3 ms·

I think it's just hard. a few hundred people will sort themselves out into a structure. Monarchy was unquestionably shitty, but it was a really great path to sa

by jfoutz 5y ago

I think it's just hard. a few hundred people will sort themselves out into a structure. Monarchy was unquestionably shitty, but it was a really great path to say, I work for a guy who works for a guy who works for a guy who works for the king, and by Devine right, you have to pay taxes. Some random person has the authority and responsibility to do X. Corporations pretty much work this way with a king (or a queen) and a court of advisors. We haven't quite figured out how to organize 100 million or a billion people. I think the UK made some fantastic improvements. Parliament is a little ridiculous but an improvement over god said The king is anointed by god, so his blood is special and can make decisions by Devine right. I think the US did a little better, requiring less trust. I think our system is fraying, but maybe we can find a patch. Adams was a notorious smuggler, how much corruption can you tolerate when you put that kind of person in power? Corruption is a thing that we live with, I don't think it can be cut out of the hearts of man. Maybe we can set things up in such a way that is survivable even if a random official doesn't have the pride and honor of your grandfather. If it was easy, it wouldn't be a problem. I don't have an answer. If I were you I'd be proud of your family. They sound like the kind of folks that, in their eyes, do their best to do the right thing.

tragomaskhalos 5y ago
"Guns, Germs and Steel" has a very succinct take on the origins of this: while people are hunter-gatherers, everyone contributes to food and decision making, and the entire focus is on the immediate needs of the present. As soon as agriculture is invented, people settle in one place, not everyone now needs to be involved in food production so there is a labour surplus and people can start to specialise in eg crafts (pottery, metallurgy). This is the point at which civilisation can kick in, but it is also the point at which you get kings and priests, who are like the craft specialists in that they are fed by the community, but unlike the craft specialists they don't actually create anything useful in return. In my mind it's a form of parasitism that will inevitably spring up spontaneously once any human society reaches that point.

by jfoutz 5y ago

tragomaskhalos 5y ago

"Guns, Germs and Steel" has a very succinct take on the origins of this: while people are hunter-gatherers, everyone contributes to food and decision making, and the entire focus is on the immediate needs of the present. As soon as agriculture is invented, people settle in one place, not everyone now needs to be involved in food production so there is a labour surplus and people can start to specialise in eg crafts (pottery, metallurgy). This is the point at which civilisation can kick in, but it is also the point at which you get kings and priests, who are like the craft specialists in that they are fed by the community, but unlike the craft specialists they don't actually create anything useful in return. In my mind it's a form of parasitism that will inevitably spring up spontaneously once any human society reaches that point.