07 Oct 09
The problem is the fetishisation of the state as the cause of man's unfreedom. Primitive societies do not have anything remotely resembling a state, but are their people more 'free' in the atomistic, hyper-individualist manner suggested by the libertarians? I would say most certainly not. The middle ages had national governments after a fashion, but nothing really like the modern state, particularly the intrusive model of the libertarians, but were the people of the middle ages more free than people today? I would say most certainly not. By the time of the Renaissance, the bare outlines of what the modern state would become are clearly visible, even if it is far from fully formed. Were people then more free? Again, I'd say not.
So today, are we more free than people under those conditions?
If the answer is no, then the theory is atavistic and evidently romanticises the past. I don't think people felt more free in those societies than people do today. If the answer is yes, then it's crazy to try to abstract the state from the general improvement in human freedom and say the very way in which we are governed has not only not contributed to that improvement, but has somehow impeded that progress. The last option is to say that we are just as (not) free; in which case maybe that is man's fate in large societies.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
07 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by MelanerpesTribes, many at least, don't have much of a concept of private property. I think you are continuing to project our own modern day values into the past and into tribes; if resources are kept in common generally, you need only consider that they would gather fruit and nuts, and hunt in groups to gather food for the tribe as a whole, one more herb shared will be just one more of the same basic sharing of resources in common.
You 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.
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.
(or the biggest guns). And in that "alpha male", we would now have an embryonic "state"
I never said anything about settling disputes peacefully though, in fact I agree with you that violence will sometimes be used as the way many disputes are resolved, especially of the rather primitive and undeveloped tribes, but for many often not. However, your notion of the 'alpha male' being the embryonic state is again rather laughable, the real reason they win the dispute is because they are more powerful, but power is not the same as authority.
Tribes are not states, and even chieftans as leaders are only the beginnings of the state, people have disputes all of the time, but this is between individuals, not between the state and the individual. The state claims political authority, but it would be wrong to say the winner of singular disputes could be said to be doing the same, all they have is power.
edit: This is all irrelevent anyway though, you've took this thread off topic, it doesn't matter whether tribes are states or not, all states are illigitimate.
07 Oct 09
Originally posted by DrKFIn those societies, the great majority of people were either slaves, or serfs (a de facto kind of slavery). And everyone was under the rule of some prince, duke, king, or bishop. And these people didn't have any kind of vote or say in what the law was, or even what religion they adhered to.
The problem is the fetishisation of the state as the cause of man's unfreedom. Primitive societies do not have anything remotely resembling a state, but are their people more 'free' in the atomistic, hyper-individualist manner suggested by the libertarians? I would say most certainly not. The middle ages had national governments after a fashion, but nothing rea ...[text shortened]... hat we are just as (not) free; in which case maybe that is man's fate in large societies.
07 Oct 09
Originally posted by generalissimoHave you ever heard the term "all men are created equal?"
ok, lets pretend their opinions are relevant.
what would the founding fathers think of Obama? would they agree with the idea of having an african-american as president?
That was Jefferson, in case you didn't know.
Lincoln relied heavily on Jefferson's idea in his arguments to free the slaves (try reading the Gettysburg Address). Hence, no Jefferson, no Obama.
Is that really so hard?
07 Oct 09
Originally posted by Bad wolfif resources are kept in common generally, you need only consider that they would gather fruit and nuts, and hunt in groups to gather food for the tribe as a whole, one more herb shared will be just one more of the same basic sharing of resources in common.
Tribes, many at least, don't have much of a concept of private property. I think you are continuing to project our own modern day values into the past and into tribes; if resources are kept in common generally, you need only consider that they would gather fruit and nuts, and hunt in groups to gather food for the tribe as a whole, one more herb shared will ...[text shortened]... off topic, it doesn't matter whether tribes are states or not, all states are illigitimate.
What happens during lean times - when there aren't enough fruit and nuts to go around? What happens if someone in the hunting group is lazy and doesn't want to do the hard work the others are doing?
the real reason they win the dispute is because they are more powerful, but power is not the same as authority.
But there will be a person who has the most power in the group, who is able to win all disputes, and will thus be able to dictate how the resources are distributed. No one will really be able to do anything without that person's permission (whether it be overt or tacit). So that alpha male will become the "authority". This may be a despotic authority that hoards all the best food and mates for himself - or it may be a more benevolent authority who considers what's best for the tribe.
And being that we're still actively disputing your claim that "all states are illegitimate" this discussion is very much on topic.
07 Oct 09
Originally posted by SleepyguyHave you ever heard the term "all men are created equal?"
Have you ever heard the term "all men are created equal?"
That was Jefferson, in case you didn't know.
Lincoln relied heavily on Jefferson's idea in his arguments to free the slaves (try reading the Gettysburg Address). Hence, no Jefferson, no Obama.
Is that really so hard?
and at the time this phrase was coined, the term definitely meant MEN
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
07 Oct 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesDuring lean times people will die, disputes over resources will increase, more will die, if the hunting group is lazy, people will probably die; that is the way of things.
[b]if resources are kept in common generally, you need only consider that they would gather fruit and nuts, and hunt in groups to gather food for the tribe as a whole, one more herb shared will be just one more of the same basic sharing of resources in common.
What happens during lean times - when there aren't enough fruit and nuts to go around? Wh ...[text shortened]... ng your claim that "all states are illegitimate" this discussion is very much on topic.[/b]
For as long as it remains of the hunter gatherer type, not all disputes will be won by a single person, and should it be the case that it is, then it would seem likely to develop into a chieftan based tribe instead.
With regards to the so called "authority" you suppose of this new or upcoming chieftan, this tacit permission is insufficient, promises can be made, and this is the basis of much contract theory; promises that in themselves unfortunately work precisely by giving up one's autonomy.
07 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Bad wolfWe're making lots of statements about what we believe about theoretical tribes. We really need a specific example that we can discuss.
During lean times people will die, disputes over resources will increase, more will die, if the hunting group is lazy, people will probably die; that is the way of things.
For as long as it remains of the hunter gatherer type, not all disputes will be won by a single person, and should it be the case that it is, then it would seem likely to develop into theory; promises that in themselves unfortunately work precisely by giving up one's autonomy.
But I will assume that you consider a simple band of "hunter-gatherers" to be a legitimate society - a society that becomes illegitimate once a chief emerges.
Does this mean that we need to blow up the entirety of civilization so that we can all go back to being hunter-gathers? Would you personally be willing to leave everything behind and join an existing hunter-gatherer society somewhere? Or are we all doomed to an illegitimate status?
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
07 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by MelanerpesI am not offering a legitimate solution, certainly from a modern day perspective, I am not saying we should go back to the days of hunter gathering either, few people would actively choose that now.
We're making lots of statements about what we believe about theoretical tribes. We really need a specific example that we can discuss.
But I will assume that you consider a simple band of "hunter-gatherers" to be a legitimate society - a society that becomes illegitimate once a chief emerges.
Does this mean that we need to blow up the entirety of c ...[text shortened]... n existing hunter-gatherer society somewhere? Or are we all doomed to an illegitimate status?
We are doomed to an illegitimate status until such a time as consent to laws can be reconciled with autonomy, and I fail to see why exploring hunter gatherer tribes will help in finding such a solution.
Please explain why you think it is relevent, or otherwise there is no point in discussing this further.
07 Oct 09
Originally posted by Bad wolfYou just took your first political science course, didn't you? Wonderful. Now shyaddap. ðŸ˜
I am not offering a legitimate solution, certainly from a modern day perspective, I am not saying we should go back to the days of hunter gathering either, few people would actively choose that now.
We are doomed to an illegitimate status until such a time as consent to laws can be reconciled with autonomy, and I fail to see why exploring hunter gatherer ...[text shortened]... explain why you think it is relevent, or otherwise there is no point in discussing this further.
07 Oct 09
Originally posted by Bad wolfMy point was that this quest for the legitimate society is going to be a very daunting one if the only examples of it ever existing are limited to certain hunter-gather societies.
I am not offering a legitimate solution, certainly from a modern day perspective, I am not saying we should go back to the days of hunter gathering either, few people would actively choose that now.
We are doomed to an illegitimate status until such a time as consent to laws can be reconciled with autonomy, and I fail to see why exploring hunter gatherer ...[text shortened]... explain why you think it is relevent, or otherwise there is no point in discussing this further.
So how do reconcile consent to laws with autonomy? It may well be impossible to organize a society of any size with having some sort of coercive authority to maintain "order". Or perhaps the solution exists, but no one has yet discovered it.
The only way I can imagine finding such a solution would be to gather people together who want to create such a society and have them form a colony somewhere and experiment with different things. Even if an absolute solution can't be found, I'm sure such an effort would lead to insights that could be used to make current government less intrusive without compromising living standards.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
07 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by PBE6Well, I did start BA Politics last year, but this year in the first semester is strongly geared towards social contract theory, Hobbes' Leviathan, Rousseau's social contract, Locke's Two Treatises of government, Mill's On liberty, Marx's communist manifesto; but my pet project is R.P. Wolff's' In defense of anarchism; interesting stuff, I'm enjoying playing devil's advocate.
You just took your first political science course, didn't you? Wonderful. Now shyaddap. ðŸ˜
07 Oct 09
Originally posted by Bad wolfYou're not offering a legitimate solution: might that be because there cannot be one, that what you seek is utopian?
I am not offering a legitimate solution, certainly from a modern day perspective, I am not saying we should go back to the days of hunter gathering either, few people would actively choose that now.
We are doomed to an illegitimate status until such a time as consent to laws can be reconciled with autonomy, and I fail to see why exploring hunter gatherer ...[text shortened]... explain why you think it is relevent, or otherwise there is no point in discussing this further.
If every hitherto existing society has been illegitimate, might not the search for what you call autonomy be that which is illegitimate?
Government at its best is a trade-off between order and freedom: it's unfair to take one of the poles it struggles to find balance between and make that the standard by which all are judged. You've already admitted as much: it's bizarre to say that the ability to make promises and what flows from promises being kept is a good thing, but the very process that ensures promises are kept is 'unfortunate'. It's part and parcel of the deal!