4 ms·

Wouldn't you say humanity started out in an anarchistic state? It seems that the "workable solutions" tended towards more and more governing until we ended up w

Wouldn't you say humanity started out in an anarchistic state? It seems that the "workable solutions" tended towards more and more governing until we ended up where we're at. Sure, there were imperialist powers that forced their wills and ways upon other regions, but those powers were still a product of the same initial government-deficient base state. If we we were to start tabula rasa why wouldn't we end up as we are now? Maybe by crafting stories of how bad things are now as some sort of morality tales/warning (religion?), though that'd require hindsight of humanity as a bureaucratic mess which means we'd have to go through this current state anyway. I hope I made a bit of sense.

sabarn01 8y ago
Societies have always competed in there own right. The state is a more effective way to organize groups of people than the chiefdom which is more effective than the tribe.
pdonis 8y ago
> Wouldn't you say humanity started out in an anarchistic state? Back when all humans were hunter-gatherers, this was probably true, yes, given what we know. > It seems that the "workable solutions" tended towards more and more governing until we ended up where we're at. Only after the invention of agriculture. But the period since that invention (about 10,000 years ago) is somewhere between 10 percent and 1 percent of the time humans have existed. So for most of the time humans have existed, the "workable solution" was (most likely--see above) anarchy. The invention of agriculture had two key effects: it allowed the human population to grow dramatically, and it caused the population density to grow dramatically since agriculture requires fixed dwellings and more concentration of people into towns and cities. These two changes drastically increased the need for mechanisms to regulate social cooperation, which became what we know as governments. Since the conditions that created governments in the first place (large human population and high population densities) are still present, we might be stuck with government even with all its downsides. However, advancing technology might open up possibilities that were not there before. > Sure, there were imperialist powers that forced their wills and ways upon other regions, but those powers were still a product of the same initial government-deficient base state. No, they weren't. While there were inter-tribal conflicts during humanity's hunter-gatherer period, those were nothing like "imperialist powers that forced their wills and ways upon other regions". Those powers were the product of governments, which were in turn, as above, the product of agriculture and the growth of towns and cities.
- byproxy 8y ago
  Right, but when I say 'base state' I'm referring to the big-bang of humanity. Those world powers that were able to impose their will evolved out of the same 'base state' as those who had that will imposed upon them. That is to say, Western imperialist powers weren't extraterrestrials that came from other worlds to spread capitalism (although it may have seemed that way to the colonized). I guess ultimately what I'm trying to say is that the anarchist experiment has been run (and, as you say, had been the norm for plenty of time), yet here we are. And if we were to run the experiment again, after a sufficient amount of time, I think here we'd be again. Though, I'm curious as to how you think advancing technology would navigate around the issues of humans generally coalescing into a government-ruled state.
  - pdonis 8y ago
    > Those world powers that were able to impose their will evolved out of the same 'base state' as those who had that will imposed upon them. They were all humans, yes, and they all evolved ultimately from hunter-gatherers, yes. That doesn't change the fact that the "world powers" were societies that had had governments for centuries, if not millennia, and were only able to be imperialists because they could use the coercive power of those governments to appropriate the resources they needed to be imperialists. > the anarchist experiment has been run Starting with hunter-gatherer humans, who then invented agriculture, formed governments to address the issues that arose, and had no idea what they were letting themselves in for. If we were to run the experiment again, it would be with humans who now have 10,000 years of experience with all of the problems that governments create. That experience puts us in a very different position from the humans who first formed governments. So the experiment would have very different initial conditions, which could produce different results. > I'm curious as to how you think advancing technology would navigate around the issues of humans generally coalescing into a government-ruled state. By providing alternate means of regulating social cooperation that do not require coercion. The Internet is, of course, the outstanding example of this; it facilitates all kinds of cooperation among large numbers of people that would have been unthinkable before it existed. Automation is another example: much of the drudge work of society that had to be done by humans for most of human history can now be done by machines. That reduces the amount of human labor that is needed to provide necessities for everyone, and therefore improves the average bargaining position of people when they engage in voluntary cooperation and trade to obtain the things they need.

sabarn01 8y ago

Societies have always competed in there own right. The state is a more effective way to organize groups of people than the chiefdom which is more effective than the tribe.

pdonis 8y ago

> Wouldn't you say humanity started out in an anarchistic state? Back when all humans were hunter-gatherers, this was probably true, yes, given what we know. > It seems that the "workable solutions" tended towards more and more governing until we ended up where we're at. Only after the invention of agriculture. But the period since that invention (about 10,000 years ago) is somewhere between 10 percent and 1 percent of the time humans have existed. So for most of the time humans have existed, the "workable solution" was (most likely--see above) anarchy. The invention of agriculture had two key effects: it allowed the human population to grow dramatically, and it caused the population density to grow dramatically since agriculture requires fixed dwellings and more concentration of people into towns and cities. These two changes drastically increased the need for mechanisms to regulate social cooperation, which became what we know as governments. Since the conditions that created governments in the first place (large human population and high population densities) are still present, we might be stuck with government even with all its downsides. However, advancing technology might open up possibilities that were not there before. > Sure, there were imperialist powers that forced their wills and ways upon other regions, but those powers were still a product of the same initial government-deficient base state. No, they weren't. While there were inter-tribal conflicts during humanity's hunter-gatherer period, those were nothing like "imperialist powers that forced their wills and ways upon other regions". Those powers were the product of governments, which were in turn, as above, the product of agriculture and the growth of towns and cities.

byproxy 8y ago
Right, but when I say 'base state' I'm referring to the big-bang of humanity. Those world powers that were able to impose their will evolved out of the same 'base state' as those who had that will imposed upon them. That is to say, Western imperialist powers weren't extraterrestrials that came from other worlds to spread capitalism (although it may have seemed that way to the colonized). I guess ultimately what I'm trying to say is that the anarchist experiment has been run (and, as you say, had been the norm for plenty of time), yet here we are. And if we were to run the experiment again, after a sufficient amount of time, I think here we'd be again. Though, I'm curious as to how you think advancing technology would navigate around the issues of humans generally coalescing into a government-ruled state.
- pdonis 8y ago
  > Those world powers that were able to impose their will evolved out of the same 'base state' as those who had that will imposed upon them. They were all humans, yes, and they all evolved ultimately from hunter-gatherers, yes. That doesn't change the fact that the "world powers" were societies that had had governments for centuries, if not millennia, and were only able to be imperialists because they could use the coercive power of those governments to appropriate the resources they needed to be imperialists. > the anarchist experiment has been run Starting with hunter-gatherer humans, who then invented agriculture, formed governments to address the issues that arose, and had no idea what they were letting themselves in for. If we were to run the experiment again, it would be with humans who now have 10,000 years of experience with all of the problems that governments create. That experience puts us in a very different position from the humans who first formed governments. So the experiment would have very different initial conditions, which could produce different results. > I'm curious as to how you think advancing technology would navigate around the issues of humans generally coalescing into a government-ruled state. By providing alternate means of regulating social cooperation that do not require coercion. The Internet is, of course, the outstanding example of this; it facilitates all kinds of cooperation among large numbers of people that would have been unthinkable before it existed. Automation is another example: much of the drudge work of society that had to be done by humans for most of human history can now be done by machines. That reduces the amount of human labor that is needed to provide necessities for everyone, and therefore improves the average bargaining position of people when they engage in voluntary cooperation and trade to obtain the things they need.