When the Spartans went to war, they always spoke of “The Laecedemonians” going to war, never “Sparta.” Sparta was a body politic in which every Spartan was a component. Sparta did not have an existence as a mental ideal, a social fiction, or a legal person.
You’re conflating the presence of mutually voluntary exchange with voluntaryism. You agreed we’d use my preferred term, so the confusion is resulting from you using it to mean something I don’t. When I speak of voluntaryism, I’m referring to a means of organizing society that rejects hegemonic dominance hierarchies. If you want to speak of something different*—mutually voluntary exchange*—then maybe call it “mutually voluntary exchange” to avoid the unnecessary confusion.
I’m pointing out a dichotomy: societies that are capable (in theory) of organizing upon the rejection of hegemonic dominance hierarchies, and societies that organize upon the principle of hegemonic dominance hierarchies. One of these two has outperformed the other in evolutionary terms—its members have spread their genes much more prolifically. And so we see a world of statist societies instead of a world of anarchist (or voluntaryist, or free, or insert your utopian non-violent theoretical society here) societies.
The end.
And yet the modern world is in conflict, because the modern world was produced by societies which culturally evolved to allow the individual to be the basic and important unit of society over the group. Yet the group-centered ideologies have been trying to reassert dominance ever since.
But they must fail. They do not see it yet. But the individual grows more poweful and more free with each succeeding moment. The statism of the world today is a scaffolding doomed to fall away, for it is unecessary. They think they can use the wealth created by freedom to maintain their slave-pens, but they are in for a rude awakening, when their power will crumble, because to use the products of freedom to maintain slavery is to implicitly acknowledge the superiority of freedom.
And the meaning of freedom is the individuals power to assert sovereignty away and apart from the demands of the group and group representatives.
Only libertarianism represents a fulfillment of that idea to its ultimate end.
We are the future.
you get to pick the term, you dont get to determine what constitutes a real life example of its meaning.
thats too bad. I’m using it to refer to a means of organizing society through voluntary actions. According to you, I could organize society through unilateral dominance hierarchy and it would be voluntaryism. So, your usage is obviously fallacious.
mutual voluntary exchange is a big part of creating a voluntaryistic society. Of course theres also individual voluntary acts. But youre drawing a distinction that doesnt actually exist.
yes, and I am pointing out that you are asserting a false dichotomy.
I have asked you for examples.
thats you. I keep trying to draw your attention to the fact that the world is filled with voluntaryist societies-that is, individuals who organize themselves and conduct their affairs through voluntary actions-far in excess of individuals who organize their affairs through hegemonic dominance hierarchies. Thus far your response has been confined to mislabeling and hand-waving.
You can ignore what you dont want to see, that doesnt make it go away. It simply makes you ignorant.
funny how many social theories come to an end when you ask their proponents to define their terms.
so a city state is not a state?
states that were states did not become states till 350 years ago?
empires called states, but were not states?
i’m a bit confused here as to what a state would be.
greece had citizenships and constitutions and rights.
laecedemonian is another words for spartan
titles like kings are not attacched to any particular person, people aren’t in anarchy whenever one king takes over from another king or inbetween the change of government
No, a polis is not a state.
what do you mean? Countries existed, they didnt become nation-states until around the time of the peace of westphalia. Prior to that government was explicitly personal.
what empires were called a “state”?
consider a sovereign corporation. Now are you still confused?
did they have a social fiction endowed with legal personhood?
If you refer back to my above post, youll note that I was contrasting “laecedemonians” with “sparta.” if sparta was a state, then the spartans would have said “sparta declares war” whereas they used a term to refer to the actual physical people, “the laecedemonians declared war.”
a polis is a political entity that seems fictional personhood.
wikapedia’s definition of empire. it calls empires and federations different types of states.
An empire is a state with politico-military dominion of populations who are culturally and ethnically distinct from the imperial (ruling) ethnic group and its culture[3] — unlike a federation, an extensive state voluntarily composed of autonomous states and peoples.
now looking at this, it says states sent people to negotiate rather than states were formed after the negotiations. it talks about imperial states and those were put in place before westphalia.
what difference does it make between government, , polis, nations , and states if people have been oppressed by governments, polis, and nations for thousands of years and states for only 350?
what exactly gives you that impression?
wikiapedia’s definition of state. It says there is no academic consensus as to the definition. I made it clear in my first reply to you here that this is how I define the word. Its useful to refer to the unit of political organization that is a legal fictional person with a different term than those units of political organization that came before it. Since “state” is 1) alread used that way by certain writers and thinkers whose opinions I value, and 2) etymologically, logically and cognitively suitable for the purpose, I define and use it that way. This is a good thing, because it educates people. Look, you didnt even know that humans used to be profoundly aware of the fact that government rules them and parasitically feeds on their wealth. Thats why they couldnt get away with nearly so much taxation back then (and the technology wasnt advanced, and capital hadnt accumulated like it has now, so there wasnt enough wealth to support this leel of taxation) but now people actually believe that they are part of the government. Did you see the video where the democrats said “government is the only thing that we all belong to”? Thats only possible because of the state.
Thats a modern definition of “empire.” its also valid, as the h.r.e. was oneof the political institutions that helped aristocrats to invent this concept of fictional person of government. But regions were part of the empire, people were ruled by the emperor (nominally). The emperor wasnt imaginary
states assumed a monopoly on violence at that point. Prior to that the state was invented but it wasnt the (almost) exclusive sovereign entity in international law. Thats why its a convenient demarcation point. It has to do with war as much as politics. A political history might mark the birth earlier, like when the king of france was forbidden to wager burgundy by one of his ministers, being told “you are not France.” I dont recall the year. I apologize for not giving you the proper context. Edited to add: 1528 Charles V challenged Francis I but Francis was not permitted, by his staff, to accept.
you dont think its interesting to study different forms of government, social organization, and cultural identity? The means of oppression continually evolves.
subsequent edit: http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind3b.html
i do think the study of different forms is interestings.
seems the article says non- state warfare is beating state warfare, but what is being oppresed by a tribal war leader different than oppressed by a state?
state as legal fictional person. legal personhood is still something that confuses me, seems contradictory.
people form and give rights to a state, then the state gives rights to corporations. but in the case it can be traced back to real people making real decisions about law. is the state formed by a consitution, which is formed by real people. the state would then be a real peice of paper, actions in the name of the state would be real people doing real actions and using that paper to justify them. emperor or king or president are all legal fictions, but each role is assumed by a real person. a state having rights, duties, and limitations, is rights, actions and limitations of the real people working in the name of the state.
http://p2pfoundation.net/Personhood_of_Corporations i found this, seems interesting. looks like it’s power in a office rather than specefic person. but we have had power in offices rather than specific people for a long time, from popes to kings to presidents to mother to father. tribes have fictional titles such as cheif or leader , fictional titles and heiarchy passed down from generation that controls the tribe.
youre missing the point. States are losing when they fight non-states. Its not about oppression per se its about winning and losing wars.
it is not an intuitive concept:
a small group of people, then somehow these decisions are binding for all sorts of other people. There is no opt-out clause etc.
which is fallacious, a piece of paper doesnt justify anything it just conveys information.
I think we are using different definitions of legal fiction.
thats true and the state allows these people to limit their liability for these actions. An agent of the state isnt held responsible for actions he took that were authorized by the state (in essence, another person whose liability is also eliminated).
the above quote is from your link, hopefully this clears up some of the confusion.
why do you think a chief is a social fiction? A chief is a person in whom other people invest authority and responsibility. I can point to a chief. I cant point to a state, only a head of state or an agent of state. Likewise, I can point to a tribe, I cant point to a corporation.
one can point to a person who serves as cheif, but not the concept that is cheif.
one can point to each individual in a tribe, but not to the concept of tribe. can point to a tree but not a forest
the job of cheif can change and be passed down, the individual cannot change to another individual
a state can’t act, so we only have real people making and enforcing decisions, giving themselves limited liability and privaliges. a state is then a collective fund where if lawsuits against the state are won, money comes out of the pool rather than a limited .
state seems like a mental concept set to manipulate people in a collective way. all sorts of collective concepts have been invented to manipulate and control individuals. i would say cheif can fit into this as a cheif is not a cheif until powers are granted to him by the rest of the community. without recognition of powers, which are all mental concepts, the individuals would just be indiviudals rather than cheifs. people have to invest authority in a state as well, authority in a consitution, judges, elections, voting, whatever.
people can point to logos that represent thate state, the corporation, the tribe or other offical seals or physical traits used to identify members.
while a state may give a person immunity for a action done in the name of the state, others outside the state won’t give the same immunity and it can force members of the state to change the rules of the state.
legal fiction requires courts or judgement so not recognizing courts takes away the legal fiction and then interaction can just be one initiation of agression or reasponse.
now wouldn’t nap also be legal fiction or a fiction, as i can’t point to nap so a court ruling towards nap would be ruling conceptialy?
every individual in the tribe is the tribe. The same cannot be said of state. Also, chiefs were chosen because of their personal qualities. There was a hereditary component but it was by no means certain.
in one case, they are investing powers in a living breathing human. In the other case, they are investing powers in a conceptual entity.
while they do ot ha e tp recognize theimmunity, in most cases they do, simply because they believe in the state. That is the purpose of the state, to cnfer legitimacy upon people who otherwise would have none.
nap is a concept, there is no tangible existence, just people who think it and ascribe some sort of significance to its meaning. It can also be a social relation.
Malachi, I think you’re stuck in the Martin Van Creveld paradigm. Free your mind to different perspectives.
Feel free to introduce me to a new perspective at any time. You might want to start by answering some of my questions above.
Appeal to personal incredulity? I’m not your teacher. Your one-track minded incapacity to fathom alternative perspectives isn’t my burden.
I don’t even think Van Creveld is as hardline about his theory as you. I’m sure he acknowledges it’s one perspective among many from which compatible conclusions can be drawn.
The ability to see why a person makes an argument (even if you disagree with it, or fail to comprehend it) seems to be a sign of intelligence you’re lacking. But I don’t think you’re incapable of it, and I don’t think our views are strictly cotradictory. Help me bridge the communications gap and acknowledge where we’re each coming from, so we can find the compatible truths and resolve any errors.
For example, I acknowledge that homo sapiens is capable of mutually voluntary exchange, but I also acknowledge the manifest presence of hegemonic dominance hierarchies (and therefore it’s implied that the abilities to engage in and withstand both tendencies were selected for as survival mechanisms). So I can accept that both tendencies can and do coexist, and both are pervasive. But one is the base principle on which homo sapiens characteristically organizes societies. His societies aren’t organized on mutually voluntary principles, though mutually voluntary exchange does occur within them. Rather, the hierarchies are hegemonic, nonvoluntary–even though mutually voluntary exchange does occur within them. Hence the prisoner analogy which, despite its failures, seems to me decent at conveying the compatibility of our theories: the possibility of a hegemonic dominance hierarchy wherein most of the exchange is mutually voluntary isn’t what’s disputed. Indeed, if the hegemony weren’t hierarchical (unrestricted, total, universal), the society would break down in the absence of possibility for mutually voluntary exchange.
appeal to irony. I have spent hours of my time trying to understand your paradigm as it pertains to human history and when I ask you do do things that you should know are a prerequisite for productive discussion you clam up. I can easily fathom your half-witted internally contradictory perspective, you apparently cant formulate it rationally. But keep casting aspersions on my mental capacity mr. “aborigines are an historical exception.”
well you might have more to go on than your own assumptions if you would expand your horizons and open yourself up to different paradigms. As it is now you havent given the slightest indication of familiarity with the work of van Creveld.
yes, youre right, I’m not able to read minds. In order for me to know why someone else made an argument they must tell me. Otherwise I am estimating. Are you suggesting that I am unusual in this respect? Do you conclude that I must open my mind to new perspectives on the basis of this telepathy?
I have been trying to do this for days (see my above posts). But youre not my teacher so you dont feel obligated to answer questions like “whats your definition of society” when you want to tell me what societies have and have not prospered. Why dont you help me bridge the communications gap and stop employing argumentum ad hominem and petitio principii?
how do you define and circumscribe a hierarchy? Can one be part of a hierarchy against one’s will?
I’m fully aware that youre capable of accepting your own thesis. What has yet to be demonstrated is if you are capable of supporting it in any way whatsoever.
I disagree. The vast majority of society in any region and epoch is organized according to mutually voluntary principles. You appear to believe that if someone is a victim of a crime, all their social organization is for naught.
I have asked you what you meant by “exchanging within a hierarchy.” I cant imagine why someone interested in fruitful discussion would decline to answer my question, feel it is appropriate to accuse me of having a closed mind, and then repeat their earler statement without further elucidation. Perhaps you, for some reason, assumed my question wasnt serious? It was.
is it possible to falsify your thesis or is it unfalsifiable? What constitutes a “society”? What constitutes a “hierarchy”? What would satisfy your requirements for an example of “rejecting hegemonic dominance hierarchies”? Is violence required or can someone nonviolently reject a “hegemonic dominance hierarchy”? You have proven adept at restating your thesis in slightly different verbage. You have not shown the same capacity for explaining yourself. Now that you have begun to attack me, rather than my ideas, I demand that you respond to my questions or be labeled as a troll.
I might add that cab21 did a passable job of challenging my statements on the state, even resulting in a minor correction. You havent even attempted such a thing, preferring instead argumentum ad hominem. Please drop the facade and get this discussion back on track.
I feel like you’re trolling. You’re asking me questions that don’t need to be answered if you don’t dispute my perspective. Consider:
- Obviously, neither of us deny that homo sapiens is capable of mutually voluntary exchange.
- Do you deny that homo sapiens also organizes on bases other than the mutually voluntary kind, specifically into hegemonic dominance hierarchies?
- Do you deny that the members of a hegemonic dominance hierarchical society can engage in mutually voluntary exchange?
I cant imagine why, I have continually attempted to understand your perspective. I have made it clear where I disagree with your thesis and I have asked you questions on these points, giving you ample opportunity to make your case. Since you have declined to answer my questions, preferring instead to repeat yourself ad nauseum I think youre playing the troll here.
if the balance of my statements werent enough evidence, one might on that additional basis conclude that I dispute your interpretation of history.
originally I would say “yes” but our discussion suggests that our interpretations of what constitutes a “hegemonic dominance hierarchy” are at odds, hence my repeated attempts to get you to define your terms. Since you wont do that, I can only say that I dont know if I agree that homo sapiens forms “hashemian hegemonic dominance hierarchies.” perhaps they do, perhaps they dont, I need to have that term defined.
first I need to know what constitutes membership in a hegemonic dominance hierarchy.
My position is that homo sapiens tends to conquer. I’m unsure what your contention is, or why any questions you’ve asked so far are relevant, especially if you don’t deny the following. I’ll answer any relevant questions you have if you will please answer these two (relevant in the context of your disagreement to the following to the extent that such disagreement may be applied to my stated position):
-
Do you deny that homo sapiens—in addition to organizing on mutually voluntary bases—also organizes on bases other than the mutually voluntary kind, specifically into hegemonic dominance hierarchies?
(Given your understanding. Certainly you can fathom what hegemony, dominance, and hierarchy are. If not, default to dictionary.com.) -
Do you deny that members of a hegemonic dominance hierarchical society can engage in mutually voluntary exchange?
(Members being the individuals of which the hierarchy is composed; a society being any composition of individuals who may be demonstrably associated)
An acceptable rephrasing of the question may be: Do you deny that prisoners can engage in mutually voluntary exchange.
Anyone can disect these down to infinitely smaller questions; we could talk about the fact that humans are composed of atoms and that 2 years from now we may be composed of entirely different atoms and therefore what we are isn’t what we’re made of; we could think on any number of levels, but I’m not trying to be that complex. The questions seem to me to be pretty straightforward so please address them assuming you understand them to the best of your ability given your understanding modified only by qualifications I’ve included (e.g. the meaning of members/society for the purpose of that question). If you disagree, then I’d like to answer relevant questions and get on with finding where the confusion stems from since I don’t believe it’s realistic to deny the above questions.
so moses was not just a member of a tribe of levi, he was the tribe of levi? as obama is a citizen of illinous state, but he is not the state of illinois.
a tribe is a social group, so how can one person be a tribe? seems moses was a part of the tribe of levi and obama is a part of the state of illinois as a citizen and a part of the usa as a citizen.
we do have some religion states that have a goal of worldwide dominance. the pope and caliphate could be two examples i think with a goal of everyone under a hedgemonic heiarchy and expanding imperialistic power.
technology has allowed for states to have more power and build MAD weapons, which has turned most wars back into smaller intrastate wars or states with less technology. the states with more technology are more dominate , but places with less technology can be more dominating of the people with local fundamentalism and higher firepower then the rest of the tribe or village