@Epicurus: The problem I have with the “agriculture theory” of States is that it ignores the Hoppean reduction of the Hobbesian myth. Hoppe characterizes the Hobbesian myth as an assertion that, apart from intervention by a territorial monopolist of law and security, people will tend to permanently under-demand and under-invest in security. Once put in this light, it should be obvious what the mistake is. Why should nomads sufficiently invest in security but farmers fail to? And were nomadic societies really natural order societies? The evidence (e.g. Afghan Pashtunwali) says “yes and no” but certainly not an unqualified “yes”.
What do you mean by “female dominated states”? Can you list some examples?
Revealed religion. Theocracy is the oldest form of tyranny. Granted, secular statists are no different. But notice that they are as fanatical as religionists - that’s because they are guided by the same motives. Church and state have always been partners in crime.
Oh, I forgot to mention that states tend to be very efficient organizations. They naturally follow from the fact that organized criminals can easily attack and control non-organized subjects. That’s economics at work for you.
The Sardinians, Mosou, or Basques come to mind. Im not sure if any of these had a formal state, perhaps I should have said “female dominated societies.”
The reason a nomad would seem to invest more in security is becuase of the nature of the job. A farmer needs not to know how to fight, that is a choice for him. A hunter has no such choice, he must know how to defend himself or die. It is that simple. A nomad doesn’t invest in more security, the nature of his job makes him more secure. (on that note it is a myth that people, if left unattended would be at each other’s throats. it simply does not hold up to anthropological evidence)
I dont think there is much evidence for formal armies arising before or even concurrent to city-states either so…
Im not following the pashtun reference. perhaps you could clarify for me
Hmmm, well, even assuming these cultures were/are “female-dominated”, they are relative newcomers on the stage of evolution. My point is merely that there has been a progression from alpha-male mating to family-based mating but there is no reason for this progression to be smooth or monotonic.
But that would just mean that security is cheaper for nomads. So what? Farmers have more capital to defend, so investment in security is more worth their while. The intermittent raids provide plenty of motivation for such investment. But the historical record shows that, instead of contracting for security services from security specialists, farmers instead tended to be taxed and subjugated by kings or chieftains. I’m not discounting the technological particulars, I think they’re important to understanding the existence and nature of the State after the Agricultural Revolution but I don’t think “nomads have to be able to fight, farmers don’t” is a sufficient explanation. It might be part of the explanation but it isn’t the whole story.
The Pashtun are not a “natural order” in the Hoppean sense, yet they are a clan culture and I think they are semi-nomadic. They are a much better approximation of a natural order than anything in the West. So, being nomadic is not a sufficient condition for natural order society.
I discuss this in my long post I link in my sig. basically, some pole have no ambition at all, while other do. In this situation, it pays to for a coercive state to ‘drive’ those without ambition to produce something extra. With time, they evolve into people with ambition. The state then morphs into a democratic state and goes bankrupt. Forever.
Holy crap Merlin, that is an awesome hypotheses. Odd though, as I have been thinking similar less well developed thoughts latley (even using lions as part of my reasoning) that man is essentially Epicurean. Any new developments to this theory of yours?
Holy crap Merlin, that is an awesome hypotheses. Odd though, as I have been thinking similar less well developed thoughts latley (even using lions as part of my reasoning) that man is essentially Epicurean. Any new developments to this theory of yours?
Well thank you and let me say you do have quite some patience to read all that.
I haven’t been able to find time to check out some anthropological work to beef up that theory with global historical evidence, but I think that a very interesting real world example is coming: if the theory is anywhere near correct, than the coming crash of the EU shall produce city-states and no significant conglomeration (because the Europeans are past the ‘breaking point’ and for them it doesn’t pay to set up states anew). If such small states fail to come alive or begin to aggregate again, and no mass migration form Europe ensues in the meantime (that would invalidate the whole premise), than the theory is plain wrong.
Yes, I agree with the idea that, left “unattended”, so to speak, human societies/tribes/klans, or whatever…would not necessarily be at each other’s throats. I like to believe the the opposite. Like the indigenous people of what is now called ‘North America’–the so called ‘North American Indians’ (blasphemously, imo). It wasn’t called North American until after the white man arrived. But, the point is this: Didn’t the indigenous people(s) live in relative peace and harmony, and hadn’t they been doing so for a long time? (Or, perhaps, population increase—exponential—simply hadn’t caught up with them yet? Then again, however, weren’t the autochthons reverent of all nature? In which case, I would humbly guess that Mother Nature herself would be the means of population control.) I mean, think of how long they might have continued to do so, had not history, or logos, had a different direction to move.
Not to be irreverent (in fact, quite the opposite) but I wonder what game theory has to say about this.
I think an interesting question is (1) What kind of game produces the social/economic order we (a) have seen throughout history; and (b) see today? I mean, there HAS to be a logic behind what we see.
Or perhaps (1) A zero-sum game (due to our mortality + fact of natural scarcity) played among which player types/groups/archetypes produces this outcome. Um…I wasn’t trying to take this here, but we immediately arrive at the Austrians et al. I wouldn’t necessarily argue that the Austrians see the entire picture. (I wouldn’t even know…VERY unfortunately, because I just can’t keep up with everything.) But I would absolutely and unequivocably argue that they sure the heck seem like they’ve got the clearest picture of things economic, which covers a vaaaast array of human conduct. AINEC.
“Didn’t the indigenous people(s) live in relative peace and harmony?”
Unfortunately, no. This is a widely held misbelief. If you would like to learn for yourself, check out “The Ecological Indian.” Native americans were by no means war-mongers (as you attested to, populations probably weren’t big enough), but they were much like every other indigenous culture out there… human.
Thanks. Most of what I know about the indigenes of the U.S. I probably learned in public school (i.e. not much). And now you’re telling me my info is wrong? Shocking.
“Native americans were by no means war-mongers (as you attested to, populations probably weren’t big enough),…but they were much like every other indigenous culture out there… human.”
re: indigenous cultures, in general:
Is your belief that population increase is the primary cause of war between/among groups?
Personally, I’d like to know more about indigenous peoples, especially the factors which cause them to be either more/less peaceful. History is, in one sense, the story of the constrant struggle for scarce resources, no? And thus war and strife. But is this the NECESSARY condition of mankind, I wonder, with an eye toward “the indigene”.
“Is your belief that population increase is the primary cause of war between/among groups?”
I am an anthropologist by training, it is my belief that competition for resource is the primary cause the formation of societies in general.
It is by no means necessary, and as knowledge and culture grows, expands, and evolves, human strife has steadily shrank. 1 step back, 2 steps forward is the general rule.
“I dont trust anyone who believes anything 100%, ever… even that I don’t think ALWAYS holds true…”
Right, not always the case: does 2+2=4? In other words, logically necessary conclusions always do hold, but for everything else you never want to consider yourself totally certain.
The modern state and the modern market are basically opposite sides of the same coin. The modern market is a creation of the state - free market systems are always created by forcefully destroying non-market indigenous community traditions. In the U.S., for example, we have a market system because the U.S. cavalry killed all the (non-market society) native Americans, and used the state to supress popular anti-market insurrections, like Shays rebellion. In the U.K., the state, through Parliament, destroyed the ancient, indigenous traditions of common peasant ownership of some land and small agricultural cottages, by ‘enclosing’ all of the common land and selling it off on the market - forcing small scale farmers to become wage laborers.
The state, acting on behalf of the wealthy, uses violence to establish market economiesand market rules, but market economies are very volatile and often ‘fail,’ creating untenable situations. For example, the peasants kicked off the land and onto the market in the UK would riot or turn to crime whenever there was a labor market fluctuation and full employment became impossible - so the state had to step in and create prisons and workhouses to preserve social stability and the market system.
Think of the market as a NASCAR and the modern state as the driver/pit crew. One creates the reason for the other.
The state “comes from” the need to fix the constant problems arising from the constant breakdowns of the market, and the fact that the market will steer itself into a brick wall if left to its own devices.
“While I agree physically that those hold true, in practice meaning gets lost and perhaps I meant 22 when I said 2+2,”
Absolutely. But the critical thing to keep in mind is now you’re talking about a communication issue, rather than a certainty issue within your own mind. Words ≠ thoughts.