NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you support the abolition of the state, or do you think it should stay?

poll coming

The state should stay, but in a far more limited role than it takes today.

The state should go, but the democratic state in particular. The closer to the natural order, the better, and democracy is a completely unnatural abomination.

I consider myself a citizen of the world.

The state should go, but the democratic state in particular. The closer to the natural order, the better, and democracy is a completely unnatural abomination.

Why?

Depends if you mean real world or happy-go-lucky utopia world. In the latter, I would love to see the state gone, but I would not want it to be replaced by communes or any type of collectivism.

Depends if you mean real world or happy-go-lucky utopia world. In the latter, I would love to see the state gone, but I would not want it to be replaced by communes or any type of collectivism.

Yeah I agree with this. Idealisticly I would prefer anarcho capitalism (which isn't a paradox!)

Yeah I agree with this. Idealisticly I would prefer anarcho capitalism (which isn't a paradox!)

Just to clarify, do you mean as in unrestricted economic freedom? Then I'm in!

Yeah I agree with this. Idealisticly I would prefer anarcho capitalism (which isn't a paradox!)

Preferably where the society isn't populated by complete egoists (meaning private charity would actually be...useful!). Individualism rules, but Randroid egoism pisses me off a bit. Ah, but I dream...

Smash the state and capitalism.

Do you support the abolition of the state, or do you think it should stay?

poll coming

To be replaced with what?

To be replaced with what?

Any form of anarchism I guess.

Why?

Because kingly governments are (somewhat distorted) outgrowths of natural elites- people of exceptional character and achievement who have been recognized as such by subsidiary institutions such as family, church and community. As such, they are closer to the natural human order. Democracies, however, are caused by mass action, which entails a faceless and unruly mob over individual ability.

Abolish the state? I would lean against that as I am uncertain of the ability for people to self-organize in ideal patterns. At the very least I would likely have to see more government decreases be successful in order to step in that direction.

Admittedly only a few people have voted, but last time this was asked the result was the complete opposite.

Any form of anarchism I guess.

In that case no. Anarchy, like communism, only looks good on paper while you ignore human nature. Soon as you remind everyone that humans are by nature greedy, power hungry, and self serving (let's be honest here, those are good traits in ensuring that your genes hit the next generation, that is why we have them), you realize that anarchy and communism do not work.

The state will never dissapear it will just be replaced by something smaller if it ever gets replaced. What do I mean?

So every single governmental entity in the US gets dissolved today.

The next step is that people will form together to try to create groups so that they are not individuals fighting everybody else and while they won't form up to the level of the US you would probably have city-states/tribes/other forms of government that are just as powerful as the state rising up to take power but only over smaller areas than the modern nation state.

The state will never dissapear it will just be replaced by something smaller if it ever gets replaced. What do I mean?

So every single governmental entity in the US gets dissolved today.

The next step is that people will form together to try to create groups so that they are not individuals fighting everybody else and while they won't form up to the level of the US you would probably have city-states/tribes/other forms of government that are just as powerful as the state rising up to take power but only over smaller areas than the modern nation state.

You can have social order without a state. A state is a monopoly (legally closed entry) on jurisdiction (ultimate decisionmaking.) One could have a system of competing arbiters who people listen to and who wax and wane concerning how many people respect their opinions; in fact, this was typical in quite a few societies, including medieval Ireland and Iceland.

Smash the state and capitalism.

Smash the state with capitalism.

Smash the state with capitalism.

w00t!

I wouldn't mind a collection of communes it seems groovy, death to government! :)

edit:

Smash the state with capitalism.

its been done already :p

Even if the state were abolished, it would only reappear. If it weren't what people wanted, we wouldn't have invented it in the first place.

Personally, I want the "state" to be defined.

If you refer to the notion of the nation state, I rather like it. Being English allows me to partially define myself. Equally, the creation of authoritative bodies is a natural human process; I would rather deal with the nation state, and the concomitant government, than deal with an incipient form of authority that would then have teething problems and the like.

If you refer to the welfare state, I would endorse it in a more limited role.

I don't know ... why do you ask?

Sometimes yes, but on the other hand the state has some advantages, I guess I'm smart enough to rule myself and most people are, so no state would be necessary but yeah

*waits for soheran to tell us why we should abolish the state*

If it weren't what people wanted, we wouldn't have invented it in the first place.

the state wasn't invented it was forced on people, you don't think we all sat down one day and said "alright! lets give up our freedoms to a despot" do you?

Democracy means "I am the state".

I support the state.

the state wasn't invented it was forced on people, you don't think we all sat down one day and said "alright! lets give up our freedoms to a despot" do you?

But a state will always occur from anarchism. It's just impossible for a society to function without co-ordination, that comes from centralised control.

But a state will always occur from anarchism. It's just impossible for a society to function without co-ordination, that comes from centralised control.

Plus, people always want protection, which starts laws and police, which roots from the state.

But a state will always occur from anarchism. It's just impossible for a society to function without co-ordination, that comes from centralised control.

humans managed thousands of years without any civilization at all I could go further but I think the fact that humans have survived longer without civilization than with is big enough

Plus, people always want protection, which starts laws and police, which roots from the state.

never heard of militias? or the fact that police only came into being during 1829?

Plus, people always want protection, which starts laws and police, which roots from the state.

So you're saying there would be no laws or police without a state?

Realistically, I would have to support states, but with a decentralized and small federal government.

Ideally, it would be awesome if we could all live in communities with fellow people that thought like us. You could have a Communist Community, Libertarian community, Socialist community, etc. It would be kinda cool to see.

Realistically, I would have to support states, but with a decentralized and small federal government.

Ideally, it would be awesome if we could all live in communities with fellow people that thought like us. You could have a Communist Community, Libertarian community, Socialist community, etc. It would be kinda cool to see.

It would.

Ideally, it would be awesome if we could all live in communities with fellow people that thought like us. You could have a Communist Community, Libertarian community, Socialist community, etc. It would be kinda cool to see.

worked for the internet... I predict NSG only with more humping :)

worked for the internet... I predict NSG only with more humping :)

Yea, but the bad side is that communities, being independent of each other, could wage war on one another.

Ideally, it would be awesome if we could all live in communities with fellow people that thought like us. You could have a Communist Community, Libertarian community, Socialist community, etc. It would be kinda cool to see.

I can picture someone in a future Communist Community going: "They're a Socialist Community? That's so 23rd century..."

Yea, but the bad side is that communities, being independent of each other, could wage war on one another.

I think where at a level of technology and rationality that friendly groups generally oppose and do something about such actions à la 20th-21st century politics

also the fact that where living in a defensive age helps

So you're saying there would be no laws or police without a state?

Depends on your definition. For example, I could scribble out some decree about the colors of parakeets on toilet paper, is that enough to qualify as a law for you?

Do you support the abolition of the state, or do you think it should stay?

poll coming

Yes, it should stay; for instance, the "State of Being" is a real nuisance, but I think it should stay.

Depends on your definition. For example, I could scribble out some decree about the colors of parakeets on toilet paper, is that enough to qualify as a law for you?

No. There's the whole issue of enforcing that law.

So you're saying there would be no laws or police without a state?

Yep. Laws are administered by a state. You can't have laws without a state. Creating laws would create this state.

No. There's the whole issue of enforcing that law.

Ah, yes, that makes sense. So, uh. Who's going to do that then? The people, I presume?

Ah, yes, that makes sense. So, uh. Who's going to do that then? The people, I presume?

Private courts and private defense agencies.

Private courts and private defense agencies.

Privatized defense agencies and laws = states. Privatized property of the owner is now renamed to "Nationalized".

Private courts and private defense agencies.

What's so private about them?

The thing is, you could have one set of laws and call everything "one state", theoretically not having a state. However, different people want different laws that apply to them. Such, they form different laws. Different Laws + Different Culture + Different Situations = Different States.

Democracy means "I am the state".

I support the state.

No it doesn't.

its been done already :p

Capitalism has strengthened the state.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does. It means more of that in a Republic, but same deal.

I am an Imperialist myself, however.

The state should go, but the democratic state in particular. The closer to the natural order, the better, and democracy is a completely unnatural abomination.

So what? Dictatorship?

So what? Dictatorship?

No, the state of nakedness. Ooh, sounds sexy.

The state should go, but the democratic state in particular. The closer to the natural order, the better, and democracy is a completely unnatural abomination.You should mosey on over to the 'Swarms' thread to read about democracy occurring in nature.
(Thus meaning democracy is natural.)

I like freedom so the whole statelessness thing doesn't appeal to me.

Yes it does. It means more of that in a Republic, but same deal.

I have never known of a democracy where people choose the rules. They always choose someone from the ruling class to make the rules. Unfortunately for the voters the ruling class, despite all of their rhetoric, all want the same thing: pacify the public.

Even if we are talking about true democracy, you are 1/population of the government, and in any modern society, that is worthless.

I am an Imperialist myself, however.

I am not sure that has anything to do with the conversation or democracy.

You should mosey on over to the 'Swarms' thread to read about democracy occurring in nature.
(Thus meaning democracy is natural.)

Natural for ants and some other irrational creatures. Unnatural for rational creatures, such as humans. Reason necessarily means that one acts to substitute one's current state for a subjectively better state of affairs, and is necessarily individualistic over collective (i.e., natural elites over democracy.) What you are saying is equivalent to saying that because cats naturally have tapetum in their eyes, it would be natural for humans to have tapetum in their eyes too.

So what? Dictatorship?

Dictatorships are basically a form of democracy, deriving from a fictitious "will of the people" as opposed to patrimony. They are merely the manipulation of the faceless mob by certain people with political talent.

Privatized defense agencies and laws = states. Privatized property of the owner is now renamed to "Nationalized".

False. A state is a monopoly on jurisdiction. For your statement to be true, private arbitration and rent-a-cops would have to be states as well. But, they aren't, because one can fire or refuse to associate with private arbitration and security firms. One cannot remove a state's monopoly on territorial jurisdiction.

I have never known of a democracy where people choose the rules. They always choose someone from the ruling class to make the rules. Unfortunately for the voters the ruling class, despite all of their rhetoric, all want the same thing: pacify the public.

Even if we are talking about true democracy, you are 1/population of the government, and in any modern society, that is worthless.



I am not sure that has anything to do with the conversation or democracy.

It means I prefer an Emperor [benevolent] ruling with supreme power.

One cannot remove a state's monopoly on territorial jurisdiction.

Surely with enough firepower...?

Surely with enough firepower...?

Contractually, I mean.

Contractually, I mean.

...Now, you're going to have to clarify for me here.

So, the difference between what's a state and what isn't is whether or not you can contractually disassociate from them, no? Define contractually. I don't imagine you mean a literal written contract in this case.

...Now, you're going to have to clarify for me here.

So, the difference between what's a state and what isn't is whether or not you can contractually disassociate from them, no? Define contractually. I don't imagine you mean a literal written contract in this case.

Well, basically, the only coactive contracts are those that involve some sort of property title. Those that only involve one's will are not transferrable, because one's will is an inalienable part of one's person and is always one's own (for it to be another is a logical contradiction.) For example, if I just promised a girl that I would marry her, even if it were in writing, she could not enforce it because she has no right over my will. It wouldn't be very nice of me, but it wouldn't be an enforceable contract because you cannot take my will from me. Likewise, no one can punish me for using self-defense, as there is no property title in question. But, the state will still punish me for using self-defense in a manner in which they do not approve. Therefore, it is not a matter of contract that keeps the state in power but raw coercion. To think that one can eliminate the state despite the fact that the state is outside of contract is to be incorrect.

What's so private about them?

Hired bodyguards...or soldiers. Have you heard of Blackwater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_USA)?

well i don't believe in the inheirent goodness of hierarchy, economic OR idiological, and we certainly don't need superpowers. so i'm in favor of not supporting them. not supporting, not beating anyone's head against trying to abolish them either, but keeping them buissy doing what there good for (which is welfare and infrastructure), instead of leaving them idle to start wars and become increasingly oppressive.

=^^=
.../\...

+1 State.

Natural for ants and some other irrational creatures. Unnatural for rational creatures, such as humans. You didn't say that, you simply said it was unnatural. ;)

Reason necessarily means that one acts to substitute one's current state for a subjectively better state of affairs, and is necessarily individualistic over collective (i.e., natural elites over democracy.) Demonstrate that what is good for the group is usually not good for the individual.
If what's good for the group is usually good for the individual, then substituting one's current state for a better state of affairs would be a collective decision.

You didn't say that, you simply said it was unnatural. ;)

The insinuation being HUMAN nature. Natural law doesn't have to do with physics or the like so much as man's rational nature.

Demonstrate that what is good for the group is usually not good for the individual.
If what's good for the group is usually good for the individual, then substituting one's current state for a better state of affairs would be a collective decision.

To say that what is good for some individuals ("the group") is good for every individual is logically fallacious. There are a myriad number of actions that one group could take to harm an individual that would benefit the acting group, such as theft. Goodness is not relative to group size but rather whether one's actions are in tune with one's rational nature.

Therefore, substituting one's current state for a better state would not be a group decision. Rather, it would be the individual decision to follow his own rational nature regardless of what others might do.

Because kingly governments are (somewhat distorted) outgrowths of natural elites- people of exceptional character and achievement who have been recognized as such by subsidiary institutions such as family, church and community. As such, they are closer to the natural human order. Democracies, however, are caused by mass action, which entails a faceless and unruly mob over individual ability.

No, they are not. Read anthropology before you make some claims. If you had, you would know that all anthropological evidence (and their is quite a proponderous of evidence to say it) that the organic order of human society is based around communalism and direct democracy.

No, they are not. Read anthropology before you make some claims. If you had, you would know that all anthropological evidence (and their is quite a proponderous of evidence to say it) that the organic order of human society is based around communalism and direct democracy.

Ah, so thats why people don't live in communalism and direct democracy! All makes sense now! People don't behave that way because it is the "organic order of human society." Why, now I see the light!

:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:

An actual survey of those fields would show you, if you weren't committed to believe inane things, that human organization is a function mainly of population size and density.

It isn't because of a sinister conspiracy that as all the populations in the world got larger and more dense, they organized much the way they are organized today, give or take the incidentals of who is at the top of the food chain and how he gets there.

If what's good for the group is usually good for the individual, then substituting one's current state for a better state of affairs would be a collective decision.

What is good for the State is good for the People. What is good for the People is good for the State.

*Laughs in a sort of evil way whilst muttering about 'white text'*

We should get rid of the state… but which state? State of envy, state of well-being, Nebraska… ?

*Reads wikipedia* I vote for the state technique in block printing!

Do you support the abolition of the state, or do you think it should stay?
Well if it's Wyoming or Niedersachsen I could agree.

To say that what is good for some individuals ("the group") is good for every individual is logically fallacious. There are a myriad number of actions that one group could take to harm an individual that would benefit the acting group, such as theft. Goodness is not relative to group size but rather whether one's actions are in tune with one's rational nature.I didn't say that all group actions are good for individuals, I said that they could be most of the time.

What is good for the State is good for the People. What is good for the People is good for the State.

*Laughs in a sort of evil way whilst muttering about 'white text'*Well, you could make this argument, yes, but I don't agree with it.

Live in the Dictatorship of America? Hell no!

Live in the United Counties of Pennsylvania? Hell yes!

States help keep anarchy away.

No, they are not. Read anthropology before you make some claims. If you had, you would know that all anthropological evidence (and their is quite a proponderous of evidence to say it) that the organic order of human society is based around communalism and direct democracy.

I find it astounding that you can claim that you know of anthropology and then say something so incredibly in opposition to it- that organic order is based on communalism and direct democracy. The Kapauku Papuans are based upon leadership by wise people of great character with private property (even eleven year olds may own a field and borrow and lend money), so was the early post-Roman system of feudalism, and so are countless other "primitive" societies.

Then again, recalling your astoundingly ignorant perception of early feudalism, a view more in line with your dogmatic egalitarianism than any historical evidence, I don't really expect your opinions on anthropology to be at all credible. (Or, on any subject, for that matter.)

I didn't say that all group actions are good for individuals, I said that they could be most of the time.

I didn't say that you said that all group actions are good for the individuals. I said that whether an act is good or not is based upon whether it coincides with man's rational nature or not. There is no correlation between goodness and numbers of individuals. Ultimately, good acts are not a collective decision, but ones made by individuals to satisfy their own nature.

Ultimately, good acts are not a collective decision, but ones made by individuals to satisfy their own nature.

But always, ultimately to satisfy his own nature. Democracy protects the country, to some extent, from this.

states are foolish for the most part. At least those based around the idea of nations or ethnicity. There are unnecessary divisions. There is only believer and non- believer. Everything else is meaningless.

states are foolish for the most part. At least those based around the idea of nations or ethnicity. There are unnecessary divisions. There is only believer and non- believer. Everything else is meaningless.

That made no sense. Are you suggesting we seperate the non muslims from the muslims?

That made no sense. Are you suggesting we seperate the non muslims from the muslims?

No, no. The Pastafarians from the non-pastafarians.

No, they are not. Read anthropology before you make some claims. If you had, you would know that all anthropological evidence (and their is quite a proponderous of evidence to say it) that the organic order of human society is based around communalism and direct democracy.

I would like to see an article or something on the direct democracy claim, but it is true that early humanity had a sort of communalism.

However, this is a matter of economic necessity. A hunter-gatherer lifestyle does not permit any other form of existence. Hunter-gatherer societies of the nomadic sort could not maintain the food stocks necessary to act individually. They could not take food with them, and they needed to coordinate their hunting.

One technology permitted a sedentary lifestyle and the gathering overtook the hunting, food stocks were readily available, and communalism was rapidly ushered out. Hierarchy was established, with the rulers generally being a person who was given authority because of his high regard.

An actual survey of those fields would show you, if you weren't committed to believe inane things, that human organization is a function mainly of population size and density.

describe for me the various outcomes of that function, if you please.

But always, ultimately to satisfy his own nature. Democracy protects the country, to some extent, from this.

But everyone has the same human nature. If they didn't, they would not be human. And part of having that same human nature is that you cannot kill or otherwise bring harm to other people, because it is ultimately irrational. You don't need democracy to protect people from this, just reason (to know what right and wrong is) and force (to enforce it.)

In fact, democracy is counter-productive, because it is not based on reason but an animal pleasure-pain mode of action based upon whether an idea is pleasurable or not to a numerically superior number of people. Pleasure being ultimately an animal emotion, as opposed to a component of reason, it cannot be trusted to allow people to fulfill their full human nature.

Hierarchy was established, with the rulers generally being a person who was given authority because of his high regard.

and/or very large pointed stick

and/or very large pointed stick

A very large pointy stick is not particularly effective against a community or while one is sleeping.

A very large pointy stick is not particularly effective against a community or while one is sleeping.

true enough. the first step is the breakdown of social taboos and sanctions against people claiming themselves to be better than others, which allows for cultures to wind up with moderate levels of hierarchy and inequality. from there, the inequalities naturally tend to increase just due to the nature of unequal power relations. eventually you wind up with someone that is highly regard among a group of people (usually smaller than the community as a whole), each with very large pointed sticks.

true enough. the first step is the breakdown of social taboos and sanctions against people claiming themselves to be better than others, which allows for cultures to wind up with moderate levels of hierarchy and inequality. from there, the inequalities naturally tend to increase just due to the nature of unequal power relations. eventually you wind up with someone that is highly regard among a group of people (usually smaller than the community as a whole), each with very large pointed sticks.

I agree with you, but I believe power relations grow more disparate not on their own but through the acceptance of tradition alone.

Unequal power relations would mostly dry up when people simply forgot what role the were "supposed" to fill and simply determined their own role.

Yeah I agree with this. Idealisticly I would prefer anarcho capitalism (which isn't a paradox!)
And I think that's a failure of an idea from the beginning!

And I think that's a failure of an idea from the beginning!

That is not really surprising.

In your 2+ years on NS has your opinion on economics changed any? Has your understanding of capitalism (or even your understanding of socialism) grown any?

I didn't say that you said that all group actions are good for the individuals. I said that whether an act is good or not is based upon whether it coincides with man's rational nature or not. There is no correlation between goodness and numbers of individuals. Ultimately, good acts are not a collective decision, but ones made by individuals to satisfy their own nature.I didn't say that whether or not something was good was (necessarily) because of the number of individuals, but rather that it's entirely possible that benefitting the majority of individuals benefits each individual most of the time. This was in counter to your assertion that democracy wasn't in line with 'human nature'.

I find it astounding that you can claim that you know of anthropology and then say something so incredibly in opposition to it- that organic order is based on communalism and direct democracy. The Kapauku Papuans are based upon leadership by wise people of great character with private property (even eleven year olds may own a field and borrow and lend money), so was the early post-Roman system of feudalism, and so are countless other "primitive" societies.

Then again, recalling your astoundingly ignorant perception of early feudalism, a view more in line with your dogmatic egalitarianism than any historical evidence, I don't really expect your opinions on anthropology to be at all credible. (Or, on any subject, for that matter.)

These aren't my "opinions", these are things based on scientific evidence. The Papuans aren't an example of an organic society, their social evolution has put them in a different group societies. The organic societies I speak of existed before human social groups left the hunter-gather and primitive agriculture states.

On the subject of my "astoundingly ignorant perceptions" of early feudalism, I could level the very same charge to you with much more credibility then you can level it at me. Serfs from all nations have always been eager to cast off the chains of the manorial economy, which was only implemented and maintained through violence and coercion. My "dogmatic egalitarianism", as you call it, is rooted in reason, and a careful study of human social evolution, while your dogmatic belief in political absolutism and absolute property rights are generated solely by circular logic. Your only claim to the legitimacy of absolutism and private property is your unsupported opinion that they are the natural order of human society.

I don't pretend to know everything about anthropology. What the evidence I have read tells me that private property and absolutist social institutions are social constructs that arose through a long process of evolution, in which small grants of authority made by primitive egalitarian societies were used to amass more power and authority, this culminating in the union of the military fraternity and the priestly corpus into the embryonic State.

Ah, so thats why people don't live in communalism and direct democracy! All makes sense now! People don't behave that way because it is the "organic order of human society." Why, now I see the light!

:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:

An actual survey of those fields would show you, if you weren't committed to believe inane things, that human organization is a function mainly of population size and density.

It isn't because of a sinister conspiracy that as all the populations in the world got larger and more dense, they organized much the way they are organized today, give or take the incidentals of who is at the top of the food chain and how he gets there.

So this is what I get for stating a fact without giving my value criteria? I get labeled a dogmatic primitivist. It would be wise to ask me how I interpret a fact before you jump to conclusions about what I believe. I have never advocated returning to the exact same social construction as primtive communalism. What I do believe is that we can learn something very important from these societies, and that lesson can be applied to our future.

What I have learned from organic societies is this: communal, decentralized organizations foster individualality, not hinder it. They promote a consideration for the well being of one's neighbors, and lead to a social dynamic that results in a holistic freedom to as well as individual autonomy.

We can take these lessons, and the lessons of the Athenian Polis (direct democracy can work on a city sized level, but we must never ignore the potential for racism and sexism), Judeo-Christian philosophy of a universal humanity, the radical decentralism and federalism of thinkers like Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin, and finally add a consideration for ecological sustainability and modern technology. With these historical lessons, we can aim for a social construction that liberates both the individual and the group, and banishes both scarcity and domination from human experience.

I would like to see an article or something on the direct democracy claim, but it is true that early humanity had a sort of communalism.

However, this is a matter of economic necessity. A hunter-gatherer lifestyle does not permit any other form of existence. Hunter-gatherer societies of the nomadic sort could not maintain the food stocks necessary to act individually. They could not take food with them, and they needed to coordinate their hunting.

One technology permitted a sedentary lifestyle and the gathering overtook the hunting, food stocks were readily available, and communalism was rapidly ushered out. Hierarchy was established, with the rulers generally being a person who was given authority because of his high regard.

Murray Bookchin's The Ecology of Freedom contains an excellent exposition on primitive organic societies. If you can find it, it's a worthy read.

If you look at the earliest of agricultural societies (the first nomadic herders, and the earliest farming cultures in the fertile crescent), the same communalist social dynamic was transplanted to a more stable lifestyle. The land of the earliest cities was still communally owned and worked, and even the artisan was expected to help the community in times of need. The communalist lifestyle was very hard for the first hiearachies to stamp out. The embryonic states of Sumeria still were forced to abide by communal agriculture, slowly nationalizing it rather than destroying it outright. Indeed, the Aztec state, autocratic as it was, was never fully able to stamp out communalism. It was counterpoised to the communal clans of Aztec society, and much of Aztec history tells of this struggle of centralism vs. decentralism.

Murray Bookchin's The Ecology of Freedom contains an excellent exposition on primitive organic societies. If you can find it, it's a worthy read.

If you look at the earliest of agricultural societies (the first nomadic herders, and the earliest farming cultures in the fertile crescent), the same communalist social dynamic was transplanted to a more stable lifestyle. The land of the earliest cities was still communally owned and worked, and even the artisan was expected to help the community in times of need. The communalist lifestyle was very hard for the first hiearachies to stamp out. The embryonic states of Sumeria still were forced to abide by communal agriculture, slowly nationalizing it rather than destroying it outright. Indeed, the Aztec state, autocratic as it was, was never fully able to stamp out communalism. It was counterpoised to the communal clans of Aztec society, and much of Aztec history tells of this struggle of centralism vs. decentralism.

Yes, but is this a matter of biological preference or economic necessity?

These aren't my "opinions", these are things based on scientific evidence. The Papuans aren't an example of an organic society, their social evolution has put them in a different group societies. The organic societies I speak of existed before human social groups left the hunter-gather and primitive agriculture states.

Very well, now that you have defined what you meant more clearly, the communalism probably is so. At their most primitive stages people do not really live in any structure beyond the extended family, and cost-accounting is relatively easy. However, in a civilization approaching a certain size one must be able to cost-account through something else, and that is money. But I have serious misgivings that even a household could survive long with direct democracy, considering that there are inequalities in people through wisdom and character. I have seen no evidence to support direct democracy being the modus operandi, and have seen that people tend to follow a "strong man" of sorts in any civilization, whether that be one's parents or the head of the tribe. (See Rise and Decline of the State, The by Martin Van Creveld.)

On the subject of my "astoundingly ignorant perceptions" of early feudalism, I could level the very same charge to you with much more credibility then you can level it at me. Serfs from all nations have always been eager to cast off the chains of the manorial economy, which was only implemented and maintained through violence and coercion. My "dogmatic egalitarianism", as you call it, is rooted in reason, and a careful study of human social evolution, while your dogmatic belief in political absolutism and absolute property rights are generated solely by circular logic. Your only claim to the legitimacy of absolutism and private property is your unsupported opinion that they are the natural order of human society.

Wrong. In the beginning, manorialism under the Germanic tribes was a matter of leasing and renting rather than the servitude it became later on with the centralization of the king's power. Read de Jouvenele's Sovereignty, and practically any other book on feudalism. Everyone except for slaves were quite secure in their rights under early feudalism, and if you refuse to accept that then you are indeed dogmatic in your egalitarianism, as it is a viewpoint entirely divorced from reality. Your view of feudalism is based upon misrepresenting feudalism as a whole as its later incarnation under the central state. Knowing this, I find the idea that your perception of feudalism as a whole being "rooted in reason" to be laughable. Sorry.

And no, I don't actually support political absolutism. I simply prefer an absolute king over a democratic government because the absolute king has an interest in the long-term status of the country and because his rights are built upon the same foundation as everyone else; private property. I do support private property, however, because it is the most conducive to man's rational nature, since it stems from his desire to turn scarce resources into productive use to satisfy his own ends. Even at the organic (more or less household) society you describe I would still contend that there is private property, just as in a family the house may be used commonly by all members but still be privately-owned.

I don't pretend to know everything about anthropology. What the evidence I have read tells me that private property and absolutist social institutions are social constructs that arose through a long process of evolution, in which small grants of authority made by primitive egalitarian societies were used to amass more power and authority, this culminating in the union of the military fraternity and the priestly corpus into the embryonic State.

Partly correct. From what I've read from people such as Creveld, the state was formed essentially by way of supplanting other arbiters that competed with one person. This is basically the way that medieval kings came to power, by playing people such as the burghers against the nobles. But there's a logical contradiction in saying that it was the egalitarian community giving power to someone over one elite supplanting other elites. Why would an egalitarian community so suddenly become essentially unegalitarian? It is far more sensible, and far more historical, that one would have a situation in which the king cuts down his rivals by manipulating other groups.

*snip*

Very well put.

Very well, now that you have defined what you meant more clearly, the communalism probably is so. At their most primitive stages people do not really live in any structure beyond the extended family, and cost-accounting is relatively easy. However, in a civilization approaching a certain size one must be able to cost-account through something else, and that is money. But I have serious misgivings that even a household could survive long with direct democracy, considering that there are inequalities in people through wisdom and character. I have seen no evidence to support direct democracy being the modus operandi, and have seen that people tend to follow a "strong man" of sorts in any civilization, whether that be one's parents or the head of the tribe. (See Rise and Decline of the State, The by Martin Van Creveld.)

It is precisely the rise of the revered man that resulted in the destruction of primitive egalitarianism. Murray Bookchin offered a very well supported and quite compelling account for both the existence of primitive egalitarianism and its subsequent dissolution (see his book, The Ecology of Freedom). From his study of anthropology, Bookchin concluded that organic societies, while simultaneously cultivating individuality, tried to maintain egalitarianism. Hence, we see Native American potlach ceremonies, an evolution of a disaccumulation ceremony intended to maintain communal equality.

Unless an individual’s conduct was grossly detrimental to the group, the group would protect and nurture each person’s individuality. Many of these characteristics of organic societies can be observed in the conduct of Native American tribes and Australian Aborigines prior to their brutal conquest by whites in the 1800s. It must be also noted that these societies were not completely organic in nature. They were part way along the path to hierarchy, but much of the core of the old organic societies still resonated in their social structure.

What ultimately proved to be the end of organic societies was the aging process. In hunter-gather societies, or primitive agricultural societies, the elderly have a lessened capacity, particularly elderly men. While an elderly woman past the age of child birth and even into her autumn years can still do traditionally female work (foraging for fruits and vegetables, caring for the tribe’s children) nearly as well as her younger counterparts, an elderly man cannot as easily fulfill his roles. He can’t hunt as proficiently, and indeed will eventually become more of liability then anything. While he can still teach young boys the ways of “being a man,” that can still be done by the adults in their prime.

Since the elderly are not needed as much, in times of horrible scarcity they suddenly become expendable. If the tribe runs short of food, the least productive members will be the one’s who must be culled in order to ensure the tribe’s survival. Necessity is indeed the cruelest of masters. So, hypothetically, if one is an elderly male well past his prime, how does one avoid such a potential fate? One must simply make himself important enough to make the tribe not so willing to part with him in a time of need. No amount of imprinting their wisdom on the younger generations will change the objective facts of a famine.

Enter the Shaman and the rise of the first religions. The rise of primitive shamanistic orders came out of old men who saw a bleak future. Using their greater wisdom of the world, their abundant spare time, and a little creativity, the old men of the tribe were able to engineer themselves a function in the tribe that would survive the decay of their physical body. From the primitive secular gerontocracies rose an order of shamans. The Shaman of the tribe claims the ability to commune with the animistic nature spirits, and thus claims the ability to predict and perhaps even influence the tribe’s fortunes, which are intrinsically tied to the unpredictable natural world. If he’s wrong, he’s little worse off. He might get chastised or culled when his time comes. But if he’s right, he suddenly has become quite important. If there is a scarcity, the tribe will be more reluctant to part with him. Soon the Shaman may begin to take on secular decision making ability, as sort of a figurehead chief of the tribe.

Slowly over time, as both the secular chief and the spiritual shamans gain an institutional role in the tribe, the role of both secular and spiritual authority begins to grow. Since the chief must lead the tribe’s hunters to defend the tribe from outsiders in times of scarcity, and the shamanistic order previously has defined itself as male, the priorities of society becomes increasingly masculine. From organic matricentrism comes a new age of patricentrism. Men and male roles become more emphasized by the tribal society. This is not full blown patriarchy, but is a crucial step in the abolition of the organic society’s equality of unequals, to use Bookchin’s phrase. Organic societies, as previously established, were highly committed to protecting individualism. An individual’s defects or shortcomings were compensated by the collective nature of the tribe, which recognized that while some people are stronger or smarter then others, they are not worth more then their lesser comrades.

With the rise of patricentrism, and the growing power of the chiefdom and the shamanistic orders, suddenly some individuals become more equal than others.
With expanding populations creating inter-tribal conflicts over increasingly limited resources, the role of men in defending the group becomes much more important. Very soon, with the new surpluses created by better farming practices that resulted from the increasing scarcity of resources, a division of labor occurs. Since everyone doesn’t have to be involved in food production, certain individuals can take on other tasks. The result is the rise of both the military fraternity and the evolution of the shamanistic orders into a formalized institution of the religious priesthood. Quite obviously, those who are experienced in war can easily turn that experience into a means to dominate others. The new priestly institution, with its rigid religious doctrines, has all of the power of the old shamans, and less weaknesses. If the priest is wrong, his religious dogma allows him to blame the people’s “impiety” for his failure to accurately divine what the gods want. This is the point when patricentrism evolves into true patriarchy—that is to say, the rule of society by men, and the rule of those men by certain, usually older men.

It is not long before an alliance of convenience is formed between the military fraternity and the priestly corpus. Both soon begin an uneasy cooperation to solidify their position in society. It is not long before the military elites begin to claim civil authority and the right to police the village “for its own good.” The priestly order soon will claim similar authority in civil affairs by expanding its interpretation of the gods’ wills. Both will use their power and influence for self-benefit, and will begin to manipulate the normally democratic systems of administration in the village. This new ruling caste claims the monopoly on the legitimate use of force within its sphere of influence, and thus we witness the rise of the State without any outside intervention.

Wrong. In the beginning, manorialism under the Germanic tribes was a matter of leasing and renting rather than the servitude it became later on with the centralization of the king's power. Read de Jouvenele's Sovereignty, and practically any other book on feudalism. Everyone except for slaves were quite secure in their rights under early feudalism, and if you refuse to accept that then you are indeed dogmatic in your egalitarianism, as it is a viewpoint entirely divorced from reality. Your view of feudalism is based upon misrepresenting feudalism as a whole as its later incarnation under the central state. Knowing this, I find the idea that your perception of feudalism as a whole being "rooted in reason" to be laughable. Sorry.

You're missing my basic point. The very nature of early Germanic feudalism inevitably leads to the creation of serfdom. The rent system of the germanic warlords effectively contains the peasant. Through small contrivance, the manor lord can very easily turn this rent system into a system of debt slavery. The very same thing occured with sharecropping in the Southern united states. Eventually, the pretenses to debt and contract are dropped from fuedalism, as they have become meaningless. One generation is bound to the debts of the previous.

As for being rooted in reason, I stated my "egalitarianism" was rooted in reason, not my perception of feudalism. Sorry, but once again, you can't just call my argument laughable and expect that to serve as your own argument.

And no, I don't actually support political absolutism. I simply prefer an absolute king over a democratic government because the absolute king has an interest in the long-term status of the country and because his rights are built upon the same foundation as everyone else; private property. I do support private property, however, because it is the most conducive to man's rational nature, since it stems from his desire to turn scarce resources into productive use to satisfy his own ends. Even at the organic (more or less household) society you describe I would still contend that there is private property, just as in a family the house may be used commonly by all members but still be privately-owned.

An Absolute King has no more stake in the long term status of a country then the elites of the Republic. Both still have the same interest (or disinterest, in many cases) in protecting the future of their progeny.

As for the organic society, the reason why private property does not exist because the entire concept of property has yet to be invented. The tribe does not own its resources communally, as such concept is completely alien to it. Organic societies operated under the concept of usufruct, which creates a democratic right for the use of resources. Any person may use the resources of the tribe, but at the same time, no one is denied an irreducible minimum of food, shelter and protection.

Partly correct. From what I've read from people such as Creveld, the state was formed essentially by way of supplanting other arbiters that competed with one person. This is basically the way that medieval kings came to power, by playing people such as the burghers against the nobles. But there's a logical contradiction in saying that it was the egalitarian community giving power to someone over one elite supplanting other elites. Why would an egalitarian community so suddenly become essentially unegalitarian? It is far more sensible, and far more historical, that one would have a situation in which the king cuts down his rivals by manipulating other groups.

See above.

I believe in the state. The state is no better or worse than any other rational mechanism of society.

I believe in the state. The state is no better or worse than any other rational mechanism of society.

What does that mean and why is it true?

Do you support the abolition of the state, or do you think it should stay?

poll coming


I think it is imposible to abandon the state, we are the state. In order to truely cast off the state we ourselves must die, and that is the ceasation of state..... or the acension of a heavenly state if so beleiving death brings unity with god.

In that respect this unliving life of vision and sensation is observation of the state and our actions action of the state. We are no more or less than the will of god and with that we have unity and the heavenly state acquiesced as an eternal part of our ever existence.

All things with reason of now, and ever.

-snip-

I hope you don't mind that I snip this, because it is terribly long. But I see this as mankind improving his reason, by way, in this case, of what is essentially a specialization of labor. People essentially recognized that it was, in fact, better to realize people's innate equalities of matter and allow them to do that which they were better suited for. The old men were essentially adapting to allow their accumulated wisdom to survive, and that is why societies that had these shamans were the ones that, ultimately, thrived. This, in fact, is a good thing, as it allows for a more rational use of time.

The kicker, though, is that "war is the health of the state", as Randolph Bourne put it. Dealing with outlanders with aggression is bound to trivialize the use of force and eventually culminate in using aggression against inlanders. Thus, we can see a transfer of people's right of jurisdiction, i.e. self-determination, to certain shamans over their competitors, whether they be in militarily defeated outlander tribes or within their own body, that leads to the state. It is essentially using a good thing- a specialization of labor by way of leadership- into a bad thing- monopoly on jurisdiction.

You're missing my basic point. The very nature of early Germanic feudalism inevitably leads to the creation of serfdom. The rent system of the germanic warlords effectively contains the peasant. Through small contrivance, the manor lord can very easily turn this rent system into a system of debt slavery. The very same thing occured with sharecropping in the Southern united states. Eventually, the pretenses to debt and contract are dropped from fuedalism, as they have become meaningless. One generation is bound to the debts of the previous.

But sharecropping died out on its own, as did the company towns. Feudalism only becomes tainted if you have a centralized authority who is able to eliminate his rivals, not by non-violent competition, but by force. This is the exact case with monarchism, in which the creation of a monopoly on jurisdiction came not from feudalism's inherent characteristics, but from the top-down, since it was the end product of the king's elimination of his rivals.

As for being rooted in reason, I stated my "egalitarianism" was rooted in reason, not my perception of feudalism. Sorry, but once again, you can't just call my argument laughable and expect that to serve as your own argument.

I never said that your egalitarianism was rooted in your perception of feudalism. I said that it seemed that you wanted to interpret feudalism in such a way that is, essentially, counter-factual. (See de Jouvenel and other feudal historians.) You are essentially giving an image of feudalism that it only was much, much later after a good number of centuries had passed, that is really misleading.

An Absolute King has no more stake in the long term status of a country then the elites of the Republic. Both still have the same interest (or disinterest, in many cases) in protecting the future of their progeny.

Er, yes he does. The king has a claim on the capital values (future returns) of the country, since they are his patrimony. The republican official only has access to the current use of the resources, since he cannot sell or rent the capital resources of the nation. He does, however, have usufruct of the capital, which means that he will consume it. If he does not do it now, he may never be able to do it, and thus he is propelled to increase his income regardless of what effects it may have in the long term. Whereas, the king weighs his income against the future returns of his property.

As for the organic society, the reason why private property does not exist because the entire concept of property has yet to be invented. The tribe does not own its resources communally, as such concept is completely alien to it. Organic societies operated under the concept of usufruct, which creates a democratic right for the use of resources. Any person may use the resources of the tribe, but at the same time, no one is denied an irreducible minimum of food, shelter and protection.

But we can see that the tribe's resources are essentially private property, even though the tribe may not be able to see it directly. Anyone in a family may use resources today, such as a family may use the house (but it is still the family's property. You do not have to sell something to make it private property. Charity and gifts are private property even though they are not sold to a person.) But we also see, in that tribes would fight over their own scarce resources, the exclusive nature of private property (what's mine is mine, and not yours.) There is no real contradiction between the organic society's use of resources and private property; the concept is only alien to them because they have not fully explored the concepts with their powers of reason.

Er, yes he does. The king has a claim on the capital values (future returns) of the country, since they are his patrimony. The republican official only has access to the current use of the resources, since he cannot sell or rent the capital resources of the nation. He does, however, have usufruct of the capital, which means that he will consume it. If he does not do it now, he may never be able to do it, and thus he is propelled to increase his income regardless of what effects it may have in the long term. Whereas, the king weighs his income against the future returns of his property.

You're dealing sole with the King's want to obtain a positive return on his capital. This only leads him to further centralize his authority to rationally protect his return. However, the king has no more economic interest in what happens after his time in power than the official of the Republic. If both are well intentioned, they will attempt to secure postive benefits for their progeny. However, history is full of miserable tyrants who would squander the wealth of nations on personal whims. Countless military campaigns and squandered use of luxuries have bankrupted the future of many a Kingdom. In general, the official of the Republic cannot to strongly gamble with the country's future, lest his party be swept from power. Hence the anger over current defecit spending.

Just look at Somalia if you want to see what happens when there is no state.

You might not pay taxes but what can you do when anarchic millitias start charging road tolls every 50 meters and the fine for non payment is delivered out the end of a shotgun or rifle.

Just look at Somalia if you want to see what happens when there is no state.

You might not pay taxes but what can you do when anarchic millitias start charging road tolls every 50 meters and the fine for non payment is delivered out the end of a shotgun or rifle.

The absence of the Somali state is mere slight of hand. It still exists. The fact that the constitutinally defined government no longer exists is irrelevant. The militias have claimed the monopoly of force, and have supplanted the traditional state.

You're dealing sole with the King's want to obtain a positive return on his capital. This only leads him to further centralize his authority to rationally protect his return. However, the king has no more economic interest in what happens after his time in power than the official of the Republic. If both are well intentioned, they will attempt to secure postive benefits for their progeny. However, history is full of miserable tyrants who would squander the wealth of nations on personal whims. Countless military campaigns and squandered use of luxuries have bankrupted the future of many a Kingdom. In general, the official of the Republic cannot to strongly gamble with the country's future, lest his party be swept from power. Hence the anger over current defecit spending.

Well, no. The king has a property right in his kingdom, and can transfer it to his heir like anyone else. The Republican, however, does not own his office. Instead, he only owns the usufruct of his position. He cannot pass on his office to his heir, but try and maximize his income when he can. The king, by the nature of the transferability of his office, is long-term oriented; the republican, by election, is necessarily short-term oriented. And, in fact, the effects of this wastefulness are empirically sound. Statistically, kings spent about 5% of the national income, 2.5% on defense and 2.5% on general administration. Only until the 19th century was this systematically exceeded, and only Germany really ever went around 15% of national income. However, this number under democratic republics is around 50% or so; in fact, although the ratio of democratic to kingly spending on defense is far less, they usually spend more on defense than kingdoms; 5%. So much for the supposed misuse of money under kings viz. democracy.

And, as for deficits, the only time that kings ever really accrued much debt was during war; almost universally, they would pay it back in peace time. See Britain between 1727 and 1914; each war resulted in higher debt, but peace lowered the debt. However, the debts of the United States and other democracies has literally exploded in the 20th century regardless of peace or war.

The problem with any hierarchy of power is that the few who are the most powerful have a tendency to hold that power and attempt to get even more. This is true in a capitalist, democratic, traditionalist, communist, monarchist, ANY hierarchy of power. The one nice thing about democracy is that once in a while the masses with less power CAN change the reigning powers, or at least some of them, and if those people want to stay in power they must cater to the masses. In non-democratic governments, the people in power don't even have to pretend to care, and they won't, because as others have mentioned, the human instinct is to put oneself above all others.
As for a king having an inclination to preserve the state's wellbeing, and the argument that anarchy could work because it isn't rational to kill other humans:
1) We aren't always rational, emotions do come into play and are frequently stronger.
2) Again, people are only concerned with themselves, they won't take into account the greater good.
3) I've taken econ and it has told me (and I agree) that people tend to take what they can now, even if that destroys the possibility of an even greater happiness in the future.

So I figure that at least for now a democratic system with restraints on capitalism is the best system we have. Unrestrained capitalism just creates a non-democratic hierarchy of power based on who has the wealth. We're already having problems with that.