Now, I can easily discern four explanations here.
The first is what I ca make of Clayton’s, Wilderness’ and Marko’s posts.
Leisure time is very high on the preference scale of “primitive” humans (we’ll just use the term for the lack of a better one), or else any kind of labor is very disutile. Hence as soon as they achieve a minimum level of needs satisfaction, i.e. they can live, they proceed to use their leisure time instead.
This wouldn’t sit well with the example brought by Wilderness though. Should “primitives” be just lazy, why would they keep cutting many more trees than the need, only our of habit? Wouldn’t they work less?
Which brings me to the second objection, the one I mentioned earlier: why not trade than? Wilderness was correct in pointing out that the intra-family division of labor already exists. I also pointed out in my original example, that sporadic trade with the city is to be found.
So, if indeed one values leisure above all, and spurns labor above all, than why just not extend the specialization of labor whiting the village, and indeed among villages? With the very same amount of labor there would be much more produce for everyone or, in this case, the same product would be achieved by working far less. They already know trade, so why is the specialization of labor so lacking? I cannot explain that. Or again, why not save a year or two, and with the increase capital base work much less? They can save when they have two (some flood kills half of the herd). So why don’t they?
And than again, why do they even have customs? A very lazy guy would just say to himself “Yeah, what the hell, I’m just going to shoot everyone who shows up at my door. I need no laws and all that!” Still tribal legal norms are very complex. Why such a need?
The second: primitives are simply very averse to change.
Every change in their familiar society brings them much disutility, thus, stability is to be valued above all.
That would explain wilderness’ example. Still it would not explain, and this is a big defect, Albanian tribes’ continuously evolving law. If stability is so much valued, why do they bother to change the law? Or indeed why would law exist in the first place? If they are averse to change they wouldn’t need any, as everyone (or most) would stick to the grazing times they got and no conflict could arise.
Yet law exists. Finally, is change is so terrible, why don’t numerous families ban their sons, besides the very first one (or perhaps two, to insure against the death of one of them)? Tribal families are extended, and every newborn in seen as a blessing. Hardly a change-averse society than.
The Third: primitive have very high time preferences
They don’t save and don’t trade because they just cant defer satisfaction to any degree. They prefer what they can get now, now.
But how to amount for their keeping communal property. Children (normally of high time preferences) can’t hold anything in common, and would rather prefer to consume it or sell it outright. Why than, most property is not only held communally, but any kind of sale is strictly forbidden?
Or why doesn’t a “war of all against all” erupt, in order to steal the other’s property? Very high time preferences would indicate just that.
The Fourth: Their preferences “stop” when all their basic needs are satisfied.
Beyond that, they feel no more pleasure form more leisure time, material possessions, or indeed anything else.
That would explain all of what we se in tribal societies. It would seem normal and it would find a basic expression even today, in people such as Howard Hughes: after getting to a given point, nothing else please them. I suspect we all have such “breaking point”, what sets us apart from “less evolved” men is the height of such a point.
Now a guy that has achieved his ‘Breaking point” acts only to maintain it. He goes around in his routine, and sees no need to implement any changes if the status quo isn’t threatened. Basically imagine yourself on vacations all life: as long as you account is full, you do not worry about a thing.
This could explain Wilderness’s example: the natives where indifferent between cutting less trees and cutting the same number. And when preferences are the same, tradition steps in, assuring that they continue to act, out of custom, as they did in the past, cutting the same number of trees.
Now, if you can find fault with this fourth explanation, than we’ll need an other one. The problem though remains: we need to explain, in a praxeological manner, the anarchist societies that preceded the emergence of the State.
Granted. I’m not holding that the State is moral on that account. All I’m saying is that its emergence is inevitable, as long as most of those ruled do not resent it enough to overthrow it (or stop obeying). So, as long as breaking points are so diverging, as it happened prior to the industrial revolution, than a state will emerge. Only when breaking points begin to cluster, than states become unviable.
PS: my head hurts.