Just throw in every State-formation theory you know of

Economics Political Theory
1

As I’ve said several times in this forum, I believe we’re still far from having a praxeologically valid theory of the emergence of the State, whereas we have such a praxeologicaly valid theory as to the effects of state power. Thus, I believe it would be useful if we’d just make a list, preferably of links and short descriptions, of different theories of how the State came about, without discussing any of them. This is just mean to be a list. If we could keep a sound numbering it would be best.

#1: Hoppe: “States grow out of the natural order. The natural elite which is invariably called upon in every community to arbiter disputes institutes a monopoly of dispute resolution. Monarchy is thus born. Monarchy then evolves into democracy, which evolves into outright dictatorship.”

#2: Oppenheimer: “States grow out of the clash between Nomads and Agricultural societies. No classes can grow in an agricultural society ion which there is free land, and we know that there’s always free land, else there is superfluous population. Whereas among herdsmen classes can emerge, as someone will be a better steward of is herd, and end up with bigger herds than the others. Hence, herdsmen grow classes and States. Also, there is point for herdsmen to keep slaves, as they can be employed in watching such big herds, while farmers can only work as much land, and have no use for slaves. Adding that the very nature of the herdsmen life imbues him with strong military-like traditions and sense of discipline and that his diet, being much richer that that of farmers, gives him greater strength and numbers, we can see that herdsmen tribes can easily subjugate farming communities. The want of greater produce pushes herdsmen into attacking such rich farming communities to seek slaves and tribute. The institiunalisation of this process gives rise to States. The author notes that “land” states always spring up where fertile plains meet with wide grazing grounds (China, Egypt, India, Mesopotamia), while “sea” states where rich fishing waters meet with fertile plains (Europe).

#3: “A few smart guys use superstition of the masses to install themselves as a chosen priest class, requiring tributes form others as a “request from the Gods” (sorry about the link, I couldn’t find anything better)

#4: "Back then weapons where costly, and a class of protector could afford them started selling protection to communities. Time went by and “protection” became natural, hence the State.”

Anything else?

2

Some individuals in a tribe would get together to form raiding parties in order to pillage other tribes. They eventually realize that it would be far easier to stay at home and raid their own tribe under the guise of offering security.

3

Why do I not buy Hoppe…

I can honestly say I don’t know much about the nomadic lifestyle. I find the idea that they had slaves a little suspect, because its not like the slave can’t run off…

cough COUGH

Though this is interesting.

Where’s that one where barbarians invade, like what they see, and settle down.

4

Wait, doesn’t a state form because people act to achieve power, and find it profitable to do it if they can convince others that they are the “good guys” and that “resistance is futile”?

5

Hey, that’s not me. I just mentioned the theories I know.

6

That is the point of state-formation theories: how do you achive that?

7

Actually for European states we do not even need a theory, we have history. The modern state was formed out of the Treaty of Westphalia, which concluded thirty years of wars between emperors, kings, lords, free cities, just plain raiders, and other war-empowered agents. The goal was to give the lord the monopoly over war and prevent the people from arming themselves, which they had begun to do to protect themselves from the devastation of all these armies.

One thing that the lords didn’t like was the people arming themselves, so they made a pact with one another to prevent it. This pact gave them the monopoly on justice in their state.

8

I understand :). I suppose I was so stunned by #2 that I just had to comment…

9

Ingenious.

10

sounds kinda stupid but I’m going to post my own theory too (since it is a theory I know of).

Protection agencies rightfully extort things from criminals and enslave them, and this forms the first tax base. With different incentives, protection agencies start to become state-like.

States are formed by the consent of the governed (hobbes/locke -to an extent also rousseau I think).

11

This is what I most believe in, although I do not necessarily believe that government is born through a communal arbiter, or that it is done voluntarily per sé (I believe that its genesis is voluntary, but the ultimate transformation into government is not; I believe the social contract between a group of people and “government” to be temporary. For an old, but still semi-correct view of what I believe see this piece). I admit, though, that I have not read much on anarchism and perhaps I am making a logical jump, without considering some steps that I am unaware of.

12

They gain people’s trust through helping them via talent: finding food in times of famine, killing the lion, or otherwise helping others by being the hero. Others trust the hero, so they obey him. The hero then gets power hungry, using force to dominate the minority, while putting on his fascade for the majority.
Or, they take power merely by force. Nuff said.

13

I would say sorta like #2, but not nomads, raiders. The raiders of agricultural centers eventually realize its better to just take some of the grain not all of the grain. Eventually they realize the farmers wont revolt, so they just settle down and take a bit of grain in exchange for “protection.” Every passing generation would allow for them to have more legitimacy as it is forgotten who these raiders were.

14

Let me elaborate now that I’ve had a good night’s rest. In the (pre)pre-capitalist age, wealth creation was seen as a zero-sum game, and the members of one tribe would look upon another with envious eyes and scheme to deprive that foreign tribe of their wealth, women, and ability to compete on their lands. The most violent individuals of a group would naturally gravitate to the raiding parties that are formed next. The initial raids expose the tribe to the consequences of foreign intervention. Now the pillaged tribe and their allies attack the first tribe. The same individuals tasked with the raiding are naturally the ones that also defend the tribe from the intrusions of foreigners. This back and forth goes on for a while and naturally the tribe is weary, but they are thankful for the protectors in their midst. In an effort to live off the production of others and avoid having to do the physical labor necessary for their sustenance, the raiders convince the rest of the tribe of the importance of their services in protecting them from foreign invasion (that they caused), and demand contributions from them so they would not have to work and only focus on security. This is a tough sell, so the raiders look around the tribe for somebody they can get to vouch for the necessity of their services. The only other members of the tribe who are able to live off of the contributions of others without working themselves are the priestly class. These two groups naturally form an alliance where the priests receive benefits from the new protector class in exchange for the legitimization of their activities. This is where the court intellectuals come from. The priests defend the behavior of their fellow parasites by claiming that their ability to act in such a way is, like their own privilege, a divine right handed down by the gods. The state is born.

It is interesting that this topic came up because I was trying to discover a solution to the emergence of the state recently as well. I am writing a sort of fable or mini tale to weave into a section of my novel, for explanatory purposes, and what I posted above is the outline of what I came up with after some deliberation. I think it is pretty plausible. What do you think?

15

I’ve taken a sacred vow not to comment any theory hereby presented. I just thought that having a list of what we’ve got on the State could always come in handy for latter discussions.

16

All you need is a set of laws and an organization that proclaims sovereignty and enforces their laws. The statist system has been around for as long as private property and law enforcement has been around.

17

I think it amusing that in Guns, Germs, and Steel Jared Diamond makes the opposite argument. agricultural societies dominated nomadic societies militarily by virtue of their higher populations etc.

18

My bad, I kinda skimmed through your post.