4 ms·

> "fair and non-tribal" vs "unfair and tribal". Interesting framing. Tribalism, or 'rule-of-the-strong' is inherently not fair. "Fair" is not the driving consi

> "fair and non-tribal" vs "unfair and tribal". Interesting framing. Tribalism, or 'rule-of-the-strong' is inherently not fair. "Fair" is not the driving consideration. "Rule of law" does have 'just' as a driving consideration. > For example, in many tribal societies, if a man from tribe A harms a man from tribe B, his own tribe might offer restitution to tribe B (or punishment for the criminal). I'd suggest the restitution is offered because either tribe A & B are of equal strength, or tribe A is weaker. In both cases, tribe A is "offering tribute" to show subservience, to show they are weaker. If they do not, tribe B is forced to show they are stronger; lest other tribes think that they can take similar advantage of them. Hence, it is a lot more of a "I'm sorry - please don't hurt me!" rather than a "well, it is only fair that we compensate you". In tribalism, if you are strong, then you don't offer the compensation. > In fact, disputes would often escalate to tribal leaders, who of course might be biased and only look out for their own, but not always. Is it not always? The reason to offer restitution to a stronger tribe is so that the stronger tribe does not retaliate. > Otherwise, anytime someone from a tribe harmed someone from another tribe, there would be war. I think this is overlooking the case where tribe A is actually stronger. In tribalism, if tribe A is stronger then there would be no recourse for tribe B. By showing dominance over tribe B, tribe A is sending a message to all other tribes that they are not to be messed with.

Ozzie_osman 1y ago
> rule-of-the-strong I'm not sure this is what tribalism is. It's more loyalty to a group rather than to a nation, laws, etc. In fact, a tribal person might consider modern capitalism "rule of the strong", in that, you can do a lot with money.
- seadan83 1y ago
  I'd say it's more about interactions and accountability rather than loyalty. Loyalty in Tribalism is essentially intrinsic to the power structure. Really two dimensions: (1) Prevailing power structures (is there a functional government that can physically enforce laws? If no, then is 'rule of power') (2) intrinsic motivations based on world outlook (am I at peace with my enemies because of laws, or because of projection of strength?) The article does define terms, but the term 'tribalism' is perhaps more properly called 'rule of power'. [1] While the terminology is tortured, nonetheless it is illustrative to understand 'rule of power' and that 'rule of law' can break down into 'rule of power'. From the article: > To understand tribalism, we must start at the beginning. Imagine a small village at the dawn of society. When a man is murdered for his property and there is no police to call, what happens? Without the threat of punishment, the profitable nature of violence becomes clear, and a simple, terrifying logic takes hold. You quickly realize that your safety depends not on your virtue, but on your ability to project a credible threat. You need allies. You need a tribe. > This is the foundational axiom of this world: Tribalism is the logical response to a world where the only check on power is other power. In this system, actions are not judged by their morality, but by how they shift the landscape of power. For instance, a powerful clan demanding tribute from weaker villages isn't seen as committing extortion; it is establishing the price of stability and reinforcing the regional order. > In fact, a tribal person might consider modern capitalism "rule of the strong", in that, you can do a lot with money. I think the way to look at it is based on the two dimensions. First, is modern capitalism functioning within 'rule of power' (or 'rule of the strong'), or 'rule of law'. If a company does whatever they want, who holds them to account? It is debatable.. Second, the intrinsic motivations. A tribal person will assume the others are going to do whatever they can to get ahead. The tribal person will for example send lobbyists to influence laws either (1) because they can, and (2) because they assume others are going to do so as well. [1] https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2020/09/the-rule-of-law-vs-the-rule-of-power-a-reflection.html https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2020/09/the-rule-of-law-vs...

Ozzie_osman 1y ago

> rule-of-the-strong I'm not sure this is what tribalism is. It's more loyalty to a group rather than to a nation, laws, etc. In fact, a tribal person might consider modern capitalism "rule of the strong", in that, you can do a lot with money.

seadan83 1y ago
I'd say it's more about interactions and accountability rather than loyalty. Loyalty in Tribalism is essentially intrinsic to the power structure. Really two dimensions: (1) Prevailing power structures (is there a functional government that can physically enforce laws? If no, then is 'rule of power') (2) intrinsic motivations based on world outlook (am I at peace with my enemies because of laws, or because of projection of strength?) The article does define terms, but the term 'tribalism' is perhaps more properly called 'rule of power'. [1] While the terminology is tortured, nonetheless it is illustrative to understand 'rule of power' and that 'rule of law' can break down into 'rule of power'. From the article: > To understand tribalism, we must start at the beginning. Imagine a small village at the dawn of society. When a man is murdered for his property and there is no police to call, what happens? Without the threat of punishment, the profitable nature of violence becomes clear, and a simple, terrifying logic takes hold. You quickly realize that your safety depends not on your virtue, but on your ability to project a credible threat. You need allies. You need a tribe. > This is the foundational axiom of this world: Tribalism is the logical response to a world where the only check on power is other power. In this system, actions are not judged by their morality, but by how they shift the landscape of power. For instance, a powerful clan demanding tribute from weaker villages isn't seen as committing extortion; it is establishing the price of stability and reinforcing the regional order. > In fact, a tribal person might consider modern capitalism "rule of the strong", in that, you can do a lot with money. I think the way to look at it is based on the two dimensions. First, is modern capitalism functioning within 'rule of power' (or 'rule of the strong'), or 'rule of law'. If a company does whatever they want, who holds them to account? It is debatable.. Second, the intrinsic motivations. A tribal person will assume the others are going to do whatever they can to get ahead. The tribal person will for example send lobbyists to influence laws either (1) because they can, and (2) because they assume others are going to do so as well. [1] https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2020/09/the-rule-of-law-vs-the-rule-of-power-a-reflection.html https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2020/09/the-rule-of-law-vs...