NAP, State and Society

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.

I'm not trying to polemic-bomb you, I'm trying to draw your attention to (what I perceive as) the errors youre making. I appreciate your willingness to continue this discussion and I agree that we seem to be talking past each other. I might be a hypergenius but apparently not at communication.

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.

one problem here is the level of abstraction you employ. I cant think of many societies that were held together by violence. The soviet union, perhaps. It seems like youre suggesting that anytime there is a coercive government, that necessarily entails both the presence of a violent hierarchy and the absence of voluntaryism, for any person or population circumscribed by that govt's nominal borders, even going as far as applying the term "slave" to someone who carries the risk of victimization by said violent hierarchy. Because this person is now a slave, in your mind, they are incapable of establishing the suitability and fitness of voluntaryism. Well I dont agree. Going by the discussion so far, I think you would refuse to consider the amish to be a voluntaryist society, based on the fact that they live on territory that is nominally subject to the dictates of a government. I disagree, and believe that the amish have demonstrated the suitability and effectiveness of a voluntaryist social order, regardless of their sometime victimization by organized criminal elements.

*Note: this isn't voluntarism, I'm not sure why you brought up voluntarism.*

In a political context they are synonyms. However I will use your preferred term.

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.

you keep saying this, and I keep directing your attention to the vastly greater amount of voluntary actions, exchanges, and relationships in every society known to man, and you dismiss this glaring fact by labeling people as slaves and prisoners. I consider the magnitudinally greater proliferation of voluntary interactions to constitute domination of the history of homo sapiens.

It is the rule, voluntaryism is the exception.

no, it isnt. Not when measured using any conceivable metric. By the numbers, voluntary interaction is the rule. Throughout history, voluntary interaction is the rule. With regard to personal relations, voluntary interaction is the rule. 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.).

Voluntaryist societies either didn't exist or, if they did, were wiped out quick by hegemonic societies.

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.

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.

Since every society in the history of ever has conducted astronomically more voluntary interactions than coerced interactions, I cant see how you would say this. 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. Are you one of those people who thinks the existence of law enforcement officers is what prevents society from degenerating into chaos? If not, then go to the mall and tell me whether you see more trade or slavery. Then we can discuss the human genome.

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.

anytime you feel like taking my suggestion and reading a little bit about totalitarian agriculture vs hunter/gatherers (or other aboriginal societies) we can dispense with this little notion of yours. The "we" you are using is properly applied to one specific human culture out of tens of thousands that once existed. And, "we" outcompeted "them" because of technology and nutrition, not ruthlessness per se. Cf Daniel Quinn.

But most importantly, our own civilizations are founded on hegemonic principles.

yes our civilization (singular) was, and that differentiates us from aboriginal societies.

There aren't voluntaryist civilizations, because predisposition to hegemony/dominance has proved a better survival trait.

if that were the case, voluntary interaction wouldnt create more wealth than coerced interaction, and these people you dismiss as "slaves" would also turn to violence in order to get what they want. If you didnt allow yourself to dismiss the preponderance of evidence towards voluntaryism, you couldnt possibly believe any of this stuff. War even has laws and rules, dude. People are trying to kill each other and they can still value social cooperation with the very people they are trying to kill over unrestrained violence.

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.

I still feel as though my earlier assessment was correct. Youre assuming the conclusion by the way you characterize society, which is easy to do because you are operating at an abstract level, instead of grounding yourself firmly in concrete actions and methodological individualism. I have resisted asking you to define your terms, because I think we have been able to manage, but I must observe that it appears as though your thesis has morphed, originally you suggested that the innate human drive was conquest, and later you said formation of "hegemonic dominance hierarchies." the latter is more accurate, as the undeniable drive to conquer would be hard to establish in the face of so many humans who clearly do not conquer. If your thesis is the formation of hierarchies, then thats why making them into slaves would support your case. But they arent slaves, nor prisoners, simply citizens and subjects and many if not most people over the past 350 years actually identified with their nation enough for us to reject your conquest assertion.

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

I define "state" as a social fiction, a legal person, its a corporate person but its political rather than commercial. There have been various types of government for thousands of years, but it was always personal rather than abstract. You were a subject of the king. Not a subject of the kingdom. The state and the corporation were both invented right around the peace of westphalia. Cf. Martin van Creveld.

what about the greeks?

@ Serpentis-Lucis

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 history

Since every society in the history of ever has conducted astronomically more voluntary interactions than coerced interactions, I cant see how you would say this.

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.

can you support this assertion?

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.

Stop equivocating. You directly contrasted hegemony with voluntaryism, which you defined as a society. So it appears you have shifted your thesis again.

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.

no, thats incorrect. My argument is that when a given person or group of people engages in catallacty, that is evidence for the suitability and efficacy of voluntaryism. Your argument is to assert that they are "slaves" and therefore nothing they do or refrain from doing can be used as evidence for voluntaryism. Note that your argument begins with the appellation of the "slave" label. Youre begging the question.

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).

theres a lot wrong with this sentence, starting with your collectivist notion of social order. How does a social order win anything? Especially if some of the participants are slaves? What individuals are you referring to, and what did they win?

"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

oh yes it is. Voluntary exchange is a far more definitive characteristic of all human societies than hegemony. This is an example of your recurring petitio principii.

obviously, the voluntarily exchanging individuals are exchanging as individuals within the hierarchy.

"obviously"?? Obviously they are exchanging as individuals, voluntarily. As for your phrase "within the hierarchy," it should be obvious that you have abstracted these events out of reality and transposed them into your mental picture of events. How does someone exchange "within" a hierarchy? You mean voluntary exchange between members of the hierarchy? Or do you mean that, since the hierarchy exists, everything else that occurs is subordinate to 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.

actually I am saying most people arent slaves. I've been charitable enough to assume that you would flesh out your case, and so I havent asked you, but this is getting tiresome. What must one do, or have done to them, in order to be a "slave" in your diction?

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.

so you dont consider people (who may or may not be the victims of criminal acts at any given time, inasmuch as anyone may or may not) who organize themselves through voluntary acts to be an example of a voluntaryistic social order? How does one create a voluntaryistic social order, if not through voluntary behaviors, voluntary exchange, and voluntary relations?

1. See Rothbard.

see rothbard where? Surely you are aware that he was quite prolific.

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"

the decision of an individual (or multiple individuals) to define him or herself as a part of a nation is firmly within the scope of methodological individualism. This is because we are talking about how an individual behaves, identifies himself, his thought processes etc. I can point to any number of individuals and say "thats Mitt Romney. He describes himself as an American. He considers his participation in the political process (voting, taxes, etc) to be voluntary. Mitt gained his wealth through voluntary actions. Thats Roger Constituent. He considers himself an American, a Californian, and a Los Angelino. He considers his participation in the political process to be voluntary. He gained his wealth through voluntary actions." you cannot likewise point to a "social order" "winning" anything. You cant point to a "society" that is characterized by "hegemonic dominance hierarchies." you can only refer to a group of people and make that abstract characterization yourself. Also note that you have not done with with any group of people. I was going to move on but this response of yours is glaringly inadequate:

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"

Where did I do any of that? My analysis is grounded firmly in concrete observations. Where is the assumption, where is the abstraction? Are you suggesting that the vast majority of Americans do not self-identify as Americans? Establishing that might be your way to substantiate the appelation of "slave".

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.

in that case I will stop assuming that I understand which societies you are referring to and simply ask you to refer to some examples. Where can I find a slave/prisoner/whatever? Can you identify a hegemonic dominance hierarchy for me? Where has a voluntaryistic social order been obliterated by hegemonic dominance hierarchy?

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.

I'm going to have to ask you to explain what makes them slaves (aside from your saying so).

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?

if they are "driven" towards conquest (which you have used as synonymous with violent dominance etc) then they would be, you know, driven towards conquest not the behaviors contrary to that. I never said they "cant" I just observed that youre denying an identity. "People are driven towards conquest (even though they do a lot more cooperation, that doesnt matter) because we can look at the times they conquer (and ignore the times they cooperate) and conclude that, yep, based on our observations they are driven towards conquest."

Again, this highlights your misunderstanding. Even slaves are capable of mutually voluntary behavior.

what makes them slaves? From all accounts, they appear to be volunteers.

Yes. Yes we did.

on the basis of technology, food production, and population growth, yes.

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".

your ignorance is showing. This single totalitarian agriculturist society is the exception, based on hundreds of thousands of years of human history. The population size is a function of the food supply (as with any species). Right now there are an estimated 7 billion people, because we have spent the last 10,000 years turning the entire biosphere into progeny, due to a technological discovery a long time ago in mesopotamia. The vast majority of these human still inhabit voluntary social relations, but our way of life consists of homesteading property and turning every calorie and peptide into human food and human cells. We dont know how to live any differently. Not because "humans are genetically predisposed to agriculture and violent hegemony" but because we simply dont know how to live any differently. I appreciate your willingness to attempt to argue from concrete evidence this time but youre not very well informed on this topic.

Would you concede that the outperformance of voluntaryist societies by hegemonic dominance hierarchical ones is due to the "innately violent tendencies"?

voluntaryist societies outperform violent hegemonies at basically everything except the amount of violence produced. But nonagriculturalists do tend to suffer at the hands of the agriculturalists because the agriculturalists have more people and create more people. So insofar as violence is a component of their interactions, the non-agriculturalists will get the worst of it.

cab21:

what about the greeks?

When the Spartans went to war, they always spoke of "The Laecedemonians" going to war, never "Sparta." Sparta was a body politic in which every Spartan was a component. Sparta did not have an existence as a mental ideal, a social fiction, or a legal person.

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.

you get to pick the term, you dont get to determine what constitutes a real life example of its meaning.

When I speak of voluntaryism, I'm referring to a means of organizing society that rejects hegemonic dominance hierarchies.

thats too bad. I'm using it to refer to a means of organizing society through voluntary actions. According to you, I could organize society through unilateral dominance hierarchy and it would be voluntaryism. So, your usage is obviously fallacious.

If you want to speak of something different—mutually voluntary exchange—then maybe call it "mutually voluntary exchange" to avoid the unnecessary confusion.

mutual voluntary exchange is a big part of creating a voluntaryistic society. Of course theres also individual voluntary acts. But youre drawing a distinction that doesnt actually exist.

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.

yes, and I am pointing out that you are asserting a false dichotomy.

One of these two has outperformed the other in evolutionary terms—its members have spread their genes much more prolifically.

I have asked you for examples.

And so we see a world of statist societies

thats you. I keep trying to draw your attention to the fact that the world is filled with voluntaryist societies-that is, individuals who organize themselves and conduct their affairs through voluntary actions-far in excess of individuals who organize their affairs through hegemonic dominance hierarchies. Thus far your response has been confined to mislabeling and hand-waving.

instead of a world of anarchist (or voluntaryist, or free, or insert your utopian non-violent theoretical society here) societies.

You can ignore what you dont want to see, that doesnt make it go away. It simply makes you ignorant.

The end.

funny how many social theories come to an end when you ask their proponents to define their terms.

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

No, a polis is not a state.

states that were states did not become states till 350 years ago?

what do you mean? Countries existed, they didnt become nation-states until around the time of the peace of westphalia. Prior to that government was explicitly personal.

empires called states, but were not states?

what empires were called a "state"?

i'm a bit confused here as to what a state would be.

consider a sovereign corporation. Now are you still confused?

greece had citizenships and constitutions and rights.

did they have a social fiction endowed with legal personhood?

laecedemonian is another words for spartan

If you refer back to my above post, youll note that I was contrasting "laecedemonians" with "sparta." if sparta was a state, then the spartans would have said "sparta declares war" whereas they used a term to refer to the actual physical people, "the laecedemonians declared war."

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?

a polis is a political entity that seems fictional personhood.

what exactly gives you that impression?

wikapedia's definition of empire. it calls empires and federations different types of states.

wikiapedia's definition of state. It says there is no academic consensus as to the definition. I made it clear in my first reply to you here that this is how I define the word. Its useful to refer to the unit of political organization that is a legal fictional person with a different term than those units of political organization that came before it. Since "state" is 1) alread used that way by certain writers and thinkers whose opinions I value, and 2) etymologically, logically and cognitively suitable for the purpose, I define and use it that way. This is a good thing, because it educates people. Look, you didnt even know that humans used to be profoundly aware of the fact that government rules them and parasitically feeds on their wealth. Thats why they couldnt get away with nearly so much taxation back then (and the technology wasnt advanced, and capital hadnt accumulated like it has now, so there wasnt enough wealth to support this leel of taxation) but now people actually believe that they are part of the government. Did you see the video where the democrats said "government is the only thing that we all belong to"? Thats only possible because of the state.

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.

Thats a modern definition of "empire." its also valid, as the h.r.e. was oneof the political institutions that helped aristocrats to invent this concept of fictional person of government. But regions were part of the empire, people were ruled by the emperor (nominally). The emperor wasnt imaginary

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.

states assumed a monopoly on violence at that point. Prior to that the state was invented but it wasnt the (almost) exclusive sovereign entity in international law. Thats why its a convenient demarcation point. It has to do with war as much as politics. A political history might mark the birth earlier, like when the king of france was forbidden to wager burgundy by one of his ministers, being told "you are not France." I dont recall the year. I apologize for not giving you the proper context. Edited to add: 1528 Charles V challenged Francis I but Francis was not permitted, by his staff, to accept.

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?

you dont think its interesting to study different forms of government, social organization, and cultural identity? The means of oppression continually evolves.

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.

 

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?

youre missing the point. States are losing when they fight non-states. Its not about oppression per se its about winning and losing wars.

state as legal fictional person. legal personhood is still something that confuses me, seems contradictory.

it is not an intuitive concept:

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.

a small group of people, then somehow these decisions are binding for all sorts of other people. There is no opt-out clause etc.

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.

which is fallacious, a piece of paper doesnt justify anything it just conveys information.

emperor or king or president are all legal fictions

I think we are using different definitions of legal fiction.

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.

thats true and the state allows these people to limit their liability for these actions. An agent of the state isnt held responsible for actions he took that were authorized by the state (in essence, another person whose liability is also eliminated).

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.

the above quote is from your link, hopefully this clears up some of the confusion.

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?

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

every individual in the tribe is the tribe. The same cannot be said of state. Also, chiefs were chosen because of their personal qualities. There was a hereditary component but it was by no means certain.

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.

in one case, they are investing powers in a living breathing human. In the other case, they are investing powers in a conceptual entity.

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.

while they do ot ha e tp recognize theimmunity, in most cases they do, simply because they believe in the state. That is the purpose of the state, to cnfer legitimacy upon people who otherwise would have none.

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?

nap is a concept, there is no tangible existence, just people who think it and ascribe some sort of significance to its meaning. It can also be a social relation.

Malachi, I think you're stuck in the Martin Van Creveld paradigm. Free your mind to different perspectives.

Feel free to introduce me to a new perspective at any time. You might want to start by answering some of my questions above.

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.

Appeal to personal incredulity? I'm not your teacher. Your one-track minded incapacity to fathom alternative perspectives isn't my burden.

appeal to irony. I have spent hours of my time trying to understand your paradigm as it pertains to human history and when I ask you do do things that you should know are a prerequisite for productive discussion you clam up. I can easily fathom your half-witted internally contradictory perspective, you apparently cant formulate it rationally. But keep casting aspersions on my mental capacity mr. "aborigines are an historical exception."

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.

well you might have more to go on than your own assumptions if you would expand your horizons and open yourself up to different paradigms. As it is now you havent given the slightest indication of familiarity with the work of van Creveld.

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.

yes, youre right, I'm not able to read minds. In order for me to know why someone else made an argument they must tell me. Otherwise I am estimating. Are you suggesting that I am unusual in this respect? Do you conclude that I must open my mind to new perspectives on the basis of this telepathy?

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.

I have been trying to do this for days (see my above posts). But youre not my teacher so you dont feel obligated to answer questions like "whats your definition of society" when you want to tell me what societies have and have not prospered. Why dont you help me bridge the communications gap and stop employing argumentum ad hominem and petitio principii?

For example, I acknowledge that homo sapiens is capable of mutually voluntary exchange, but I also acknowledge the manifest presence of hegemonic dominance hierarchies

how do you define and circumscribe a hierarchy? Can one be part of a hierarchy against one's will?

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.

I'm fully aware that youre capable of accepting your own thesis. What has yet to be demonstrated is if you are capable of supporting it in any way whatsoever.

His societies aren't organized on mutually voluntary principles, though mutually voluntary exchange does occur within them.

I disagree. The vast majority of society in any region and epoch is organized according to mutually voluntary principles. You appear to believe that if someone is a victim of a crime, all their social organization is for naught.

Rather, the hierarchies are hegemonic, nonvoluntary--even though mutually voluntary exchange does occur within them.

I have asked you what you meant by "exchanging within a hierarchy." I cant imagine why someone interested in fruitful discussion would decline to answer my question, feel it is appropriate to accuse me of having a closed mind, and then repeat their earler statement without further elucidation. Perhaps you, for some reason, assumed my question wasnt serious? It was.

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.

is it possible to falsify your thesis or is it unfalsifiable? What constitutes a "society"? What constitutes a "hierarchy"? What would satisfy your requirements for an example of "rejecting hegemonic dominance hierarchies"? Is violence required or can someone nonviolently reject a "hegemonic dominance hierarchy"? You have proven adept at restating your thesis in slightly different verbage. You have not shown the same capacity for explaining yourself. Now that you have begun to attack me, rather than my ideas, I demand that you respond to my questions or be labeled as a troll.

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.

I cant imagine why, I have continually attempted to understand your perspective. I have made it clear where I disagree with your thesis and I have asked you questions on these points, giving you ample opportunity to make your case. Since you have declined to answer my questions, preferring instead to repeat yourself ad nauseum I think youre playing the troll here.

You're asking me questions that don't need to be answered if you don't dispute my perspective.

if the balance of my statements werent enough evidence, one might on that additional basis conclude that I dispute your interpretation of history.

Do you deny that homo sapiens also organizes on bases other than the mutually voluntary kind, specifically into hegemonic dominance hierarchies?

originally I would say "yes" but our discussion suggests that our interpretations of what constitutes a "hegemonic dominance hierarchy" are at odds, hence my repeated attempts to get you to define your terms. Since you wont do that, I can only say that I dont know if I agree that homo sapiens forms "hashemian hegemonic dominance hierarchies." perhaps they do, perhaps they dont, I need to have that term defined.

Do you deny that the members of a hegemonic dominance hierarchical society can engage in mutually voluntary exchange?

first I need to know what constitutes membership in a hegemonic dominance hierarchy.

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