I don’t, and since you are apparently unwilling to provide any support for your post (and thus are implicitly conceding its untenability in the context of this discussion), I don’t understand how you can do otherwise.
Just so we’re clear, what I’m saying is that, even in the vague, nebulous terms of a “general framework”, I find your notions to be largely baseless.
ok
Keep in mind that the following statement of yours is what I am speaking against - the distinction I’m making between predation and farming is in the context of this claim of yours.
Systematic aggression must, over time, cause a shift in the population to systematic defense against the aggression.
This is partially true. People killing slow-running goats tends to breed faster goats (or goats that can fight back, whatever).
However, people that catch the goats, put them in cages, and milk them, do not have the same affect - there is no breeding of faster goats. On the contrary, people will tend to breed more compliant goats, more milk-productive goats, probably slower goats, etc.
Likewise, there is a fundamental difference between one group of people raiding and killing another (predation), and one group of people subjugating and extracting rents from another (farming). In the former case, predation leads to the breeding of stronger people in the victimized group (stronger meaning better able to defend themselves from the predators). Not so in the latter case, where the farmer deliberately breeds weak and obedient people.
The implication is that the standard-of-living in the absence of “farming” by the State would be X and with the State it is X+1 so, even though the State is skimming off half our productivity for itself, we’re still better off in absolute terms than we would have been without the State. This is simply false. In the absence of the State, we would retain the balance of our productive labor and we would be that much better off. It has always ever been individuals that act and the increase in our standard-of-living is a by-product of technological progress despite the constant nannying and heckling of the State.
I agree. Where did I say anything about the state being beneficial?
You’re missing the point - the welfare moms are the bear, not the bees! We spent most of our evolutionary history in an environment where being neighborly was more conducive to survival than being a possessive miser. Yet the attributes of the possessive miser are precisely what are needed to fend off the parasitism of the State. This attribute of human nature will flourish in proportion to the success of the State. The welfare moms are not “dependent” so much as utilizing the means available to them to make sure they are not exploited but, rather, are the exploiters.
You’re describing the patron-client relationship that is the very basis of the state. People (like the welfare mom, or industrialists, bankers, et al) have an opportunity to share in the loot extracted by the state, and they do so, and this binds them to the state - and the state knows and encourages this because obviously it strengthens the power of he state. The more people do this, the more the power of the state expands. You say “this attribute of human nature will flourish in proportion to the success of the state.” I agree. And how does that threaten the existence of the state? That these clients are exploiters in a sense (exploiting everyone who isn’t a client) does not mean that they aren’t in turn being exploited. They are bees, just higher-ranking bees. Like the Jews who helped the NAZIs in the concentration camps - still slaves, just better fed slaves with a little petty authority.
Are you aiming for the idea that the state will eventually collapse as more and more people seek to live the parasitic life? Parasite finally kills host?