I won't accuse you of being completely delusional. So really, you honestly think non-statist societies were, and continue to be dominant, and that statist societies were, and continue to be the exception? I'm baffled. You think really think violent dominance heirarchies are the exception, certainly not the rule among homo sapiens, historically?
Enlighten me, please.
So really, you honestly think non-statist societies were, and continue to be dominant,
and that statist societies were, and continue to be the exception?
You think really think violent dominance heirarchies are the exception, certainly not the rule among homo sapiens, historically?
I really don't know what you're talking about. Again, just because prisoners/slaves/whatever word you prefer to describe the hegemonic hierarchy can exchange on a mutually voluntary basis doesn't mean they aren't prisoners/slaves/dominated violently.
Everything I know about evolution and homo sapiens is that our species is characterized by violently enforced dominance hierarchies. The world over, always. Civilizations were and continue to be characterized by dominance hierarchies. If there were voluntaryist societies (i.e. anarchist, anarcho-capitalist, not characterized by violently enforced dominance hierarchies) they were the exception, and they certainly didn't persist for long—I'm actually not aware of any, whatsoever. Maybe I missed something, again, please enlighten me.
Everything I know about evolution and homo sapiens is that our species is characterized by violently enforced dominance hierarchies. The world over, always. Civilizations were and continue to be characterized by dominance hierarchies.
If there were voluntaryist societies (i.e. not characterized by violently enforced dominance hierarchies) they were the exception, and they certainly didn't persist for long—I'm actually not aware of any, whatsoever. Maybe I missed something, again, please enlighten me.
Dude you're blowing my mind, maybe you're some hypergenius but it's probably more likely we're just talking past each other. I'm trying to clear it up, so stop saying I'm guilty of this or that fallacy. Whatever, maybe I am, that doesn't seem relevant. I'm perfectly willing to accept that I'm wrong and you're right, but the way it's going from my perspective you have no clue what I'm talking about. I've already admitted I have no clue what you're talking about. So let's work on clearing it up.
Hegemonic dominance hierarchies—hierarchies tied together by violence and threats of violence. As opposed to voluntaryism, a society organized upon the rejection of hegemonic dominance hierarchies—society maintained absent persistent violence or threats of violence. *Note: this isn't voluntarism, I'm not sure why you brought up voluntarism.* In both social arrangements, people may exchange on a mutually voluntary basis. But only one form has completely dominated the history of homo sapiens: hegemonic dominance hierarchies. It is the rule, voluntaryism is the exception. Voluntaryist societies either didn't exist or, if they did, were wiped out quick by hegemonic societies. Clearly, voluntaryist societies didn't dominate history and they definitely don't dominate the present day. Evolution: clearly genes predisposed to hegemony proved better at surviving.
We don't even just dominate other humans. We don't even just dominate other humans and dogs. We don't just dominate other humans and dogs and cats. We dominate a plethora of species, unlike any species on the planet. But most importantly, our own civilizations are founded on hegemonic principles. There aren't voluntaryist civilizations, because predisposition to hegemony/dominance has proved a better survival trait.
Perhaps you can see where I'm coming from now. I would like you to explain if, now that you see where I'm coming from, you still hold to your original contention that the driving force of homo sapiens is not to conquer—that instead, it is to organize on mutually voluntary bases.
states with taxes dominate states with voluntary funding
households based on voluntary relationships dominate households with forced relationships.
the typeical human has relationships that are voluntary and relationships that are forced.
so maybe micro level is more voluntary and macro is more force
hashem: Hegemonic dominance hierarchies—hierarchies tied together by violence and threats of violence. As opposed to voluntaryism, a society organized upon the rejection of hegemonic dominance hierarchies—society maintained absent persistent violence or threats of violence. *Note: this isn't voluntarism, I'm not sure why you brought up voluntarism.* In both social arrangements, people may exchange on a mutually voluntary basis. But only one form has completely dominated the history of homo sapiens: hegemonic dominance hierarchies. It is the rule, voluntaryism is the exception. Voluntaryist societies either didn't exist or, if they did, were wiped out quick by hegemonic societies. Clearly, voluntaryist societies didn't dominate history and they definitely don't dominate the present day. Evolution: clearly genes predisposed to hegemony proved better at surviving. We don't even just dominate other humans. We don't even just dominate other humans and dogs. We don't just dominate other humans and dogs and cats. We dominate a plethora of species, unlike any species on the planet. But most importantly, our own civilizations are founded on hegemonic principles. There aren't voluntaryist civilizations, because predisposition to hegemony/dominance has proved a better survival trait.
Does the fact that something was dominant in the past and into the present mean that it will dominate the future? Let's look at history.
The Year: 1814
Billy Joe Mackey, a wealthy plantation owner, is at a gathering when a abolitionist mentions how the days of slavery are almost over. Billy Joe points to history explaining how slavery has existed throughout most of history, pointing to Rome, Greece, and of course slavery in America as examples. "Slavery has dominated history and it's still dominant in these great United States." Billy Joe proudly exclaims. Paul, the abolitionist, starts to preach about the immorality of slavery, "In time people will realize the folly of their ways and abolish slavery.", he ends as people start making jeering comments. Billy Joe condescendingly smirks at Paul, thinking how absurd the whole notion of abolishing slavery is, after all it's been around for so long.
---
We all know how that story ended. Must evolution necessarily favor hegemony? Imagine two worlds. World 1 is hegemony dominant. World 2 is Voluntaryist. World 1 being dominated by hegemony, will mean that people supporting hegemony will be more likely to survive, because those against hegemony are at the mercy of those favoring hegemony, thus evolution will favor hegemony in World 1. World 2 being Voluntaryist, where those favoring hegemony will be reviled, will mean those who support Voluntaryism will be more likely to survive, thus evolution will favor Voluntaryism in World 2. In any world, that which is seen as most desirable, will become the best survival trait.
@cab21
When you are born, you'er born into a society. A society with a hegemonic dominance hierarchy. Your parents dominate you, their parents dominated them, and your state dominates all of you. Further, many of you dominate each other via the political system. Yes, much voluntary exchange can go on, and indeed economics proves it is necessary to the existence of civilization. But the one obvious point is that all civilizations are statist (or hegemonic dominance hierarchical). Why? Because they won the game of history. Over and over and over, such that we can recognize a pattern. Whereas, civilizations founded on the principle that hegemonic dominance hierarchicies aren't acceptable didn't persist and proliferate, especially not more widely than statist ones. Therefore, the brute facts of homo sapiens—as far as we can tell from patterns, and that's what science is—is that we tend to conquer.
Yes, I don't think anyone in this thread disagrees that even prisoner slaves can exchange on a mutually voluntary basis.
@ Serpentis-Lucis
Does the fact that something was dominant in the past and into the present mean that it will dominate the future?
Yes, because we were dominant precisely because it's coded in our dna. It's a brute fact of homo sapiens. But it's also tempered by other factors. As everyone agrees, each individual homo sapiens isn't always purely dominant—we are capable of mutually voluntary exchange. So there may be a day in the future when our incentives are to be more voluntary than dominant, and eventually purely voluntary, at least in theory. But that won't happen until we advance technology to a point where voluntaryism is necessary. If technology wasn't necessary for voluntaryism to "win", we would already be voluntaryist. History would be the exact opposite story.
Also serpentis, I think you're on the right track with minor qualifications. Evolution doesn't favor 1 trait over the other, natural selection does. And everywhere, always, genes are "selfish", they "get in where they fit in", but always for their own sake. Yes, as you pointed out, natural selection tends to favor those genes which dominate and exploit.
so why would technology lead to voluntary society rather than a even more hedgemonic one? what technology could overcome this?
Because technology connects people, by enhancing efficiency of communication. If communication becomes so advanced that humanity experiences day to day life effictively like that of a hive mind, then people will be less inclined to dominate others because such would be immediately recognized by others and retaliatory action levied right away. In other words, people won't have the incentive to dominate others, because they would effectively be dominating themselves by doing so.
I'm not saying this will necessarily happen. But I am saying if voluntaryism is to establish, persist, and overcome hegemony in the future, it will be because of communications technology and not because many people suddenly become non-aggressive by nature.
But there are many other possibilities, all of which must account for technology. Perhaps as initial aggression decentralizes from governments, genetic modification research will be less locked down and we will learn how to solve the biological "problems" that cause us to be hegemonic in the first place. Or maybe governments will use genetic modification to enhance human farming and preempt any possibility whatsoever of a voluntaryist future.
Personally, I don't think a voluntaryist society is likely unless technology unites humanity in such a way as to discourage the natural tendency to hegemony, or else unless we modify our dna as to eliminate the tendency to hegemony. Natural selection has selected us for our impecable capacity to dominate, and it will improve that capacity unless something stops it.
"And if any entity, anywhere in the universe, happens to have the property of being good at making more copies of itself, then automatically more and more copies of that entity will obviously come into existence. Not only that but, since they automatically form lineages that are occasionally miscopied, later versions tend to be ‘better’ at making copies of themselves than earlier versions, because of the powerful processes of cumulative selection. It is all utterly simple and automatic. It is so predictable as to be almost inevitable."
big brother police like technology seems like it could do the same as a way to have people reaction to the initiation of agression.
it will be interesting if a collective conscousness could actualy happen to communicate when people are initiation agression.
if all is known, and people put equal presure, then society pressure can cause more peaceful interactions.
it seemed you also said this nonviolence and peace was still domination and manipulation social presure . the nap would be the dominate hegemony as those that try to break nap would have the negative consequences and be wiped out or shunned by the hive
hashem: Also serpentis, I think you're on the right track with minor qualifications. Evolution doesn't favor 1 trait over the other, natural selection does. And everywhere, always, genes are "selfish", they "get in where they fit in", but always for their own sake. Yes, as you pointed out, natural selection tends to favor those genes which dominate and exploit. A world where Voluntaryism would be dominate would mean Voluntaryism would be the best survival trait. Voluntaryist society wouldn't be "dominating" in the same way hegemony is, it would likely be just that those who support hegemony are looked upon with disgust and is a minority kind of like how anarchists are looked upon now. Procreating with someone who supports hegemony when hegemony is hated would make the offspring less likely to procreate, thus as I pointed out in my last post, Voluntaryism would be the best survival trait. Could you link me to proof that hegemony is in our DNA? My point was that anything which is valued highly will give the appearance of being in our DNA, more likely only surviving is in our DNA, so that we can adapt to any change in what is seen as most desirable. If hegemony were in the DNA then there would be no Voluntaryists would there? | Post Points: 20
Dude you're blowing my mind, maybe you're some hypergenius but it's probably more likely we're just talking past each other. I'm trying to clear it up, so stop saying I'm guilty of this or that fallacy.
Hegemonic dominance hierarchies—hierarchies tied together by violence and threats of violence. As opposed to voluntaryism, a society organized upon the rejection of hegemonic dominance hierarchies—society maintained absent persistent violence or threats of violence.
*Note: this isn't voluntarism, I'm not sure why you brought up voluntarism.*
In both social arrangements, people may exchange on a mutually voluntary basis. But only one form has completely dominated the history of homo sapiens: hegemonic dominance hierarchies.
It is the rule, voluntaryism is the exception.
Voluntaryist societies either didn't exist or, if they did, were wiped out quick by hegemonic societies.
Clearly, voluntaryist societies didn't dominate history and they definitely don't dominate the present day. Evolution: clearly genes predisposed to hegemony proved better at surviving.
We don't even just dominate other humans. We don't even just dominate other humans and dogs. We don't just dominate other humans and dogs and cats. We dominate a plethora of species, unlike any species on the planet.
But most importantly, our own civilizations are founded on hegemonic principles.
There aren't voluntaryist civilizations, because predisposition to hegemony/dominance has proved a better survival trait.
I would also like to add that I do consider humans to have innately violent tendencies, just like they have the innate tendency for voluntary trade. However the driving force of homo sapiens is to thrive.
what is this 350 year thing? the world has had states and kingdoms and war tribes for thousands of years
what about the greeks?
I'm with you on evolution.
Could you link me to proof that hegemony is in our DNA?
If the world around you, and the history of man isn't evidence enough, I might suggest The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. To me the plain fact that everyone is livestock of one or another human-farming structure is evidence enough. Homo Sapiens didn't evolve this tendency suddenly over a mere few thousand years. Even the intelligent apes (I forgot the word to describe the intelligent ones) employ hegemonic dominance hierarchies—not because they're intelligent, many many many species do this. It has to do with genes, not just with homo sapiens.
If hegemony were in the DNA then there would be no Voluntaryists would there?
That's the argument Malachi keeps making. Again, the appeal to reality is enough. Clearly, we're capable of hegemony and mutually voluntary behavior.
@ cab21
You're on the right track. Regarding the NAP, all I'm saying is that it's supporters tend to be libertarians who invoke it as the foundation of a manifestly violent, aggressive system—they just want the violence to be used on their terms as opposed to on various other terms.
@ Malachi
OK, at least we're trying to get somewhere now.
I cant think of many societies that were held together by violence.
That's because that's a red herring. I said hierarchies tied together by violence. Clearly, limitations on violence are the reason societies don't fall apart.
The rest of that paragraph seems to be your argument that anyone who is capable of mutually voluntary behavior is therefore not a slave. This seems to be the root of our fundamental disagreement, this is what we should work on resolving.
I'm pointing out that across different continents independently, and throughout history into the present, the social orders that have tended to "win" are the ones characterized by the presence of hegemonic dominance hierarchies (by definition, the absence of voluntaryism). Again, we agree that the individuals within such organizations are capable of mutually voluntary behavior, so you don't need to stress that any more.
I consider the magnitudinally greater proliferation of voluntary interactions [as opposed to the fact that these interactions occur within a hegemonic dominance hierarchy] to constitute domination of the history of homo sapiens.
The voluntary exchange isn't greater than the presence of the hegemony—obviously, the voluntarily exchanging individuals are exchanging as individuals within the hierarchy. Again, this can be resolved when we address the root of our disagreement: I'm saying we're basically prisoners/slaves, and you're saying prisoners/slaves can conduct mutually voluntary behavior. I think our views are compatible, so I'm not really clear on what your disagreement is. I've already conceded what I can make of your point: we agree, slaves are capable of mutually voluntary behavior.
no, it isn't...By the numbers, voluntary interaction is the rule.
Again a red herring. I don't mean to do what I accused you of doing, but literally if I can help you to understand that you're not understanding my point because you're translating into something I'm not saying then we can get somewhere; and here again is our main contention: I said voluntaryism, not voluntary exchange. Voluntaryism being a method of social organization as opposed to statism or other hegemonic dominance hierarchies. Even slaves are capable of mutually voluntary behavior.
Even the past 350 years of government is characterized by the voluntary participation of the majority of residents/citizens, indeed their very identification with a nation state reveals this ("I'm an American" "We should deploy troops" etc.).
1. See Rothbard. 2. See your own accusation against me for failing to use methodological individualism consistently: "Youre assuming the conclusion by the way you characterize society, which is easy to do because you are operating at an abstract level"
Thats because in order to qualify as a "voluntaryist society" there cant be any crime whatsoever, whereas "hegemonic societies" are qualified by one or more acts of aggression. If you stopped generalizing the actions and beliefs of real people into abstract notions that include your conclusion as a premise, you wouldnt say such a thing.
OK you personal misunderstanding (or failure to argue against what I actually said) is seeming more and more to be the root of our little disagreement here. I'm not generalizing the blah blah blah, it's you who is translating my words into your red herrings. I'm not arguing that a voluntaryist society requires utter absence of any hegemony, or that a hegemonic society is defined by an act of aggression. That's completely your own mistranslation.
Malachi: hashem:Clearly, voluntaryist societies didn't dominate historySince every society in the history of ever has conducted astronomically more voluntary interactions than coerced interactions, I cant see how you would say this.
hashem:Clearly, voluntaryist societies didn't dominate history
First of all, red herring. The presence of voluntary exchange doesn't make a society voluntaryist. Why? Because second of all, even slaves are capable of mutually voluntary behavior.
And, if the human genome was predisposed towards conquest, as you suggest, they wouldnt have conducted voluntary interaction when they had the possibility of violent interaction.
That's just a basic lack of knowledge of natural selection. See Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene. But it would be interesting to hear your reasoning... Why can't a being driven toward the end conquest engage in the means mutually voluntary behavior?
go to the mall and tell me whether you see more trade or slavery.
Again, this highlights your misunderstanding. Even slaves are capable of mutually voluntary behavior.
And, "we" outcompeted "them"
Yes. Yes we did.
that differentiates us from aboriginal societies
Aboriginal societies are not the norm, they're the exception by far. A planet of over 7 billion humans and by far the vast majority live in hegemonic dominance hierarchies. If you're appealing to aboriginal groups as your voluntaryist answer, then you've conceded my point. They didn't win the evolutionary battle. To quote you, "we outcompeted them".
*conflating the presence of voluntary exchange with the absence of hegemonic dominance hierarchies *conflating the presence of voluntary exchange with voluntaryism
Again, the root issue here. I'm not denying that slaves are capable of mutually voluntary behavior.
I would also like to add that I do consider humans to have innately violent tendencies, just like they have the innate tendency for voluntary trade.
Would you concede that the outperformance of voluntaryist societies by hegemonic dominance hierarchical ones is due to the "innately violent tendencies"?
mutual pacifism seems would be the best system at negateing violence. nap seems semi pacifist, with a threat of violent response to counter potential acts of initiation of violence.
i think hivemind pacifism would be great if we could find a way for it to work in the future
To me the plain fact that everyone is livestock of one or another human-farming structure is evidence enough.
I'm pointing out that across different continents independently, and throughout history into the present, the social orders that have tended to "win" are the ones characterized by the presence of hegemonic dominance hierarchies (by definition, the absence of voluntaryism).
"characterized by hegemonic dominance hierarchies" you havent seemed to pick up on the fact that youre begging the question with this little characterization of yours. For one thing, "hegemonic dominance hierarchies" isnt even quite compatible with "social order," but lets assume that it is. I keep drawing your attention to the fact that most of these societies exhibit voluntary characteristics to a far greater extent than hegemonic dominance. As I said earlier, characterization is a cognitive phenomenon, you cant simply assert that the characteristics that you ascribe significance to are the important ones, dismiss all other characteristics, and have done with it. Thats a claim that must be supported. Why is a hegemonic dominance hierarchy more significant than a vastly greater amount of voluntary interactions?
your statement that hegemonic dominance hierarchies are defined as the absence of voluntaryism also needs support. Who are these people who you consider to be slaves? Why do you dismiss their successful efforts to create a voluntaryist social order? How do you define the members of a hierarchy?
The voluntary exchange isn't greater than the presence of the hegemony
obviously, the voluntarily exchanging individuals are exchanging as individuals within the hierarchy.
Again, this can be resolved when we address the root of our disagreement: I'm saying we're basically prisoners/slaves, and you're saying prisoners/slaves can conduct mutually voluntary behavior.
I don't mean to do what I accused you of doing, but literally if I can help you to understand that you're not understanding my point because you're translating into something I'm not saying then we can get somewhere; and here again is our main contention: I said voluntaryism, not voluntary exchange. Voluntaryism being a method of social organization as opposed to statism or other hegemonic dominance hierarchies. Even slaves are capable of mutually voluntary behavior.
1. See Rothbard.
See your own accusation against me for failing to use methodological individualism consistently: "Youre assuming the conclusion by the way you characterize society, which is easy to do because you are operating at an abstract level"
Malachi:Even the past 350 years of government is characterized by the voluntary participation of the majority of residents/citizens, indeed their very identification with a nation state reveals this ("I'm an American" "We should deploy troops" etc.).
hashem:2. See your own accusation against me for failing to use methodological individualism consistently: "Youre assuming the conclusion by the way you characterize society, which is easy to do because you are operating at an abstract level"
cab21: what about the greeks?
You're conflating the presence of mutually voluntary exchange with voluntaryism. You agreed we'd use my preferred term, so the confusion is resulting from you using it to mean something I don't. When I speak of voluntaryism, I'm referring to a means of organizing society that rejects hegemonic dominance hierarchies. If you want to speak of something different—mutually voluntary exchange—then maybe call it "mutually voluntary exchange" to avoid the unnecessary confusion.
I'm pointing out a dichotomy: societies that are capable (in theory) of organizing upon the rejection of hegemonic dominance hierarchies, and societies that organize upon the principle of hegemonic dominance hierarchies. One of these two has outperformed the other in evolutionary terms—its members have spread their genes much more prolifically. And so we see a world of statist societies instead of a world of anarchist (or voluntaryist, or free, or insert your utopian non-violent theoretical society here) societies.
The end.
hashem: I'm pointing out a dichotomy: societies that are capable (in theory) of organizing upon the rejection of hegemonic dominance hierarchies, and societies that organize upon the principle of hegemonic dominance hierarchies. One of these two has outperformed the other in evolutionary terms—its members have spread their genes much more prolifically. And so we see a world of statist societies instead of a world of anarchist (or voluntaryist, or free, or insert your utopian non-violent theoretical society here) societies.
And yet the modern world is in conflict, because the modern world was produced by societies which culturally evolved to allow the individual to be the basic and important unit of society over the group. Yet the group-centered ideologies have been trying to reassert dominance ever since.
But they must fail. They do not see it yet. But the individual grows more poweful and more free with each succeeding moment. The statism of the world today is a scaffolding doomed to fall away, for it is unecessary. They think they can use the wealth created by freedom to maintain their slave-pens, but they are in for a rude awakening, when their power will crumble, because to use the products of freedom to maintain slavery is to implicitly acknowledge the superiority of freedom.
And the meaning of freedom is the individuals power to assert sovereignty away and apart from the demands of the group and group representatives.
Only libertarianism represents a fulfillment of that idea to its ultimate end.
We are the future.
You're conflating the presence of mutually voluntary exchange with voluntaryism. You agreed we'd use my preferred term, so the confusion is resulting from you using it to mean something I don't.
When I speak of voluntaryism, I'm referring to a means of organizing society that rejects hegemonic dominance hierarchies.
If you want to speak of something different—mutually voluntary exchange—then maybe call it "mutually voluntary exchange" to avoid the unnecessary confusion.
I'm pointing out a dichotomy: societies that are capable (in theory) of organizing upon the rejection of hegemonic dominance hierarchies, and societies that organize upon the principle of hegemonic dominance hierarchies.
One of these two has outperformed the other in evolutionary terms—its members have spread their genes much more prolifically.
And so we see a world of statist societies
instead of a world of anarchist (or voluntaryist, or free, or insert your utopian non-violent theoretical society here) societies.
so a city state is not a state?
states that were states did not become states till 350 years ago?
empires called states, but were not states?
i'm a bit confused here as to what a state would be.
greece had citizenships and constitutions and rights.
laecedemonian is another words for spartan
titles like kings are not attacched to any particular person, people aren't in anarchy whenever one king takes over from another king or inbetween the change of government
a polis is a political entity that seems fictional personhood.
wikapedia's definition of empire. it calls empires and federations different types of states.
An empire is a state with politico-military dominion of populations who are culturally and ethnically distinct from the imperial (ruling) ethnic group and its culture[3] — unlike a federation, an extensive state voluntarily composed of autonomous states and peoples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia
now looking at this, it says states sent people to negotiate rather than states were formed after the negotiations. it talks about imperial states and those were put in place before westphalia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_State
what difference does it make between government, , polis, nations , and states if people have been oppressed by governments, polis, and nations for thousands of years and states for only 350?
subsequent edit: http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind3b.html
i do think the study of different forms is interestings.
seems the article says non- state warfare is beating state warfare, but what is being oppresed by a tribal war leader different than oppressed by a state?
state as legal fictional person. legal personhood is still something that confuses me, seems contradictory.
people form and give rights to a state, then the state gives rights to corporations. but in the case it can be traced back to real people making real decisions about law. is the state formed by a consitution, which is formed by real people. the state would then be a real peice of paper, actions in the name of the state would be real people doing real actions and using that paper to justify them. emperor or king or president are all legal fictions, but each role is assumed by a real person. a state having rights, duties, and limitations, is rights, actions and limitations of the real people working in the name of the state.
http://p2pfoundation.net/Personhood_of_Corporations i found this, seems interesting. looks like it's power in a office rather than specefic person. but we have had power in offices rather than specific people for a long time, from popes to kings to presidents to mother to father. tribes have fictional titles such as cheif or leader , fictional titles and heiarchy passed down from generation that controls the tribe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juristic_person
people form and give rights to a state, then the state gives rights to corporations. but in the case it can be traced back to real people making real decisions about law.
the state would then be a real peice of paper, actions in the name of the state would be real people doing real actions and using that paper to justify them.
emperor or king or president are all legal fictions
but each role is assumed by a real person. a state having rights, duties, and limitations, is rights, actions and limitations of the real people working in the name of the state.
While it is common to list various typical corporate features, such as entity status, limited liability and perpetuity, there is really only one defining feature: entity status. Entity status means that certain legal rights and duties are held by the corporation as a separate, impersonal legal entity.
why do you think a chief is a social fiction? A chief is a person in whom other people invest authority and responsibility. I can point to a chief. I cant point to a state, only a head of state or an agent of state. Likewise, I can point to a tribe, I cant point to a corporation.
one can point to a person who serves as cheif, but not the concept that is cheif.
one can point to each individual in a tribe, but not to the concept of tribe. can point to a tree but not a forest
the job of cheif can change and be passed down, the individual cannot change to another individual
a state can't act, so we only have real people making and enforcing decisions, giving themselves limited liability and privaliges. a state is then a collective fund where if lawsuits against the state are won, money comes out of the pool rather than a limited .
state seems like a mental concept set to manipulate people in a collective way. all sorts of collective concepts have been invented to manipulate and control individuals. i would say cheif can fit into this as a cheif is not a cheif until powers are granted to him by the rest of the community. without recognition of powers, which are all mental concepts, the individuals would just be indiviudals rather than cheifs. people have to invest authority in a state as well, authority in a consitution, judges, elections, voting, whatever.
people can point to logos that represent thate state, the corporation, the tribe or other offical seals or physical traits used to identify members.
while a state may give a person immunity for a action done in the name of the state, others outside the state won't give the same immunity and it can force members of the state to change the rules of the state.
legal fiction requires courts or judgement so not recognizing courts takes away the legal fiction and then interaction can just be one initiation of agression or reasponse.
now wouldn't nap also be legal fiction or a fiction, as i can't point to nap so a court ruling towards nap would be ruling conceptialy?
Malachi, I think you're stuck in the Martin Van Creveld paradigm. Free your mind to different perspectives.
Appeal to personal incredulity? I'm not your teacher. Your one-track minded incapacity to fathom alternative perspectives isn't my burden.
I don't even think Van Creveld is as hardline about his theory as you. I'm sure he acknowledges it's one perspective among many from which compatible conclusions can be drawn.
The ability to see why a person makes an argument (even if you disagree with it, or fail to comprehend it) seems to be a sign of intelligence you're lacking. But I don't think you're incapable of it, and I don't think our views are strictly cotradictory. Help me bridge the communications gap and acknowledge where we're each coming from, so we can find the compatible truths and resolve any errors.
For example, I acknowledge that homo sapiens is capable of mutually voluntary exchange, but I also acknowledge the manifest presence of hegemonic dominance hierarchies (and therefore it's implied that the abilities to engage in and withstand both tendencies were selected for as survival mechanisms). So I can accept that both tendencies can and do coexist, and both are pervasive. But one is the base principle on which homo sapiens characteristically organizes societies. His societies aren't organized on mutually voluntary principles, though mutually voluntary exchange does occur within them. Rather, the hierarchies are hegemonic, nonvoluntary--even though mutually voluntary exchange does occur within them. Hence the prisoner analogy which, despite its failures, seems to me decent at conveying the compatibility of our theories: the possibility of a hegemonic dominance hierarchy wherein most of the exchange is mutually voluntary isn't what's disputed. Indeed, if the hegemony weren't hierarchical (unrestricted, total, universal), the society would break down in the absence of possibility for mutually voluntary exchange.
The ability to see why a person makes an argument (even if you disagree with it, or fail to comprehend it) seems to be a sign of intelligence you're lacking.
But I don't think you're incapable of it, and I don't think our views are strictly cotradictory. Help me bridge the communications gap and acknowledge where we're each coming from, so we can find the compatible truths and resolve any errors.
For example, I acknowledge that homo sapiens is capable of mutually voluntary exchange, but I also acknowledge the manifest presence of hegemonic dominance hierarchies
So I can accept that both tendencies can and do coexist, and both are pervasive, but one is the base principle on which homo sapiens characteristically organizes societies.
His societies aren't organized on mutually voluntary principles, though mutually voluntary exchange does occur within them.
Rather, the hierarchies are hegemonic, nonvoluntary--even though mutually voluntary exchange does occur within them.
Hence the prisoner analogy which, despite its failures, seems to me decent at conveying the compatibility of our theories: it is possible to have a hegemonic dominance hierarchy wherein most of the exchange is mutually voluntary. Indeed, if the hegemony weren't hierarchical (unrestricted, total, universal), the society would break down in the absence of possibility for mutually voluntary exchange.
I might add that cab21 did a passable job of challenging my statements on the state, even resulting in a minor correction. You havent even attempted such a thing, preferring instead argumentum ad hominem. Please drop the facade and get this discussion back on track.
I feel like you're trolling. You're asking me questions that don't need to be answered if you don't dispute my perspective. Consider:
- Obviously, neither of us deny that homo sapiens is capable of mutually voluntary exchange. - Do you deny that homo sapiens also organizes on bases other than the mutually voluntary kind, specifically into hegemonic dominance hierarchies? - Do you deny that the members of a hegemonic dominance hierarchical society can engage in mutually voluntary exchange?
I feel like you're trolling.
You're asking me questions that don't need to be answered if you don't dispute my perspective.
Do you deny that homo sapiens also organizes on bases other than the mutually voluntary kind, specifically into hegemonic dominance hierarchies?
Do you deny that the members of a hegemonic dominance hierarchical society can engage in mutually voluntary exchange?
My position is that homo sapiens tends to conquer. I'm unsure what your contention is, or why any questions you've asked so far are relevant, especially if you don't deny the following. I'll answer any relevant questions you have if you will please answer these two (relevant in the context of your disagreement to the following to the extent that such disagreement may be applied to my stated position):
- Do you deny that homo sapiens—in addition to organizing on mutually voluntary bases—also organizes on bases other than the mutually voluntary kind, specifically into hegemonic dominance hierarchies? (Given your understanding. Certainly you can fathom what hegemony, dominance, and hierarchy are. If not, default to dictionary.com.)
- Do you deny that members of a hegemonic dominance hierarchical society can engage in mutually voluntary exchange? (Members being the individuals of which the hierarchy is composed; a society being any composition of individuals who may be demonstrably associated) An acceptable rephrasing of the question may be: Do you deny that prisoners can engage in mutually voluntary exchange.
Anyone can disect these down to infinitely smaller questions; we could talk about the fact that humans are composed of atoms and that 2 years from now we may be composed of entirely different atoms and therefore what we are isn't what we're made of; we could think on any number of levels, but I'm not trying to be that complex. The questions seem to me to be pretty straightforward so please address them assuming you understand them to the best of your ability given your understanding modified only by qualifications I've included (e.g. the meaning of members/society for the purpose of that question). If you disagree, then I'd like to answer relevant questions and get on with finding where the confusion stems from since I don't believe it's realistic to deny the above questions.
so moses was not just a member of a tribe of levi, he was the tribe of levi? as obama is a citizen of illinous state, but he is not the state of illinois.
a tribe is a social group, so how can one person be a tribe? seems moses was a part of the tribe of levi and obama is a part of the state of illinois as a citizen and a part of the usa as a citizen.
we do have some religion states that have a goal of worldwide dominance. the pope and caliphate could be two examples i think with a goal of everyone under a hedgemonic heiarchy and expanding imperialistic power.
technology has allowed for states to have more power and build MAD weapons, which has turned most wars back into smaller intrastate wars or states with less technology. the states with more technology are more dominate , but places with less technology can be more dominating of the people with local fundamentalism and higher firepower then the rest of the tribe or village