Are there any good anthropoligical studies of the origins of the State?
Blech, anthropology. I'm not sure there is much of it, from the perspective of a libertarian, since anthropology is a highly liberal field of study. So, think of the word "capitalism" being used as "the state" and the literature will instantly become more useful. The CIA may study the origins of certain cultures. (They do it secretly and with the intent of destroying that culture most of the time)
Here are the only books in that category I have read. They may or may not have insights into the origins of the state itself (one is explicitly what you are looking for, but the others do discuss the origins of borderlands and certain laws, drug trades, bribery, etc.)
Cultural Critique and the Global Corporation (Tracking Globalization) -This book examines the stories that corporations tell about themselves—and explores the powerful influence of corporations in the transformation of cultural and social life. Six case studies draw on CEO memoirs, annual reports, management manuals, advertising campaigns, and other sources to analyze the self-representations and rhetorical maneuvers that corporations use to obscure the full extent of their power. Images of corporate character and responsibility are intertwined with the changes in local economy, politics, and culture wrought by globalization and neoliberalism. The contributors to this volume describe the effects of specific corporate practices on individuals and communities and how activists and academics are responding to labor and environmental abuses."
Talks about all of the familiar (yet recent) corporate deception around GE, De Beers, etc.
States and Illegal Practices - "Joining theories of states and state formation with theories of illegal practices, this pioneering book traces the unholy alliance of official practices with criminality. Criminal subcultures, mafias and gangs have been the subject of a great deal of attention, as have formal policy approaches of the state. However, the interaction of state police apparatuses with illegal practices has been neglected, despite the recent Foucauldian emphasis on discourses of power, order and disorder. Written by leading experts in the fields of anthropology and history, this book asks why illegal practices -- including corruption and protection rackets -- do not disappear, but continue to thrive. It examines the development of transnational illegal networks, such as the narcotics trade and the new trade in environmentally restricted commodities, as well as how culture, ethnicity and economic considerations drive illegal practices and influence state policy. Wide-ranging in scope, this interdisciplinary book will appeal to anyone studying the sociology of crime and of the state, political science, criminal justice and the law, the anthropology of law and of the state and the history of crime."
Written by leading experts in the fields of anthropology and history, this book asks why illegal practices -- including corruption and protection rackets -- do not disappear, but continue to thrive. It examines the development of transnational illegal networks, such as the narcotics trade and the new trade in environmentally restricted commodities, as well as how culture, ethnicity and economic considerations drive illegal practices and influence state policy. Wide-ranging in scope, this interdisciplinary book will appeal to anyone studying the sociology of crime and of the state, political science, criminal justice and the law, the anthropology of law and of the state and the history of crime."
You would be looking for
Essay #1 "Brigandage, Piracy, Capitalism, and State-Formation: Transnational Crime from a Historical World-Systems Perspective"
- "Through an examination of brigandage and piracy from around the globe over the last three hundred years I demonstrate that illegal networks of armed predators played a crucial role in the spread and global truimph of capitalism. Furthermore, I show that bandits and pirates were deeply insinuated in the process of state formation and state consolidation of power; in addition, these groups have continued to play extremely important roles in the ongoing process of state centralization. Put simply, bandits help make states, and states help make bandits."
essay #2 "State and Shadow State in Northern Peru circa 1900: Illegal Political Networks and the Problem of State Boundaries"
- "Despite the form of state and society imagined in state discoure, and celebrated in political ritual, it would be impossible to distinguish between legal and illegal networks, or between states and society, on the basis of any criteria: formal political organization; the social identities or class positions of its leaders and followers; the values and aspirations of either; the forms of behavior expected of each vis-avis the other, and in relation to the opposition; or even the control of armed force."
essay #3 "Predatory Rule and Illegal Economic Practices"
- "Illegality and the state have been constant companions. It is perhaps inherent in the nature of states that they prohibit certain types of behavior, if only the avoidance of taxes. It is less clear why they should never be able to succeed in fully supressing all that they make illegal."
[Like I said, highly liberal.]
essay #8 "Adolescent Violence, State Processes, and the Local Context of Moral Panic"
- "Violence, its representation, and its social control are central to the image, hegemony, and legitimacy of the state. Weberian social theory...When this monopoly is challenged, the threat strikes directly at the legitimacy of the state. For this reason, issues of violence and its representation and cotrol provide a window into the character and contradictions of a state at any given point in history."
"...high levels of violence in a fully formed state are not necessarily anomalous. State formation is an ongoing process in which the rols of violence and response to violence remain crucial at the levels of bothe ideology and practice."
[Field work is done in at a high school for reference to adolescent violence]
"The legitimacy of the state, at both national and local levels, is buttressed and redefined by this shift of resources to intensified internal social control, in a number of ways....The reduction of overall social investment in public education, social welfare, and urban development is counterbalanced by the image of the state as guarantor of safety against the enemy within."
essay #9 "State Escalation of Force; A Vietnam/US-Mexico Border Analogy"
This one discuess the use of force as an escalation (metaphorical) to all out war (literal).
Illicit Flows and Criminal Things: States, Borders, and the Other Side of Globalization (Tracking Globalization) - "Illicit Flows and Criminal Things offers a new perspective on illegal transnational linkages, international relations, and the transnational. The contributors argue for a nuanced approach that recognizes the difference between "organized" crime and the thousands of illicit acts that take place across national borders every day. They distinguish between the illegal (prohibited by law) and the illicit (socially perceived as unacceptable), which are historically changeable and contested. Detailed case studies of arms smuggling, illegal transnational migration, the global diamond trade, borderland practices, and the transnational consumption of drugs take us to Asia, Africa, Latin America, Europe, and North America. They allow us to understand how states, borders, and the language of law enforcement produce criminality, and how people and goods which are labeled "illegal" move across regulatory spaces."
It's storming here and I don't wanna lose power before I post this =/
maybe some people wanted to exploit others for their own benefit, which is actually quite efficient, so they got a group of other people that wanted to exloit others and started killing and taking over a geographical area?
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
My hypothesis is that the state is an outgrowth of early efforts to provide security to tribes/communities. A small division of labor might imply a monopoly, and a monopoly on force leads to irregular growth (i.e. bureaucracy).
But, I am not an anthropologist and I have no evidence, hence me asking if there is literature on the subject. I don't care if it's not libertarian; I almost prefer it not to be. Even if there is bias, there is a little bit of truth in everything -- the task of the critical mind is to separate truth from fiction.
Should I assume you've read: http://mises.org/daily/2214 ? It is similar to what you are arguing. In terms of security, are you talking about from threats within the community or without?
Oppenheimer's 'The State' is what you are looking for.
... just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own - Albert Jay Nock
Cliffs : THe origin of the state is one tribe conquering another and demanding tribute.
Oh, c'mon, no one else has any legitimate anthropological suggestions? No academic journals? Just stuff from this particular site?
Hans Hoppe mentions in a seminar that there are two popular hypotheses:
1. Robbers settling with their victims rather than looting and running.
2. Economically important and/or respected individuals beginning as arbiters and getting away with graduating that to an exclusive position.
He can probably give references if you email him.
Well, its human nature to want the best for ourselves and obtaining that way of life most efficiently.
So why not get a group of friends, and force other people to give money to you and your friends or else you kill them?
Thats efficient right? It benefits you/friends the best at the expense of others. You can manage that money however you want and you get to tell people what to do.
The only conditions necessary for State formation that I see are (1) the existence of surpluses worth stealing, and (2) the existence of a sufficient imbalance of forces to allow one group to conquer another.
Yes.
1. Robbers settling with their victims rather than looting and running
That's Oppenheimer's view, and mine as well. The looter became a (tax-)farmer, rather analogous to how the hunter became a farmer around that same time in world history. Some hunters decided to farm sheep, others people.
Aristophanes wrote,
Yea, I thought there would be more too.
For what it's worth, I'm looking for a historical study, not a theoretical one. I will look into Oppenheimer.
Sorry, I forgot about this thread.
Carneiro 1970, 'A Theory of the Origin of the State', Science. Claessen and Skalnik 1978, The Early State. Claessen and Skalnik 1981, The Study of the State. Cohen and Service 1978, Origins of the State. Fried 1967, The Evolution of Political Society. Gledhill, Bender, and Larsen 1988, State and Society: The Emergence and Development of Social Hierarchy and Political Centralization Haas 1982, The Evolution of the Prehistoric State. Trigger 2003, Understanding Early Civilizations.
You should be able to find an even larger bibliography within these works.
Minarchist:The only conditions necessary for State formation that I see are (1) the existence of surpluses worth stealing, and (2) the existence of a sufficient imbalance of forces to allow one group to conquer another.
I don't think the state has its basis on systematic theft. Rather, I think it has its basis on systematic violation of self-ownership (of which theft is just one form). Where did this systematic violation of self-ownership come from? I think it came from the "authoritarian family" - any familial group where some people (typically parents) were presumed to own others (typically offspring).
In Roman law, for example, there's a concept known as patria potestas, which means "fatherly power". Quoting from Lacus Curtius:
Patria Potestas then signifies the power which a Roman father had over the persons of his children, grandchildren, and other descendants (filiifamilias, filiaefamilias), and generally all the rights which he had by virtue of his paternity. The foundation of the Patria Potestas was a Roman marriage, and the birth of a child gave it full effect [Matrimonium]. It does not seem that the Patria Potestas was ever viewed among the Romans as absolutely equivalent to the Dominica Potestas [power over slaves], or as involving ownership of the child; and yet the original notion of the Patria came very near to that of the Dominica Potestas. Originally the father had the power of life and death over his son as a member of his familia: he could sell him and so bring him into the mancipii causa ["the condition of (being) a slave"]; and he had the jus noxae dandi ["the right to deliver (one's child as compensation) for a crime"] as a necessary consequence of his being liable for the delicts of his child. He could also give his child in adoption, and emancipate a child at his pleasure.
It does not seem that the Patria Potestas was ever viewed among the Romans as absolutely equivalent to the Dominica Potestas [power over slaves], or as involving ownership of the child; and yet the original notion of the Patria came very near to that of the Dominica Potestas. Originally the father had the power of life and death over his son as a member of his familia: he could sell him and so bring him into the mancipii causa ["the condition of (being) a slave"]; and he had the jus noxae dandi ["the right to deliver (one's child as compensation) for a crime"] as a necessary consequence of his being liable for the delicts of his child. He could also give his child in adoption, and emancipate a child at his pleasure.
Essentially, then, I see this notion of "fatherly power" as being the origin of the state.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Didn't Plato and the Greeks before him share ownership of women and children? Plato's origin of the state was to instruct virtue or at least that is what the state is for.
I haven't researched Ancient Greek law nearly as much, but from what I understand, it was similar to Roman law in this respect.
Ancient Greek city-states (poleis - singular polis) were tribal in origin and retained their tribal character throughout their history. Citizenship in a polis was typically closed, i.e. one had to be born in a polis to be considered a citizen of it. Roman citizenship was originally the same way. The plebes were originally resident aliens (called metoikoi in Athens).
Anyway, the state could be (and was) seen as simply the administrative organization of the polis. IIRC, Plato thought that the ideal task of this administrative organization was to ensure "virtue" to the fullest extent possible.
Aristippus, great list thank you.
The role of the state in Plato is not so much to "guide" or "instruct" or "instill" virtue, but to rule over men who cannot be virtuous (although, it has been a while since I last read Plato). Only a few can be virtuous, because they are "truth finders; i.e. philosopher kings. Government, then, is made up of rational, virtuous men who then command the non-virtuous in such a way that allows for a stable, functioning society.
I don't think the state has its basis on systematic theft. Rather, I think it has its basis on systematic violation of self-ownership (of which theft is just one form). Where did this systematic violation of self-ownership come from? I think it came from the "authoritarian family" - any familial group where some people (typically parents) were presumed to own others (typically offspring). Essentially, then, I see this notion of "fatherly power" as being the origin of the state.
If you mean that the State was justified in part by concepts of authority deriving from the family, then I agree. If you mean that the State literally arose from the family, that is obviously false, as the earliest States did not have literal fathers ruling extended family, but one group ruling another biologically unrelated group.
Curious, are you a fan of Molyneux?
An example of why a good theory on the origins of the State is important: "On Merchants and Politicians."
The post deals with some of the themes in Daron Acemoglu's and James Robinson's Why Nations Fail. There is a contradiction between the benefits of inclusive political institutions, where power is diffused amongst the many, and the alleged benefits of greater centralization (which the authors themselves agree that these more often than not lead to absolutism and extractive institutions). They claim that without bureaucratic centralization there can be no meaningful economic growth; it seems to me that the relationship is the opposite (even given the data they present). Economic growth makes bureaucratization possible, since all bureaucracies are extractive by nature.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:The role of the state in Plato is not so much to "guide" or "instruct" or "instill" virtue, but to rule over men who cannot be virtuous (although, it has been a while since I last read Plato). Only a few can be virtuous, because they are "truth finders; i.e. philosopher kings. Government, then, is made up of rational, virtuous men who then command the non-virtuous in such a way that allows for a stable, functioning society.
This seems to go along with what I wrote earlier: "Anyway, the state could be (and was) seen as simply the administrative organization of the polis. IIRC, Plato thought that the ideal task of this administrative organization was to ensure 'virtue' to the fullest extent possible."
Ensuring "virtue" to the fullest extent possible doesn't mean making as many people as possible be "virtuous" in their hearts and souls, but rather that they simply act "virtuously" as much as possible. In other words, whether they act "virtuously" of their own free will or are constrained so that they become motivated (or have no choice but) to act "virtuously" makes no difference.
Minarchist:If you mean that the State was justified in part by concepts of authority deriving from the family, then I agree. If you mean that the State literally arose from the family, that is obviously false, as the earliest States did not have literal fathers ruling extended family, but one group ruling another biologically unrelated group.
It depends on how you define "State", honestly. As I see it, the earliest States did have literal fathers ruling extended family.
Minarchist:Curious, are you a fan of Molyneux?
To an extent, yes.
http://archive.org/details/stateitshistory00oppegoog
But I guess there are several others too. Henry Morgan - Ancient society: http://archive.org/details/ancientsocietyo00morggoog
Karl Marx buddy Friedrich Engels stole a lot from this: http://archive.org/details/originoffamilypr00enge
Fustel de Coulanges - Ancient City : http://archive.org/details/ancientcityastu00coulgoog By the same author for more historical background - Aryan Civilisation : http://archive.org/details/aryancivilizatio00fustuoft Additionally insightful may be Caspar Bluntschli - Theory of the state: http://archive.org/details/theorystate01lodggoog But this is more an overview of the origins. According to the authors there were always some kinds of human organisation of authority and submission. They did however differ drastically from ethnicity and age. What I would be interested in would be more literature on stateless societies and if there ever was a group of more then 1000 people that would qualify as being a stateless society. Perhaps what would come close to that would be the Bushmen, who were basically hunter gatherers. But still there have been authority figures and rules amongst them. They also got quite quickly absorbed into the (modern) South Africa state and even into the army as spoorsnyers. At the moment it seems the general subjective value preference of people prefers state over non-state, despite lot's of quibbling by right-wingers and anarchists.
i believe that the earliest states were outgrowths of the church. the reason is because you need to have an ideology in place before you can have violence. it cant work the other way around because even the most despotic states require a majorities consent
there was a book mentioned in a jeffrety tucker intervew called law and revolution which the interviewee said deals with the issue, i havent read it myself
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: My hypothesis is that the state is an outgrowth of early efforts to provide security to tribes/communities. A small division of labor might imply a monopoly, and a monopoly on force leads to irregular growth (i.e. bureaucracy).
the essay "society are people" in frank chodorov's the rise and fall of society could be of interest. also in that book, "a state is born" is a biblical view of a state emerging. it's one of my favorite books. i highly recommend reading it in its entirety if you haven't yet done so.
i agree with your hypothesis, too. specialization didn't exclude things such as policing. now, i can't recall if i'm getting the following from my reading of the rise and fall of society; but it seems to me tribes used to rape and pillage other tribes for their belongings. then they decided the tribesmen from whom they stole could be exploited for further gain if they kept them alive (slavery). eventually humanity figured out paying people to do work will get it done more efficiently (capitalism). i think the state probably emerged during phase two, when civilizations started settling, due to the advent of agriculture and use of slavery. of course, i'm in the same boat as you, with nothing to back up my assumptions, so any serious history would be something i'd love to look into. it's too bad rothbard didn't stray far from american history.
i'm in the same boat as you, with nothing to back up my assumptions, so any serious history would be something i'd love to look into.
But it sounds fargoingly plausible. The Henry Morgan book Ancient Society has also a list of historical steps in it. Of that has historical record, while some are only assumptions, but still make sense. I think one could also look at the division of labor emerging from an initially extended family. Of the elders then would have functions like judge, priest, military leader etc. While the rest would farm, craft or provide some services.