any kind of an aerial snapshot or theory about life, because we are of it and “in” it.

I am interested in the overall society. I am interested in how the persons that normally interact with and relate to one another, and who make up what we call society, can simply do so without killing one another. So how do you do that? The alternatives on society's plate for regulating (a word substitution might be "governing") the situation are quite limited.

Go to my economics blog; you could perhaps get a few hints there.