3 ms·

There is a feedback mechanism between civilization and a societies willingness to commit to code. There is nothing automatic here. People can reap the benefits

There is a feedback mechanism between civilization and a societies willingness to commit to code. There is nothing automatic here. People can reap the benefits if they commit, but they don't always commit. We tend to associate the early civilizations with great monuments, but they key difference between early societies and advanced ones is the willingness to commit to process. In different ways, this is a point made by the Legalist tradition in China, the Executionist movement in Poland during the 1400s and 1500s, and then the "liberal" tradition during the Enlightenment in Europe during the 1700s. And it is no coincidence that these periods coincide with the peak of Chinese civilization, and then the peak of Poland's great Commonwealth, and then later the peak of Europe's success. Regarding Poland: "A purely political reformist movement had come into existence at the beginning of the 1500s. In spirit it was very close to the Reformation, since it placed the accent not on innovation but on stricter observance of the law, on weeding out malpractice and corruption. It was known as “the movement for the execution of laws”, or simply as the “executionist” movement. One of its first preoccupations was that the law itself should be codified and published in clear form, and as a result much groundwork was done in the first half of the 1500s, culminating in legal reforms passed in 1578 which fixed the legal system for the next two hundred years [[ till the death of Poland ]]" http://www.smashcompany.com/philosophy/poland-was-shockingly-liberal-in-the-1400s http://www.smashcompany.com/philosophy/poland-was-shockingly...

cal5k 9y ago
I don’t find this to be a compelling theory. I’m currently reading “James Madison: A Life Reconsidered”, and it strikes me that at the beginning of the Confederacy it was surprisingly difficult to get states to actually comply with treaties or laws made by congress. That they were able to actually get the Constitution ratified is truly amazing. Fast forward to today, and some of the same problems persists - however the level of respect for procedure seems to be similar.
- lkrubner 9y ago
  "it was surprisingly difficult to get states to actually comply with treaties or laws made by congress" Yes, exactly, and so they lost the war. It was the more process-oriented North that won the war. Despite the fact that Lincoln violated habeas corpus, the Northern territories otherwise continued to follow the law, raise taxes, obey the draft, obey the courts, and get organized enough to win. The South never had that kind of organization, nor any commitment to building a society where everyone would follow such a process. Indeed, one reason that rebellions tend to fail is they are made of people who want to break the rules, the very rules that might allow their rebellion to succeed.
  - cal5k 9y ago
    This was long before the civil war. And my objection was to the idea that advanced countries somehow subscribe less to process - I don’t see compelling evidence that this is true.
    - selimthegrim 9y ago
      You meant the Articles of Confederation period - he mistook your use of Confederacy for the civil war period, most Americans will.
      - cal5k 9y ago
        Fair enough :) The Articles of Confederation obviously resulted in a (smaller) Confederacy in the 18th century, but as a Canadian I’m less familiar with the popular parlance that would be taught in American schools.
    - lkrubner 9y ago
      Sorry, I did misunderstand your use of "Confederacy" although you are right that the USA started off as a Confederacy. But the point still holds. The notion that a loose collection of small states could survive had been brought into contempt when Britain defeated the Dutch states. Many people argued that the North American colonies were making a mistake by imitating the loose structure that had already failed in the Netherlands. And it also failed in North America. A better organized Britain was able to defeat the Dutch. A badly organized Confederacy almost collapsed because it was unable to manage its debt. A better organized nation under the Constitution was able to pay its debts and start the process of building a cohesive society. I'm generally critical of anyone who wants to generalize much from history, since history is full of so many contradictory trends, which play out simultaneously, and what actually happens tends to be like the waves we see at the surface of the ocean, which are always the coincidence of several waves crossing the same point at the same time, and often going in opposite directions. But that process-oriented societies have tended to beat less organized societies seems to be a thesis that can withstand a lot of scrutiny.

cal5k 9y ago

I don’t find this to be a compelling theory. I’m currently reading “James Madison: A Life Reconsidered”, and it strikes me that at the beginning of the Confederacy it was surprisingly difficult to get states to actually comply with treaties or laws made by congress. That they were able to actually get the Constitution ratified is truly amazing. Fast forward to today, and some of the same problems persists - however the level of respect for procedure seems to be similar.

lkrubner 9y ago
"it was surprisingly difficult to get states to actually comply with treaties or laws made by congress" Yes, exactly, and so they lost the war. It was the more process-oriented North that won the war. Despite the fact that Lincoln violated habeas corpus, the Northern territories otherwise continued to follow the law, raise taxes, obey the draft, obey the courts, and get organized enough to win. The South never had that kind of organization, nor any commitment to building a society where everyone would follow such a process. Indeed, one reason that rebellions tend to fail is they are made of people who want to break the rules, the very rules that might allow their rebellion to succeed.
- cal5k 9y ago
  This was long before the civil war. And my objection was to the idea that advanced countries somehow subscribe less to process - I don’t see compelling evidence that this is true.
  - selimthegrim 9y ago
    You meant the Articles of Confederation period - he mistook your use of Confederacy for the civil war period, most Americans will.
    - cal5k 9y ago
      Fair enough :) The Articles of Confederation obviously resulted in a (smaller) Confederacy in the 18th century, but as a Canadian I’m less familiar with the popular parlance that would be taught in American schools.
  - lkrubner 9y ago
    Sorry, I did misunderstand your use of "Confederacy" although you are right that the USA started off as a Confederacy. But the point still holds. The notion that a loose collection of small states could survive had been brought into contempt when Britain defeated the Dutch states. Many people argued that the North American colonies were making a mistake by imitating the loose structure that had already failed in the Netherlands. And it also failed in North America. A better organized Britain was able to defeat the Dutch. A badly organized Confederacy almost collapsed because it was unable to manage its debt. A better organized nation under the Constitution was able to pay its debts and start the process of building a cohesive society. I'm generally critical of anyone who wants to generalize much from history, since history is full of so many contradictory trends, which play out simultaneously, and what actually happens tends to be like the waves we see at the surface of the ocean, which are always the coincidence of several waves crossing the same point at the same time, and often going in opposite directions. But that process-oriented societies have tended to beat less organized societies seems to be a thesis that can withstand a lot of scrutiny.