Video: more complex societies lead to more tyrannical states

Economics Political Theory
, , , ,
81

You are not here discussing the economy. The only thing you have done here since the day you joined is post FSP propaganda and antagonize people about how great New Hampshire is and keep pestering everyone to move there. If the only reason you remain in “civ” is because you need it to survive, then go learn these “skills” and leave. Littering the forum with single post threads of crappy propaganda interviews, and useless median income data, and “100 reasons to live in New Hampshire” lists is not going to help you survive without “civ”.

Quite frankly, I don’t give a crap that New Hampshire is called “the live free or die state”. But apparently some blowhard thinks that’s a viable reason to pack up someone’s life and move there.

You are not hear discussing the economy, you are here spreading propaganda and nonsense. What does this have to do with getting you to leave?

K let me explain:

NH is the most libertarian state by far. Thats where I want to live freely. Out in the woods in NH where the gov. won’t stop me. Civ’s collapse is inevitable. Read the data. States are poisoning people and their monopolization will cause massive shortages and eventual collapse. Ag is not sustainable and causes eventual tyranny to arise. Hunter-gatherers are much more free and have totally free markets.

82

Even if agriculture is not ‘sustainable’ as you claim, it’s been around for 10,000 years and you have perhaps 80 years to your life (though likely far less if you live as a hunter-gatherer) - what makes you think that this supposedly inevitable collapse will ever effect you, even if you remain in civilization?

83

what makes you think that this supposedly inevitable collapse will ever effect you, even if you remain in civilization?

The evidence is out there. Google ‘civilization collapse’ and you’ll find all the info you need. Also check out works by anarcho-primitivists. Yes theyre a bunch of treehuggers but they are right about a lot.

84

I don’t see why written language should be the distinction between what constitutes “civilization”, but that’s just me. It’s also not really relevant since I wasn’t making an argument within that context and nor do I think that the anti-civ, primitivists in this thread want to abolish written language (or see its abolition as an inevitable consequense of a non-coercive economy) if that is the metric we are using to distinguish a civilization from a non-civilization.

It seems to me that the anti-civs are targeting the establishment of a capital goods market and division of labor economy. I would say these two things are essential to any capitalist economy.

85

Great. What the hell does that have to do with you spending all this time on the Mises forum spreading FSP propaganda? Do you even read what you write? You haven’t explained anything. The only thing you’ve added is why you want to live in the woods in New Hampshire as opposed to the woods in Montana, or Canada, or the Amazon (evidently because you think in those places, “the gov.” would stop you, but in the tiny boundaries of New Hampshire, the wouldn’t.)

What does this have to do with you being here? Why are you here?

Using the Internet to proclaim being anti-tech
86

http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/agriculture-and-food-systems-unsustainable/

87

Guess he sure told you. He knows it’ll happen in his tiny spec of a lifespan because he found something on Google. What is your proof he’s wrong???

88

Check the data. Ag is not sustainable and can never be.

89

Why are you here?

90

I guess he’s right since civilization will end eventually, even if not for 1 million years. Nevertheless I think I’ll spend my first few thousand years in civilization and then see how I feel.

91

Support this claim by praxeology or it’s completely meaningless.

92

Civilization outruns this guy’s life span. Civ wins!

Still don’t know he’s here posting about it. You have people that just go leave their homes, teenagers and people in their early 20’s train hopping (which, by the way, I have to say is more dangerous than living alone in the woods), and people hiking trails all the time. You know why? They do it and don’t just talk about it. Take this guy for example, he just left one day, got to Alaska, lasted four months through the whole thing before dying, and had a book and movie made about it.

So, why are you here? You post survivalist videos, but just like Dale Gribble thinking he’s a Soldier of Fortune you’ll never do this stuff, just talk it up, and never do it. Think of us as the Hank Hills, calling you out on your nonsense and half-baked theories about civilization. I haven’t seen anything of worth posted from you, just amusement with your posts about living in the woods away from civilization, but it’ll never happen.

Have you ever thought what if society does collapse, and everyone goes to the woods, to, you know, build log cabins and hunt and live away from the mess. What’s going to happen when people stronger and more intelligent than you home stead that land, hunt the food, build the homes, cut down the trees, and oh, wait, rebuild civilization? Well, keep pushing into those woods!

To be honest, if I was some sort of idiot, or someone rather intelligent with a good knowledge of the outdoors (not “survivalist methods” like it’s Rambo), I’d go into the mountains, perhaps Shenandoah that I occasionally camp at, and live out there amongst the beautiful Blue Ridge Mtns. And you know what I’ve learned from visitor centers and tourist guides and the like? That when people went out west, away from civilization, what did they do on those trails? They built communities. That’s right, and when you go out in those places they have cabins and other remnants there to give you an idea of how they lived, and they had fenced off sections of agriculture and live stock, with structures for various purposes, etc. etc. Seems like everytime someone goes into the wilderness they spontaneously build civilization, as if that’s the embedded human thing to do. What a wonder the world is!

93

Got rid of the spam.

94

Civilization outruns this guy’s life span. Civ wins!

Maybe I won’t live to see the collapse of civ but it’s a fact that civilization WILL collapse sometime in the future. All civilizations collapse at some point. All we’re doing is prolonging the life of ours which is leading to enslavement.

Have you ever thought what if society does collapse, and everyone goes to the woods, to, you know, build log cabins and hunt and live away from the mess. What’s going to happen when people stronger and more intelligent than you home stead that land, hunt the food, build the homes, cut down the trees, and oh, wait, rebuild civilization? Well, keep pushing into those woods!

No one will want to go back to civ. It’s like saying people will bring back the state after the state is no more. Why go back to slavery once you have freedom?

95

Watch this if your still skeptical.

96

We need to stop hunting down wolves?

97

What the primitivist perspective recognizes is that a species, given control of its own food supply, is able to exponentially increase their population which is what destroyed the anarchotribal system that had pervaded the globe for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years prior to the technological discovery of totalitarian agriculture in mesopotamia circa 10,000 years ago.

With the added calories available the totalitarian agriculturalist is able to rapidly expand his population. It is easy to homestead land that is used for hunting and browsing because they may not revisit the plot for months or years. Plus those two different tribes may not have a negotiated property rights settlement, and a language barrier might preclude the discovery of such. This situation is likely to end in warfare or expulsion of the nomadic tribe, because of the improvement of the land by the totalitarian agricultural homesteader.

Over the long term this leads to exponential population explosion and thus division of labor, which gives rise to more technology. Technology has unintended consequences that humans need time to account for. Unfortunately, humans were designed to live in tribal societies that tend towards a type of communal living, involving reciprocal exchange. Market exchange and market processes are counterintuitive to the naive human. This is why statism is so popular despite the glaringly obvious immorality and ill effects. (see mises.org daily "evolutionary psychology and the anti-market bias)

The answer is property rights. With sufficient private property rights, tribes (such as the kayapo in brazil) would not lose their land (homesteaded for potentially thousands of years prior to the colonial invasion) because of statist aggression (bel monte dam project). Without food subsidies, the market system will recreate scarcity and therefore halt the population explosion and give us time to work the bugs out of new technology. And without aggression where new tech is forced on people without their consent, we also wouldnt be unwillingly subjected to the effects of vaccines, fiat money, modern “nutrition”, and modern modes of transportation.

As for your specific question regarding wolves, the situation is politicized to such an extent that I do not know the true facts. I heard that the wolves in the northwest and canada are not endangered but a aggressive nuisance that had been introduced by the state to make up for alleged past wrongs, but I cant seem to find the article.

Also, the video implies (and the daniel quinn allegiant community claims) that no other animals wage war on their competitors. Raptors and owls are mortal enemies and raptors will attack owls during the daylight if they encounter one. They do not eat the carcass.

98

Was that a joke or are you being serious? Y’know antibiotics have expanded the average human life-span a tremendous amount in the last century. Claiming “we will lose this war” without demonstrating any drop in the modern lifespan a higher prevelance of diseases caused by bacteria is hysterical. Again, if you’re going to make any sort of valid claim that agriculture and industry are unsustainable show it by praxeology.

99

antibiotics have expanded the average human life-span a tremendous amount in the last century.>>>>

support this claim please. Show that the increase in life-span is not due to conservation of energy by use of superior technology. Show that the increase in life-span is the product of the use of antibiotics themselves, rather than increased and widespread knowledge of medical science in general.

Again, if you’re going to make any sort of valid claim that agriculture and industry are unsustainable show it by praxeology.>>>>

if you consolidate all of the life processes in the world into those that sustain humans and those that predate upon human sustaining processes, and continually refine those into the most large-scale, efficient processes, you run the risk of one anti-biotics mutated superbug destroying your food supply apparatus in a fortnight. This would not be a problem if property rights were well-established because that would naturally produce diverse sources of food at all scales.

100

I would also like to see my point addressed that there were tribal States in the old, primitive days…The State did not merely arbitrarily appear with the dawning of “modern civilization.”>>>>

Tribal government is not a state. Tribal government is more like a family. The anarchotribal system typically did not have the populaton necessary for division of labor and hence the ability to support an aggressive state apparatus.