I've heard a lot of theories about where and how the state originated since I've started my reeducation in Austrian economics/libertarian political theory. My statist professor claimed that it was created naturally from people banding together and choosing one person to protect them. In a video one person said that it grew out of organized religion when those priests, desirous of seizing power, started claiming that they or someone under their thumb was the descendant of whatever god those people were worshipping, thus legitimizing their rule (and if memory serves, Jared Diamond may have mentioned this in his book Guns, Germs, and Steel). I've also heard around here (I believe the inimitable Sieben said this in some topic or another) that statism arose when nomadic warrior tribes conquered farming villages and subjected them to tribute, which gradually evolved into hereditary kingdoms and the modern state.
Maybe we'll never know for sure. Maybe it's different for each time the state arose. All the same, I think this debate is certainly fascinating and perhaps fruitful (for one must understand one's enemy in order to combat it). I'll largely leave it to men and women wiser than I to discuss this while I lurk like I normally do, so discuss away.
I've heard a lot of theories about where and how the state originated since I've started my reeducation in Austrian economics/libertarian political theory. My statist professor claimed that it was created naturally from people banding together and choosing one person to protect them. In a video one person said that it grew out of organized religion when those priests, desirous of seizing power, started claiming that they or someone under their thumb was the descendant of whatever god those people were worshipping, thus legitimizing their rule (and if memory serves, Jared Diamond may have mentioned this in his book Guns, Germs, and Steel). I've also heard around here (I believe the inimitable Sieben said this in some topic or another) that statism arose when nomadic warrior tribes conquered farming villages and subjected them to tribute, which gradually evolved into hereditary kingdoms and the modern state. Maybe we'll never know for sure. Maybe it's different for each time the state arose. All the same, I think this debate is certainly fascinating and perhaps fruitful (for one must understand one's enemy in order to combat it). I'll largely leave it to men and women wiser than I to discuss this while I lurk like I normally do, so discuss away.
Awesome question. Here's my video on what the government is. My current view:
I believe this explains why a State can exist at all. Try going to a national park and blatantly breaking one of the rules with a large crowd of people standing around. Within seconds, you will hear loud grumbles or even threats of calling a ranger. This "crowd morality" is the result of an instant, visceral reaction on the part of people within the crowd to the effect "Who does he think he is? I guess he thinks he doesn't have to follow the same rules as everybody else. We each have to obey the rules in order for this park to work. Somebody needs to put him in his place."
But when a police officer engages in blatantly illegal or immoral behavior - even on videotape - it's almost as if a fnord has been inserted into the brains of the public. What is it about a uniform and association with the territorial monopolist of law and force that causes people not only to not apply their ordinary, visceral reaction to a double-standard but to apply that reaction to anyone who points out the double-standard?!? I think the answer is my alpha-male vestige theory, or something like it.
</rambling>
Clayton -
*Biologists believe that human females have concealed fertility - unlike our primate ancestors whose fertility is advertised - to make it hard to engage in cuckoldry, that is, accepting support from a less fit male (to get the benefit of his labor) while reproducing with a more fit male (to give her offspring the benefit of his excellent genes)
Conquest and strength certainly played a role in the beginning, but unless there is some way to justify rule without violence then the state could never have lasted. History demonstrates that opinion of right (Hume) is far more effective and enduring than brute force.
For myself, I am sympathetic to the religious perspective (and I happen to be a theist) to explain the creation of the state, and while there might be exceptions, the ancient world is loaded with examples to support the claim. In ancient Mesopotamia, political power was held in the hands of the priests, who were responsible for the process of divination, or reading the will of the gods from nature. Because the people accepted their teachings and practices (which probably evolved from a successful shaman from earlier times), they developed political authority. The priests were, essentially, the directors of the economy, operating out of the temple. The people existed as labor for the gods, and the priests directed. Kingship later developed and was explained as a divine office. The same was true in Egypt.
The point here is that religion and politics were essentially fused into a single culture, creating theocracy. Irrespective of the good intentions of rulers and priests, religion formed the basis for political authority and legitimated rule in the ancient world. This is why anyone who attempted to expand political authority had to due so under the guise of religion - the Akkadian kings took a great leap towards centralization, having themselves declared to be divine. In Egypt, Akhenaton attempted to destroy the power of the priests by declaring their gods null and void and instituting monotheism with himself as the head. Later, conquering powers (Persia, Greeks, Romans) would pay deference to local gods for the purposes of political stability, an action that explicitly recognized the importance of religion to political rule.
The pattern that emerges is that whatever the religion of the masses, the state will align itself to it. Christianity was a thorn in the side of Rome for centuries, but grew too big to deal with, so as the Empire crumbled, the Roman state adopted Christianity. Germanic kings later became Christians and enjoyed obvious political benefits (Clovis). Eventually, states in the early Middle Ages aligned themselves with the Catholic Church, which served as a public education system, teaching people to obey the state so long as it supported Church policy.
In the modern era, with religion falling by the wayside, the state needs to be in control of public education directly to legitimize its rule.
Political authority rests on opinion of right, or acceptance of the double-standard as Clayton puts it, and religion is a potent opinion that ambitious men seek to align themselves with.
Awesome question.
Thanks. I've been meaning to start getting involved more here instead of always lurking like I normally do.
Anyway, on topic so far I think that states come into being through one of or a combination of the three ideas I mentioned at the start. However, that alone doesn't explain why the state came into being all across the world in cultures that never contacted each other prior to the advent of the state. I think your ideas, Clayton, strike at the root cause of it all: something from deep in our evolutionary past that tolerates double standards perpetrated by the alpha.
..... FROM YOUR MOM! O.o
Yeah the consensus seems mad cultists teamed up with mad warriors
Naevius:In a video one person said that it grew out of organized religion when those priests, desirous of seizing power, started claiming that they or someone under their thumb was the descendant of whatever god those people were worshipping, thus legitimizing their rule (and if memory serves, Jared Diamond may have mentioned this in his book Guns, Germs, and Steel)
There are far more plausible explanations than this; such as the irrigation of land, humans tendency to naturally form hierarchies, and the domestication of animals . This just sounds like a more ad hoc theory for a general screed against religions that has very little evidence (that I am aware of) to support the claim.
Also, I do not find Jared Diamond to be a compelling theorist.
This just sounds like a more ad hoc theory for a general screed against religions that has very little evidence (that I am aware of) to support the claim.
Except nearly all political states of ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt were theocracies and the priestly class throughout those regions actually wielded significant political authority. The dependency of political rule on religion can be found in any textbook on ancient history.
But this relationship need not be an attack on religion, but an attack on political ambition and state formation. The simple truth is that while states can be theoretically be maintained in a secular, contractual way, we don't find this happening in ancient history. Most civilizations exhibit a blend of religious and political authority, suggesting (at least to me) that religion can be exploited for political purposes. We see this happen even today. Religion is a cultural/spiritual phenomenon and one that shapes, in a powerful way, the direction of human affairs. It's no stretch to presume that some men aspiring to rule would seek out religious justification for their ambition.
And by the way feel free to explain to me how the quote feature works, cause its apparently beyond me.
That is an interesting way of looking at it, Clayton. It seems to be almost intuitive among people, in that there is a two-class caste among society. One caste is the "ruled", and the others are the "rulers". Look at the outrage most people have toward private sector indiscretions, while feeling less anger toward the government. Somehow people feel that there is a connection with their leaders, and therefore there is some form of consent. Perhaps this worked better back in our hunter/gatherer days, when there was still personal accountability to the ruled!
I've not read much of this yet although it is short/100 pages, but it looks good: Oppenheimer's The State.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
1) The quote feature: Highlight the selected area you wish to quote and then select the "quote" button in blue. That said the quote feature does not seem to be working for everyone. I think it has been somewhat broke for a few months.
2) There is no denying religion (whatever the heck that term means) could and has been used by states and has in cases increased centralization/government power, there is zero evidence however to make the claim it was what made government. Jericho, Byblos, Damascus, Indo-Aryan Steppes people, and the early Sumerian sites show no way to construct a "smoking gun" narrative that it was the gods who caused cities to form. Moreover if you actually look at some of the developmental theories for ancient Greece or Medians, for example, you tend to see the gods as being more part of culture than of state manipulation and king making.
Another thing to think about, when we look at the Persian Cyrus who was a new convert to the first monotheistic religion of the world that has a doctrine that punishes the wicked, rewards the good , etc we can find ZERO religious motives in any action of Cyrus in relation to controlling his population. The Furthermore, a look at any socially organized animal group and you see hierarchical structures without gods. The Achaemenid dynasty, while perhaps pious was for the most part secular.
The structure of civilization came first, than the narratives (something that our animal cousins can not construct).
To add to Dondoolee's point, I think that we have to be very, very wary of any explanation that says "this one thing is what caused States to come into existence" and one of the things I would point to is the idea within libertarian (and conservative?) circles that decentralized media such as the Internet have permanently increased the liberty of mankind over the centralized, broadcast media that went before. If this is the case, then that means that the long-term prospects of liberty are pretty uncertain since some new, even-more-centralized-than-before medium of communication could be discovered in the future, permitting even greater State control of public opinion through propaganda than obtained in the era of broadcast radio/television/print. My point is that if the degree of liberty enjoyed by the common man is enhanced or diminished as a result of mere technological developments, then tyranny is a lot more complex problem than just priests preying on popular superstitions.
I like the Hoppean analytical approach to the State where we abstract away everything but the absolute essentials - in my view, the double-standard. Then, the technological particulars are unimportant. The existence of States is, one way or another, primarily an expression of human nature and its susceptibility to domination by a State. It is likely the case that nothing can be done to eradicate the State short of waiting enough generations for human nature to change.
@ ERO
Do you happen to have a pdf link to that book? I have a nook and would like to it add it on there.
It is likely the case that nothing can be done to eradicate the State short of waiting enough generations for human nature to change.
Or wait for genetic engineering science to become advanced enough where people could be engineered to be less or more statist by design? That would be a dangerous technology to have...
Given the prevalance of the state, there are likely a myriad of reasons why it has been the chosen form of social organization until now. One hypothesis: "The state exists because people desire the safety of banding in large numbers over the uncertainty of having to contract for everything. For many people, this is desireable, and these same people also see the state as having some legitimate consent on their part". This is followed through by my idea that "Until recently, people have largely been expected to align themselves with fairly rigid social hierarchies." This has been true for a long time, but breakdown of this is accelerating as people are voluntarily choosing their own hierarchies, based on virtual proximity rather than physical proximity. There also just wasn't that much wealth to go around in the past. That has been changing for a while now and the trend is accelerating today.
If there is one thing that allowed states to come into existence, it is people's acceptance of the state. Without their acceptance and consent, no state anywhere could have survived for long. Finally, perhaps the last and most important point I want to make is that in the past, the main existential threats to human existence came from centralized forces, and the main defence against them also came from centralized forces. Large standing armies, large nuclear arsenals, etc....
The danger in the future is that thoughts can be controlled remotely (scientists have already proven some degree of mind reading and mind control using MRI machines) and people can be genetically engineered. There are many other threats, and they are of a different qualitative nature than the threats we faced in the past, and I believe that the threats we face today require a decentralized defense. Could you imagine trusting the most powerful government in the world to never use such technologies? I don't.
I have a feeling that more libertarianism is going to come about by a simple act of force as people look out for their self-interest, not by reeducation of the populace. As an example, look at the current status of copyright. Many people don't care much for what the EFF or what libertarians have to say about it (they probably never even heard of them), but since they no longer see downloading music/etc... as theft, they now see the government and the industry as acting against their interests. This is one blow against the state. I go as far as submitting that we need more concrete structures enabling libertarianism and panarchism and less philosophising on why the current order of things is bad. Instead, when shifts like these occur, they can philosophise on how it is good and how continuation down that path would be even better. :)
So long as people desire things the way they are, and so long as it is expensive to do things another way, they won't change significantly at all, but when people sufficiently believe that the current world order is acting against their interests, and it is easy for them to organize and easy to stop giving their consent, then things will change. Next step: a true distributed digital currency, and seasteading?
To follow up, it's my opinion that digital and material technology will be the undoing of the state. Slavery was once common throughout all history, as well, but people finally rejected it a couple of hundred years ago. This is what I now say whenever people say "but panarchism has never existed before!"
The next form of slavery to go will be the whole idea that people "belong" to the government of the country that they live in. As one example, I submit that disenchantment with the fiscal policy of the US is growing. This is one area where consent has been dropping like a stone. A decentralized form of digital currency that cannot be centrally manipulated is not only technically feasible, but is also desired by an increasing segment of the population. Therefore, it is inevitable that such a technology will come into play, just as it was inevitable that P2P would spring out as a desire to avoid being stamped out by the state.
To me, the question is not if, but when. Once the "when" comes, it all boils down to how the state chooses to deal with it. They will first ostracize the hell out of the new currency and others like it, associating it with terrorists, thiefs, rapists, etc.... and they will follow it up with targeted lawsuits and make examples out of people. The founder of Bitcoin might want to beware.
That will dissuade some, but it won't work in the end just like it hasn't worked for P2P networks. The state is still restricted by their own rule of law, if they want to maintain their consent to govern! This will force the state to take some action. Therefore, they risk exposing themselves as being entirely against the people's interests. They no longer govern "by consent of the people", but against the people. Eventually, this can only lead to their own downfall. They will not be able to stamp out these technologies entirely without becoming more authoritarian than China, and should they do so, then they clearly no longer represent the will of the people. When enough people are fed up with the way things are, then they will be cast aside, either by force or by simple refusal to give support and consent.