07 Oct 09
Originally posted by WajomaI was addressing Bad Wolf - who seems to be taking the anarchist position. Perhaps I misunderstand his argument.
Like talking to a fence post.
I understand that you do accept the need for some kind of a state. So I ask you again.
In your opinion, what is that best way for a society to make the specfic laws that it needs regarding police, defense, etc -- and what is the best way for that society to pay for the enforcement of those laws?
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
07 Oct 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesMy comments on the state of nature are merely speculation I suppose, the idea is out there in its many interpretations and this is due to the lack of real evidence. I would personally say, simply before culture, perhaps when we were more family orientated, you merely tried your best to gain resources regardless of the consequences for others, whilst still being human.
I refer to recorded history - because we have no way of really knowing how people organized themselves before people recorded it. Your guess is as good as anyone elses.
So were we in a "state of nature" before culture existed? Is there any way for anyone to prove or disprove this? And if this "state of nature" did exist, how far back would we have to ...[text shortened]... duce for me a society that exists or has existed without any laws or some kind of a state.
Thinking about tribes though, many tribes exist even now, in the depths of the amazon rainforest and on the African savannah, these often do not have enshrined laws to rule themselves, how they act is done for very different reasons, such as self-interest, not enforced through abstract laws; such situations do exist is my point: I still think that is irrelevent to my main point though, so I shan't bother with giving good examples. (If anyone else wants to give them though, feel free)
To your main point anyway:
If every society society has required some sort of state to establish and enforce laws, this would simply mean that they are all illigitimate because it infringes upon the autonomy of the individual, I have no qualms about saying this, whilst you seem to think it in itself sounds absurd, I wonder why.
In case you're wondering, its interesting to argue what I have been, but I don't believe it myself, I've been reading the book 'In defense of Anarchism', it has some interesting principles, and the end paragragh is what I quoted on my initial post, "The belief in state authority comes naturally to men, it would appear" was the sentence just before it, interesting, as it implies everyone believes in state authority often purely out of a sense of tradition; meaning that it really does need proper justifying.
The one genuine solution given was that of a unanimous direct democracy, the idea that everyone would vote on every issue. As everyone would be making laws for themselves, they would not be subject to the will of others. Of course this is not a true solution, it is very limited in application and impractical as I'm sure we can agree.
It also discusses other forms of democracy, which of course if where humans interact and input their own view on decision making and a degree of consent, which is required of the system; but would the contemporary majoritarian democracy be suitable a system?
07 Oct 09
1 edit
As for the tribes in the Amazon, I would argue that they all live under some sort of laws. Those laws might not be written down (they may be orally transmitted customs), but I would still argue that these societies have a "state". If you wanted to find out about this "state", you'd simply observe what happens when someone violates the customs. Some person or group would exert some sort of force against the miscreant to bring them back in line (or cast them out of the tribe) - and that would be "the state"
It is interesting that even a book called "In Defense of Anarchy" is unable to offer a "genuine solution" to running a society without some kind of coercion.
My point though is that if you (or no one else) can find an example of a "stateless" society, then perhaps such a society is impossible. For you to argue that something is "illegitimate", you need to show that it is at least possible to do the "legitimate" thing. Otherwise, you might as well say the laws of gravity are illegitimate because they interfere with my freedom to flap my arms and fly.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
07 Oct 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesYour definition of how the 'state' would work in a tribe is laughable, tribes have no state, the customs of the society are part of the outgrowth of the civil society developing and its influences and need to retain some degree of stability, this should be not be confused with the development of what Max Weber's influential definition describes as, an organization that has a "monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory."
As for the tribes in the Amazon, I would argue that they all live under some sort of laws. Those laws might not be written down (they may be orally transmitted customs), but I would still argue that these societies have a "state". If you wanted to find out about this "state", you'd simply observe what happens when someone violates the customs. Some person ...[text shortened]... re illegitimate because they interfere with my freedom to flap my arms and fly.
Customs can't be equated with this.
You continue to fail to see the implication of the argument, there isn't a genuine workable solution to a legitimate state, there shouldn't be one.
07 Oct 09
Originally posted by joe beyserhas it ever occured to you that the money from taxes is (usually) used for the benefit of the country?
You are correct there. The government is more like a Robin Hood criminal in a way. The taxes from one person goes into the pocket of another. Cash for clunkers is a prime example of this. Now this thread does not go far enough to pinpoint the thief. The federal reserve is the true thief. The federal reserve is not a government entity and answers to no one ...[text shortened]... . A bunch of murderous thieves to the core. Would the founding fathers approve of this?
Are you saying people shouldn't pay tax anymore?
Would the founding fathers approve of this?
nobody gives a damn about that.
07 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Bad wolfYou claim that tribes have no states. So give me a specific example.
Your definition of how the 'state' would work in a tribe is laughable, tribes have no state, the customs of the society are part of the outgrowth of the civil society developing and its influences and need to retain some degree of stability, this should be not be confused with the development of what Max Weber's influential definition describes as, an organ , there isn't a genuine workable solution to a legitimate state, there shouldn't be one.
I'm sure every tribe has some kind of coercive laws regarding what happens if you kill someone, or set their hut on fire, or whatever. These laws might not be written down anywhere, but they're still things that everyone in the tribe must abide by or else. And I'm sure every tribe has a chief who decides what to do if someone should decide to find out what "or else" means.
That chief is the tribe's "state". If the tribe is small, the state is likely to be very simple. Whatever Chief Wiggum says, goes. He monopolizes the force. A large tribe will probably have a much more complex arrangement.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
07 Oct 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesTribes by definition consists of a social group existing before, or outside of states, tribes with the chieftan as leader of the tribe, should he have the power to decree laws verbally and resolve disputes could perhaps be considered statelike.
You claim that tribes have no states. So give me a specific example.
I'm sure every tribe has some kind of coercive laws regarding what happens if you kill someone, or set their hut on fire, or whatever. These laws might not be written down anywhere, but they're still things that everyone in the tribe must abide by or else. And I'm sure every tribe has ...[text shortened]... monopolizes the force. A large tribe will probably have a much more complex arrangement.
However, tribes with chieftans is not typical of all tribes, there are different types of tribes, those of the hunter-gatherer type for example.
These tend to be very egalitarian in character, bonded together not through law, but through kinship, without comparable leaders to ourselves.
07 Oct 09
Originally posted by Sleepyguywhy would anyone? seriously.
Since you're not a U.S. citizen I can see why you wouldn't care whether the U.S. govt adheres to our founding principles.
But I most certainly do.
What I don't give a damn about is that you don't give a damn about it.
why is it that you americans can't help wondering what some dead guy thinks about this and that?
they're dead, get over it.
07 Oct 09
6 edits
Originally posted by Bad wolfI wish you could give me a specific example of a tribe that doesn't have a leader or some set of laws.
Tribes by definition consists of a social group existing before, or outside of states, tribes with the chieftan as leader of the tribe, should he have the power to decree laws verbally and resolve disputes could perhaps be considered statelike.
However, tribes with chieftans is not typical of all tribes, there are different types of tribes, those of the h ...[text shortened]... , bonded together not through law, but through kinship, without comparable leaders to ourselves.
But I will assume for the sake of argument that we've found an "egalitarian hunter-gatherer tribe". And I will assume that they're all following a set of customs that was said to have magically dropped into the jungle on sacred tablets 50,000 years ago.
I ask then:
1. What happens if someone in this tribe is accused of violating what is written on the tablets? Who decides whether the custom was violated? Who metes out the punishment?
2. Anyone who's had a roommate knows that even two people can have frequent disputes. So a tribe will surely have many many disputes. If the sides can't agree on their own, who has the final say in the matter?
3. What if someone discovers a special herb that everyone wants to use? The sacred tablets say nothing about how to distribute this special herb. So a new custom is needed to address the matter. How does this tribe go about enacting this new custom?
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
07 Oct 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesI question your insistence that tribes must have a custom for everything, clearly they must have had to develop over time, and that in the tribe's initial inception they can't have existed to any large and consistent degree; I will humour you however.
I wish you could give me a specific example of a tribe that doesn't have a leader or some set of laws.
But I will assume for the sake of argument that we've found an "egalitarian hunter-gatherer tribe". And I will assume that they're all following a set of customs that was said to have magically dropped into the jungle on sacred tablets 50,000 years ag ...[text shortened]... m is needed to address the matter. How does this tribe go about enacting this new custom?
1) The the accuser (the one who suffers the consequences) and the accused (who reaps the benefits of breaking the customs) settle it between themselves.
2) Why do you think there needs to be? They will settle it between the two of them, one way or another.
3) Customs develop over time, they are not simply agreed upon, as all resources are kept in common in the tribe, I imagine the individuals will simply use it as much as they want, or gather as much as they think they need for the tribe as a whole.
07 Oct 09
the founding fathers put into place a specific system for creating NEW laws, and for even changing the Constitution itself. So I'm sure they all expected that as time went on, the system would probably change dramatically. If they had wanted the current system of law to remain in place with only very small changes, they would've made it extremely hard to enact new legislation (such as requiring 80% majorities in both chambers). But instead, they were satisfied with mere majority votes.
The main thing they were concerned about was that the system of making and changing laws was one that was not based on the mere whims of a king - but was instead based on the will of the people (in the form of elected representatives).
07 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Bad wolfYou mention about how all resources are kept in common in the tribe. Well then you'd better believe there are going to be a LOT of disputes over who gets to use what resources at what time.
I question your insistence that tribes must have a custom for everything, clearly they must have had to develop over time, and that in the tribe's initial inception they can't have existed to any large and consistent degree; I will humour you however.
1) The the accuser (the one who suffers the consequences) and the accused (who reaps the benefits of bre ...[text shortened]... e it as much as they want, or gather as much as they think they need for the tribe as a whole.
You are assuming that everyone who has a dispute will always be able to peacefully settle it by themselves. I guess you've never watched an episode of Judge Judy.
Most likely in such a society, the disputes will end getting "peacefully" settled by the guy with the biggest muscles (or the best weapons). And in that "alpha male", we would now have an embryonic "state"