3 ms·

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 Confeder

by cal5k 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago
    You meant the Articles of Confederation period - he mistook your use of Confederacy for the civil war period, most Americans will.
    - cal5k 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago
      I agree with most of what you're saying. I think I actually may have misinterpreted this line: "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." I initially misread that as "earlier societies were more process-abiding than advanced ones", but on reflection you were likely stating the opposite. I shouldn't comment before I've had a cup of coffee in the morning ;-)
      - lkrubner 8y ago
        Sorry, that might have been badly written. When I write on my blog I normally hire an editor to catch those kinds of sentences, which can be misunderstood. Maybe the safety net of having an editor has made me lazy. When I write a comment on a place like Hacker News, I should really re-read it to make sure it is clear.
        8y ago
- neolefty 8y ago
  Is there a link between morality and adherence to process? For example, if you know something is wrong but you do it anyway, are you going to then generally avoid process because you have an internal conflict?

by cal5k 8y ago

lkrubner 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago
  You meant the Articles of Confederation period - he mistook your use of Confederacy for the civil war period, most Americans will.
  - cal5k 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago
    I agree with most of what you're saying. I think I actually may have misinterpreted this line: "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." I initially misread that as "earlier societies were more process-abiding than advanced ones", but on reflection you were likely stating the opposite. I shouldn't comment before I've had a cup of coffee in the morning ;-)
    - lkrubner 8y ago
      Sorry, that might have been badly written. When I write on my blog I normally hire an editor to catch those kinds of sentences, which can be misunderstood. Maybe the safety net of having an editor has made me lazy. When I write a comment on a place like Hacker News, I should really re-read it to make sure it is clear.
      - 8y ago
neolefty 8y ago
Is there a link between morality and adherence to process? For example, if you know something is wrong but you do it anyway, are you going to then generally avoid process because you have an internal conflict?