3 ms·

> But anthropology shows clearly that premodern societies had more free time, greater material and economic equality. I already disagreed with the grandparent

by ef4 14y ago

> But anthropology shows clearly that premodern societies had more free time, greater material and economic equality. I already disagreed with the grandparent comment, but I need to criticize this too: those metrics are terrible, and we shouldn't be looking to the past for the good old days. Free time: only if you don't consider all the free time lost by all the people who died as children (extremely high premodern child mortality). Material and economic equality: being equally poor is not really a solution anyone would like.

scarmig 14y ago
Well, the metrics could definitely use some work and context, but there is some real truth behind them. Up until the 18th century or so, non-state spaces existed in abundance, and given a choice between either being a subject of a sedentary state or being a person outside state control, you were nearly certainly better off by choosing the latter. Many people did, in fact, and there was a constant flux of people out of and into state spaces. It was only when technology became sufficiently developed that virtually everyone was subjected to the State.
- b1daly 14y ago
  But I don't think there are any humans who can live free from social constructs. Living in a tribe, or under a warlord seems like the antithesis of freedom in the sense that most are discussing here.
contingencies 14y ago
> we shouldn't be looking to the past History informs the present and future. My point in bringing up anthropology was that the OP's implicit suggestion that there is no alternative is demonstrably invalid. > being equally poor I would also heartily recommend the same book to you. It's quite an eye opener.
white_devil 14y ago
> Free time: only if you don't consider all the free time lost by all the people who died as children (extremely high premodern child mortality). That's only relevant if all those children died due to some specific form of government being in effect.

by ef4 14y ago

scarmig 14y ago

Well, the metrics could definitely use some work and context, but there is some real truth behind them. Up until the 18th century or so, non-state spaces existed in abundance, and given a choice between either being a subject of a sedentary state or being a person outside state control, you were nearly certainly better off by choosing the latter. Many people did, in fact, and there was a constant flux of people out of and into state spaces. It was only when technology became sufficiently developed that virtually everyone was subjected to the State.

b1daly 14y ago
But I don't think there are any humans who can live free from social constructs. Living in a tribe, or under a warlord seems like the antithesis of freedom in the sense that most are discussing here.

contingencies 14y ago

> we shouldn't be looking to the past History informs the present and future. My point in bringing up anthropology was that the OP's implicit suggestion that there is no alternative is demonstrably invalid. > being equally poor I would also heartily recommend the same book to you. It's quite an eye opener.

white_devil 14y ago

> Free time: only if you don't consider all the free time lost by all the people who died as children (extremely high premodern child mortality). That's only relevant if all those children died due to some specific form of government being in effect.