Author Topic: Political THEORY thread (spinoff from Politics thread)  (Read 15561 times)

Offline MrWolfe

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 376
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Political THEORY thread (spinoff from Politics thread)
« Reply #20 on: October 04, 2015, 01:41:07 PM »
Let's be careful about the overwhelming majority opinion, comrade. Last I checked, anarchism isn't exactly popular aside from the odd V for Vendetta fan. :P

You missed my point. I'm not saying the popularity of an opinion is any measure of it's veracity, I'm saying the phrase "by all accounts" does not apply to a statement that contradicts most accounts on the subject. Hyperbole like that really trips my bullshit meter, it's a sign that someone is trying to convince you using rhetoric rather than facts--which usually means they don't have a lot of facts to back up their position.

As for the "proof" being presented, anybody got something more reliable than a couple of ex-stage magicians or a bunch of news articles? Those aren't exactly what I would consider reliable sources. :rolleyes

Since I've found myself in the odd position of defending two Catholic icons in recent memory, allow me to clarify: My opinions on the Catholic church are decidedly less than favorable, and I'm of the Malcom Reynolds school of thought that says anybody famous is/was probably "one kind of sumbitch or another." That said, I try to be skeptical even of information that plays to my cognitive bias, and demand more than rumor and propaganda before accepting something as fact.

In fact, as someone with wildly unpopular opinions I consider it more important to be rigorous in demanding sources and evidence because I know I'll be held to a higher standard when providing proof for my claims.

Oh, and P.S.: While an entertaining movie/comic series, V has fuck-all to do with anarchy. Killing people and blowing shit up is directly opposed to the principles of anarchism. Violent coercion is what governments do.

Humans evolved and spent most of our time in the Pleistocene, a epoch with frequent glacial periods.  So what you're saying is that peaceful primitive people in a long interglacial with reduced resource competition are examples of humans from the ice age, while violent primitives don't count because of the potential influence of civilization. It's a bit inconsistent.

The 100X land-use is my extrapolation of commonly cited estimates of population density before and after the Neolithic Revolution.  So, the amount of territory to sustainably feed one person would be roughly one square mile, based on the estimate that the population density hovered around one person per square mile for most of the Pleistocene, and then increased a hundredfold once agriculture caught on. The "1 person/sq mile" comes from here and the "hundredfold" I read here.

While the author of that section on the Quaternary Extinction Event seems pretty biased, most of the objections to the Overkill hypothesis are countered in the entries that bring them up. Also, most of these objections seem to be assuming that humans cause the extinctions by themselves, which I do not claim whatsoever. Like I said, climate change and overkill are not mutually exclusive. They helped each other along.

As for the rest: Humans are inherently violent.  Governments are not the cause of that and  one of the major functions of government is reducing and redirecting actual violence (as opposed to metaphorical indirect violence) and I don't think the social contract is dishonest because we all know what's expected and we all get something out of it.

EDIT: I was really tired when I wrote this.

No, that's what numerous experts in the field are saying--I was merely deferring to their expertise. :D

You do make a good counter-argument though. It's quite possible that the relative peace and luxury of modern hunter-gatherer tribes is the result of abundance that wasn't present during the Pleistocene. On the other hand, populations tend to expand in times of abundance, so it's also possible that the available resources per-capita isn't any better now than it was back then. I'd be curious to see some studies that address those factors.

The article you linked to from the Economist is interesting, but the author makes several claims that contradict established scientific opinion without providing any references or support. I also can't seem to find the name of the author credited anywhere, which makes it impossible to look up their credentials.

As for the last bit: I absolutely have to disagree. The function of governments has always been to protect the power and dominance of those in charge. The notion of governments as benevolent protectors is a fiction invented when pure force began to prove insufficient for keeping the masses in line, and doesn't hold up under scrutiny. To claim that government reduces violence when it is defined by the use of violence (the real, actual kind, in addition to the indirect and metaphorical kind) is just patently absurd. That's like saying that shooting people in the face reduces gun fatalities.

And the social contract? Let me ask you: How old were you when you first heard the term? Do you recall ever being asked whether you agreed to be governed? In statist societies there is no social contract, because a contract implies a choice made with informed consent.

That article focuses on the medical use of the term, but it is also an important concept in legal/ethical discussions. Put briefly, it holds that consent is only valid when given by someone who fully understands the consequences of their decision and is not acting under duress. Informed consent is why it's always considered wrong for a therapist to sleep with their patient or a high-school teacher to have sex with an underage student--minors are considered incapable of making an informed decision on the matter, and both teachers and therapists hold a position of authority which is considered automatically coercive.

Now take governments, whose authority you are conditioned to accept and see as "right" practically from birth. There is no rational way that such a decision can be said to have been made free of coercion unless you're an immigrant who has chosen to become a citizen and abide by that government's laws completely of your own free will--and not, for instance, because you are escaping conditions in your home country and don't have to option to simply live without any government because they own all the land/resources.

What's more, you're never actually given a choice. Contracts include clauses regarding methods of arbitration and penalties for violations. A true "social contract" would include not just the rules you are to follow, but the penalties for breaking them--fines, arrest, imprisonment, execution, etc. Governments do not give us a choice to refuse the contract. We are held to the terms, by force if necessary, regardless of whether we agree or not.
A little madness goes a long way...

Offline Solo

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1778
  • Sorcelator Supreme
    • View Profile
    • Solo's Compiled Works
Re: Political THEORY thread (spinoff from Politics thread)
« Reply #21 on: October 04, 2015, 03:05:42 PM »
Quote
As for the "proof" being presented, anybody got something more reliable than a couple of ex-stage magicians or a bunch of news articles? Those aren't exactly what I would consider reliable sources.

How would you characterize Christopher Hitchens, who is outspoken on his views of Mother Teresa? Or, well, anything on that list of criticism that bhu linked to?

Allow me to be blunt: What is the sort of thing you ask for?

Quote
Killing people and blowing shit up is directly opposed to the principles of anarchism.
Propaganda of the deed, comrade.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2015, 03:18:34 PM by Solo »
"I am the Black Mage! I cast the spells that makes the peoples fall down."

Offline stanprollyright

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 248
  • The Looks
    • View Profile
Re: Political THEORY thread (spinoff from Politics thread)
« Reply #22 on: October 05, 2015, 09:33:38 AM »
No, that's what numerous experts in the field are saying--I was merely deferring to their expertise. :D

You do make a good counter-argument though. It's quite possible that the relative peace and luxury of modern hunter-gatherer tribes is the result of abundance that wasn't present during the Pleistocene. On the other hand, populations tend to expand in times of abundance, so it's also possible that the available resources per-capita isn't any better now than it was back then. I'd be curious to see some studies that address those factors.

The article you linked to from the Economist is interesting, but the author makes several claims that contradict established scientific opinion without providing any references or support. I also can't seem to find the name of the author credited anywhere, which makes it impossible to look up their credentials.

Plenty of experts are saying the opposite too.  The Economist is pretty well-reputed, but yeah, it seems if you want the author and citations you'd have to get the print version, unfortunately.

Basically, there are two logical ways to go about this debate: the first is to discredit all modern/historically encountered tribes because the circumstances are invariably different. The climate is different, the fauna are different, and the fact that 99.9% of the human race grows its own food and controls most of the land makes it so there is no good 1:1 comparison available, no matter how isolated a tribe may seem.  This leaves us with very little evidence that isn't forensic. The forensics show there was definitely human-on-human violence in the Pleistocene, though because of small sample size it is impossible to say how much.

The second way is to ignore circumstances altogether because we're looking for generalized behavior patterns, and the circumstances of different prehistoric tribes at different times in different locations would also have varied wildly.  If we take this route, it's pretty clear that the few peaceful hunter-gatherers we've come across are exceptions rather than the rule, as a large majority of primitive peoples that have been discovered throughout history have been excessively violent.

The Rousseauian adherents have very little evidence other than a few cherry-picked examples and a weak induction that suffers from presentism (i.e. modern people go to war for these reasons and primitive people wouldn't have those reasons). Lack of perceived motive does not mean motive does not exist.

As for the last bit: I absolutely have to disagree. The function of governments has always been to protect the power and dominance of those in charge. The notion of governments as benevolent protectors is a fiction invented when pure force began to prove insufficient for keeping the masses in line, and doesn't hold up under scrutiny. To claim that government reduces violence when it is defined by the use of violence (the real, actual kind, in addition to the indirect and metaphorical kind) is just patently absurd. That's like saying that shooting people in the face reduces gun fatalities.

And the social contract? Let me ask you: How old were you when you first heard the term? Do you recall ever being asked whether you agreed to be governed? In statist societies there is no social contract, because a contract implies a choice made with informed consent.

That article focuses on the medical use of the term, but it is also an important concept in legal/ethical discussions. Put briefly, it holds that consent is only valid when given by someone who fully understands the consequences of their decision and is not acting under duress. Informed consent is why it's always considered wrong for a therapist to sleep with their patient or a high-school teacher to have sex with an underage student--minors are considered incapable of making an informed decision on the matter, and both teachers and therapists hold a position of authority which is considered automatically coercive.

Now take governments, whose authority you are conditioned to accept and see as "right" practically from birth. There is no rational way that such a decision can be said to have been made free of coercion unless you're an immigrant who has chosen to become a citizen and abide by that government's laws completely of your own free will--and not, for instance, because you are escaping conditions in your home country and don't have to option to simply live without any government because they own all the land/resources.

What's more, you're never actually given a choice. Contracts include clauses regarding methods of arbitration and penalties for violations. A true "social contract" would include not just the rules you are to follow, but the penalties for breaking them--fines, arrest, imprisonment, execution, etc. Governments do not give us a choice to refuse the contract. We are held to the terms, by force if necessary, regardless of whether we agree or not.

1) The social contract wouldn't work if everyone wasn't forced to follow it (governments' de facto exemption from their own rules notwithstanding).
2) Children are not penalized for breaches of social contract the same way as adults.  They are given free reign to do whatever their parents allow without legal interference until they are preteens, at which point they are subject to reduced punishment compared to adults that is designed to be more instructive than anything, and then they have their record expunged at 18.  So as far as the social contract goes you aren't part of it until you're an adult.
3) There are other countries with different social contracts, and places where there is no government and no law. You are allowed to go to these places to live.  No one is stopping you.  (not trying to be snarky or suggesting that you do so, just pointing out that the option to leave the contract exists).
4) Instead of thinking of the social contract as enforced by threat of violence, think it this way: the social contract forbids violence by you and against you. Without it, violence is something you simply would have to deal with. If you break the contract, you are therefore allowing violence to come to your person.
5) Do laws not include the punishments for breaking them?  Written into the legal code are classes of offense based on severity, with minimum and maximum sentences for every crime. You know how they talk about "mandatory minimums" for drug crimes? You know how cop shows always talk about "statutes of limitation" and say things like "25 [years] to life"? That's what they're talking about. (I'm assuming you're American because you've been talking about American politics in the other thread, but if not please correct me).
6) You seem to employ a lot of circular reasoning when it comes to governments and violence. "Governments are violent because I define violence by what governments do"

EDIT: 7) I do tend to agree with you about the violence inherent in the system, I just see that system as better than the alternatives in absolute terms.  I liken my perspective to that Churchill quote about democracy: "Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
« Last Edit: October 05, 2015, 10:09:14 AM by stanprollyright »
Goats are like mushrooms
If you shoot a duck I'm scared of toasters

Offline MrWolfe

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 376
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Political THEORY thread (spinoff from Politics thread)
« Reply #23 on: October 06, 2015, 04:56:48 PM »
Quote
As for the "proof" being presented, anybody got something more reliable than a couple of ex-stage magicians or a bunch of news articles? Those aren't exactly what I would consider reliable sources.

How would you characterize Christopher Hitchens, who is outspoken on his views of Mother Teresa? Or, well, anything on that list of criticism that bhu linked to?

Allow me to be blunt: What is the sort of thing you ask for?

Quote
Killing people and blowing shit up is directly opposed to the principles of anarchism.
Propaganda of the deed, comrade.

Back in college, I took a research class which focused extensively on how to evaluate sources. Put simply: Newspapers/magazines/websites/etc. are shit. As are unsubstantiated anecdotes--especially from an individual with an obvious bias. Ideally, what you want is a scholarly article published in a peer-reviewed journal--and even then a large dose of skepticism, critical thinking, and analysis are required to evaluate it. Corroborating evidence--such as journals/letters/etc. is a must, but even that can be misleading. Honestly, reliable information on a historical figure is remarkably hard to come by. Hell, it's hard to analyze any given person's intentions and motivations because we have no real way of seeing what goes on inside their heads, and even they may not fully understand what drives their actions.

In short, I don't believe it is possible to definitively prove a person's character or motivations. Hence why I look a little askance at people making such claims.

As for "propaganda of the deed," it is literally impossible to follow the principles of anarchism while engaging in coercive violence. Every philosophy has militant jackasses who claim to be adherents in order to justify their actions, but when your actions are directly opposed to a philosophy you cannot honestly claim to be following it. People who engage in violent terrorism against the state are no more "anarchists" than people who bomb health clinics and shoot doctors are "pro-life."

Plenty of experts are saying the opposite too.  The Economist is pretty well-reputed, but yeah, it seems if you want the author and citations you'd have to get the print version, unfortunately.

Basically, there are two logical ways to go about this debate: the first is to discredit all modern/historically encountered tribes because the circumstances are invariably different. The climate is different, the fauna are different, and the fact that 99.9% of the human race grows its own food and controls most of the land makes it so there is no good 1:1 comparison available, no matter how isolated a tribe may seem.  This leaves us with very little evidence that isn't forensic. The forensics show there was definitely human-on-human violence in the Pleistocene, though because of small sample size it is impossible to say how much.

The second way is to ignore circumstances altogether because we're looking for generalized behavior patterns, and the circumstances of different prehistoric tribes at different times in different locations would also have varied wildly.  If we take this route, it's pretty clear that the few peaceful hunter-gatherers we've come across are exceptions rather than the rule, as a large majority of primitive peoples that have been discovered throughout history have been excessively violent.

The Rousseauian adherents have very little evidence other than a few cherry-picked examples and a weak induction that suffers from presentism (i.e. modern people go to war for these reasons and primitive people wouldn't have those reasons). Lack of perceived motive does not mean motive does not exist.

Even those experts who oppose the view that hunter gatherers were peaceful and egalitarian acknowledge that it is the currently accepted scientific consensus. And while I've seen claims that the evidence that consensus is based on was flawed or biased, I have yet to see anyone provide a single ounce of support for those accusations. On the other hand, the "Rousseauian adherents", as you put it, provide numerous studies and examples to support their position.

Everyone wants to be the guy whose groundbreaking research proves the establishment wrong, but to overturn the current scientific consensus requires strong proof, not unsubstantiated slander. Maybe you've seen studies and articles that I haven't, which offer better methodology and evidence? The sources you've posted thus far haven't been terribly promising--such as the one that cited fortified settlements as archaeological evidence of warfare among nomadic hunter-gatherers.

Do you have any solid evidence that actually backs up your assertions that peaceful hunter-gatherers are an exception, and that the current scientific view was formed by cherry picking examples rather than an honest evaluation of the available evidence?

1) The social contract wouldn't work if everyone wasn't forced to follow it (governments' de facto exemption from their own rules notwithstanding).
2) Children are not penalized for breaches of social contract the same way as adults.  They are given free reign to do whatever their parents allow without legal interference until they are preteens, at which point they are subject to reduced punishment compared to adults that is designed to be more instructive than anything, and then they have their record expunged at 18.  So as far as the social contract goes you aren't part of it until you're an adult.
3) There are other countries with different social contracts, and places where there is no government and no law. You are allowed to go to these places to live.  No one is stopping you.  (not trying to be snarky or suggesting that you do so, just pointing out that the option to leave the contract exists).
4) Instead of thinking of the social contract as enforced by threat of violence, think it this way: the social contract forbids violence by you and against you. Without it, violence is something you simply would have to deal with. If you break the contract, you are therefore allowing violence to come to your person.
5) Do laws not include the punishments for breaking them?  Written into the legal code are classes of offense based on severity, with minimum and maximum sentences for every crime. You know how they talk about "mandatory minimums" for drug crimes? You know how cop shows always talk about "statutes of limitation" and say things like "25 [years] to life"? That's what they're talking about. (I'm assuming you're American because you've been talking about American politics in the other thread, but if not please correct me).
6) You seem to employ a lot of circular reasoning when it comes to governments and violence. "Governments are violent because I define violence by what governments do"

EDIT: 7) I do tend to agree with you about the violence inherent in the system, I just see that system as better than the alternatives in absolute terms.  I liken my perspective to that Churchill quote about democracy: "Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

1) I disagree. I've already explained some of the ways I think a purely voluntary society could enforce a shared set of rules without resorting to the initiation of force, and I've linked to an article which analyzes how existing voluntary societies do so. Are you claiming the reports and studies which show stateless tribes maintaining social order without violence are inaccurate? If so, what evidence do you base this assertion on?

2) You're missing the point. When a child becomes 18 they don't magically throw off all of the learned biases conditioned into them as children. A person who spent the most impressionable years of their life--nearly two decades--being taught that the values of the society that raised them are right and correct cannot honestly be said to be free from coercion when deciding whether or not to accept that society's rules and conditions. And yes, this would apply to stateless societies that teach voluntary cooperation rather than power-based dominance. All the more reason why the very concept of the social contract is deceptive--it's virtually impossible to imagine a scenario in which someone isn't being coerced into accepting it.

Also, minors being tried as adults is increasingly a thing--at least in the U.S.--and an adult's Juvenile records can be used against them in some circumstances.

(I don't mean to be snarky by using LMGTFY, it's just the only way I know of to link directly to a search result.)

3) There are plenty of people stopping me. Border guards, TSA officials, the entire system of bureaucrats, lawmakers, and political and economic power. Do you think someone can just walk over to another country and say "hey, I'd like to join?" Crossing borders legally requires a passport, which requires money, documentation, and free time to fill out forms and navigate bureaucracy. In most cases, it also requires a significant amount of money to pay for transportation. Likewise, most countries have very strict rules regarding conditions under which a foreigner can enter their country and limits on how long you can stay--to say nothing of applying for citizenship.

This is all done for a reason. The privileged and wealthy, who will find it easiest to move from one country to another, will also be the least likely to want to leave their current, relatively favorable position within the hierarchy--while the disadvantaged and oppressed whose exploitation supports the higher classes will find it nigh-impossible to obtain the means to leave, meet the requirements for citizenship in another nation, or gather the resources to survive on their own as stateless individuals. So no, a person can't just get up and leave if they don't agree with the way their government operates.

Also, if you actually know of any places where one could reasonably survive free of government authority, would you care to share? Because those are few and far between.

4) Those are some serious mental gymnastics there. Unfortunately that doesn't hold up. The state is defined by having a monopoly on violence. Further, lawbreakers are not considered outlaws who have voided their participation in the social contract and are no longer subject to it's protections.* (At least not in theory, in practice quite a few people seem to share this sentiment.) As you have pointed out, the law clearly defines what punishments lawbreakers may receive and who is authorized to administer them. That is not a case of someone who is "outside" the social contract.

In any event, a contract where one side makes the rules and any violation automatically voids all benefits is a farce to begin with.

*
(click to show/hide)

5) Yes I'm an American. I think you mean to ask if I'm from the U.S., since "America" is a continent that includes many different countries. It's cool, lot's of people make that mistake, especially here in the United States.

6) No, I would define violence as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation" and that's not my definition, it's the World Health Organization's.

How would you define violence? I assume robbery, kidnapping, and homocide count?

Governments are inherently violent. Find me a single one that isn't.

7) I get that you believe this, but your belief is not compelling evidence. Getting beaten by a wide belt might be preferable to a switch, but it's still a beating. Logically, no beating would be preferable.

Given the actual examples of stateless societies maintaining social order without violence or hierarchies, whose people are more peaceful, have more equality, and are more satisfied with their lives, any argument that governments are a necessary evil falls flat on it's face.

I'm not saying those societies are ideal, but they prove than anarchy can work--and that societies without governments are not automatically lawless, violent hellholes.
A little madness goes a long way...

Offline Solo

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1778
  • Sorcelator Supreme
    • View Profile
    • Solo's Compiled Works
Re: Political THEORY thread (spinoff from Politics thread)
« Reply #24 on: October 06, 2015, 07:14:41 PM »
Quote
Back in college, I took a research class which focused extensively on how to evaluate sources. Put simply: Newspapers/magazines/websites/etc. are shit. As are unsubstantiated anecdotes--especially from an individual with an obvious bias. Ideally, what you want is a scholarly article published in a peer-reviewed journal--and even then a large dose of skepticism, critical thinking, and analysis are required to evaluate it. Corroborating evidence--such as journals/letters/etc. is a must, but even that can be misleading. Honestly, reliable information on a historical figure is remarkably hard to come by. Hell, it's hard to analyze any given person's intentions and motivations because we have no real way of seeing what goes on inside their heads, and even they may not fully understand what drives their actions.

In short, I don't believe it is possible to definitively prove a person's character or motivations. Hence why I look a little askance at people making such claims.
Can we agree that it is possible to observe the effects of a person's actions and find the results wanting?

Quote
As for "propaganda of the deed," it is literally impossible to follow the principles of anarchism while engaging in coercive violence. Every philosophy has militant jackasses who claim to be adherents in order to justify their actions, but when your actions are directly opposed to a philosophy you cannot honestly claim to be following it. People who engage in violent terrorism against the state are no more "anarchists" than people who bomb health clinics and shoot doctors are "pro-life."
Would you argue that the CNT (anarcho-syndicalist) faction in the Spanish Civil War were not true anarchists?
« Last Edit: October 06, 2015, 07:24:28 PM by Solo »
"I am the Black Mage! I cast the spells that makes the peoples fall down."

Offline MrWolfe

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 376
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Political THEORY thread (spinoff from Politics thread)
« Reply #25 on: October 06, 2015, 10:41:51 PM »
Can we agree that it is possible to observe the effects of a person's actions and find them wanting?

Absolutely.

My real objection was to the way the argument was framed, rather than it's assertions. Ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority are hardly the cornerstones of rational debate.

Would you argue that the archano-syndicist faction in the Spanish Civil War were not true anarchists?

I don't know enough about that subject to have an opinion. I will say that it is possible to believe in a cause while acting in opposition to it, and there is a big difference between using violence to defend yourself and using violence to control others. Still, engaging in coercive violence is directly opposed to the principles of anarchy--even if it's done with the intention of supporting the cause of anarchism. (For example, to overthrow a fascist regime.)

To paraphrase George Carlin, committing violence in the name of anarchy is like screwing for virginity.  :p
A little madness goes a long way...

Offline Solo

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1778
  • Sorcelator Supreme
    • View Profile
    • Solo's Compiled Works
Re: Political THEORY thread (spinoff from Politics thread)
« Reply #26 on: October 06, 2015, 10:43:53 PM »
To paraphrase George Carlin, committing violence in the name of anarchy is like screwing for virginity.  :p
That depends, sir, on what the definition of "is" is.
"I am the Black Mage! I cast the spells that makes the peoples fall down."

Offline awaken_D_M_golem

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7639
  • classique style , invisible tail
    • View Profile
Re: Political THEORY thread (spinoff from Politics thread)
« Reply #27 on: October 07, 2015, 03:58:31 PM »
During the Sainting of Mother Teresa, Rome included
bringing in Hitchen as (literally?) the Devil's Advocate.

(googles a bit)
From ---> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-debate-over-sainthood/

There isn't as much room for dissenting opinions as there once was. The 1983 streamlining of canonization eliminated the traditional position of Devil's Advocate, whose job was to make the case against a given candidate. Nevertheless, the people who were handling Mother Teresa's cause wanted to be as thorough as possible, and decided to call as a witness her harshest critic.

"Somebody in the world had to represent the Devil pro-bono. And I was perfectly happy for that to be me," says author Christopher Hitchens, who recalls being thunderstruck when he was called to testify in Mother Teresa's case.


Hitch is a pretty high hurdle and is usually very precise and/or oddly funny.
iirc Rome said thank you for participating, and went ahead with her Sainthood.
Your codpiece is a mimic.

Offline Samwise

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Political THEORY thread (spinoff from Politics thread)
« Reply #28 on: October 10, 2015, 12:00:28 AM »
Given the actual examples of stateless societies maintaining social order without violence or hierarchies, whose people are more peaceful, have more equality, and are more satisfied with their lives, any argument that governments are a necessary evil falls flat on it's face.

I'm not saying those societies are ideal, but they prove than anarchy can work--and that societies without governments are not automatically lawless, violent hellholes.

Except I think even that requires significant parsing of the definition "stateless" to work.
Just because a particular society doesn't have a government or otherwise define itself in any of the generally accepted "standard" ways does not mean it does not actually have a government, or define itself as a distinct entity in some way or other.
I note this in particular to the definition of "violence" you endorsed and how it conflicted with things in hunter-gather societies from one of the links you presented. Thus:

Quote
They would not tolerate anyone's boasting, or putting on airs, or trying to lord it over others. Their first line of defense was ridicule. If anyone - especially if some young man - attempted to act better than others or failed to show proper humility in daily life, the rest of the group, especially the elders, would make fun of that person until proper humility was shown.

They used humiliation, hurting a person's feelings, to deny him a sense of accomplishment.
They did this, led by a particular group, acknowledged within the community as having a special status, and thus have a hierarchy.
They employed this violence as a means of social control.

That fills pretty a good number of the categories that you condemn more conventional states on.
How then are these hunter-gatherer societies actually "stateless"?
How do they actually function without the use of "violence"?
How do they exist without a hierarchy?
The answer is: they do not. They are just like any other society.
And so it is the claim that one can do without a "government" that falls flat on its face.


As for more general issues raised in the thread:

First and foremost, social science isn't a "science" like other sciences. There is no absolute answer as in math.
In math, the answer to an equation is either right or wrong, with no other options. You may not be able to solve the equation currently, but if it has an answer it has only one and all others are wrong.
In social "science", any nonsense you can get someone else to accept is right.
I say that as someone who calls himself a socio-historian.
As such, any citation is an appeal to authority, and consensus is a humorous footnote.

Why would hunter-gatherer societies today be more peaceful?
Probably because they are protected and can afford to be peaceful.
It is quite easy to survive as a pacifist when a bunch of heavily armed lunatics are willing to slaughter anyone who pesters you.

Why did hunter-gatherers become farmers?
Probably not to eat better. Studies have shown that most early agrarian societies suffered from more severe malnutrition than hunter-gatherers and pastoralists at the time. (By the by, how come pastoralists are getting overlooked in all of this?)
Early farming was in no way as secure a lifestyle as modern farming. For that matter, middle and late farming were no way as secure lifestyles as modern farming. The only reason we have had any famines due to crop failure since 1970 is because of political manipulations. From 1900 to 1970 it was about half political and half natural. Before then it was almost all natural, and there were a LOT of famines due to crop failures.

As for whether humans can be horrible, greedy, selfish creatures and still not run around slaughtering each other on a constant basis, has anyone ever read "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" by Adam Smith? He sets forth a rather functional construct for why.

In regards to the development of government to empower those already in power, I disagree. The progress of law within the Anglosphere is a prime example otherwise.
"Murder" as a crime does not exist to protect the state.
It derives from efforts to divert blood feuds from consuming small groups.
At first it consisted of "weregild" - "man gold" - a price paid as compensation for killing someone else, whether it be murder or manslaughter or outright accident, often paired with outlawry and exile.
It developed to include scaling by social status, and could be dependent on the same - not only could you get off with just a fine if you or your family or clan were rich enough, but you could also use connections to make a show off force to get off entirely.
Later this evolved to include collective responsibility and a mutual obligation on the social scale. Lower ranked people kept the "king's peace" while the king would retaliate against murderers. Along the way it brought in the "hue and cry" and "posse comitatus" as community law enforcement against criminals.
These developed to independents judges and juries as well as dedicated police forces.
Not to keep those in power secure in their power, but to reduce the need for personal/family/clan retaliation and feuds. That is why when Rule of Law breaks down, or is even perceived to break down, you hear more rhetoric of vigilante justice and personal self defense.

Offline MrWolfe

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 376
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Political THEORY thread (spinoff from Politics thread)
« Reply #29 on: October 10, 2015, 03:35:54 PM »
Except I think even that requires significant parsing of the definition "stateless" to work.
Just because a particular society doesn't have a government or otherwise define itself in any of the generally accepted "standard" ways does not mean it does not actually have a government, or define itself as a distinct entity in some way or other.
I note this in particular to the definition of "violence" you endorsed and how it conflicted with things in hunter-gather societies from one of the links you presented. Thus:

Quote
They would not tolerate anyone's boasting, or putting on airs, or trying to lord it over others. Their first line of defense was ridicule. If anyone - especially if some young man - attempted to act better than others or failed to show proper humility in daily life, the rest of the group, especially the elders, would make fun of that person until proper humility was shown.

They used humiliation, hurting a person's feelings, to deny him a sense of accomplishment.
They did this, led by a particular group, acknowledged within the community as having a special status, and thus have a hierarchy.
They employed this violence as a means of social control.

That fills pretty a good number of the categories that you condemn more conventional states on.
How then are these hunter-gatherer societies actually "stateless"?
How do they actually function without the use of "violence"?
How do they exist without a hierarchy?
The answer is: they do not. They are just like any other society.
And so it is the claim that one can do without a "government" that falls flat on its face.

You're missing a key point here: In the example you quoted, the members of the tribe are not using ridicule to deny anyone a justly deserved sense of accomplishment. This tactic was explicitly used in response to "boasting, or putting on airs, or trying to lord it over others." Also, there is a huge difference between some good-natured ribbing when someone gets too full of themselves, and actually inflicting psychological harm.

This is not an act of aggression against an innocent victim, it is a non-violent means of defense against someone who is attempting to assert dominance over their peers. The elders (defined by the fact of their age, not by any special social position) are seeking to maintain equality between members of the tribe, not to establish any hierarchical authority.

I think you're seeing this through the lens of our own society, where dominant figures use phrases like "not showing proper humility" to mean "not being properly subservient." Now, if the tribe was using ridicule to undermine a young man's self esteem in order to keep him brow-beaten and subservient, then yes, that would qualify as violent coercion--but that isn't how the situation is described.

[edit]
Crap, accidentally posted while still typing a response. Will edit in the rest in a moment.
[/edit]
A little madness goes a long way...

Offline Samwise

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Political THEORY thread (spinoff from Politics thread)
« Reply #30 on: October 10, 2015, 08:56:24 PM »
You're missing a key point here: In the example you quoted, the members of the tribe are not using ridicule to deny anyone a justly deserved sense of accomplishment. This tactic was explicitly used in response to "boasting, or putting on airs, or trying to lord it over others." Also, there is a huge difference between some good-natured ribbing when someone gets too full of themselves, and actually inflicting psychological harm.

"Boasting" and "putting on airs" are entirely subjective.
More, someone making a significant kill may well be "entitled" to boast and put on airs about it. I'd say doing something that feeds everyone for 2-3 days is a noteworthy accomplishment deserving of praise. It certainly shouldn't require false humility to avoid being subjected to general humiliation, which is something that the article very much does indicate was done as well if a successful person was not "properly" self-deprecating on their own.
Yes, there is a difference between good-natured ribbing. The article makes it quite clear that such was not good-natured at all, but intended to bring the person down and keep them in their place.

Quote
This is not an act of aggression against an innocent victim, it is a non-violent means of defense against someone who is attempting to assert dominance over their peers.

It is absolutely an act of aggression against an innocent victim - all someone has to do is be successful at something and not pretend they are still as equally worthless as everyone else.
Further, is the person attempting to assert dominance, or do the other merely fear such an attempt might be made? Is this truly "defensive bullying", or active, "pre-emptive bullying", under a pretense of subverting some theoretical attempt at dominance?

Quote
The elders (defined by the fact of their age, not by any special social position) are seeking to maintain equality between members of the tribe, not to establish any hierarchical authority.

If they are distinguished by a characteristic enough to have a specific descriptor then they do indeed have a special social position.
"Maintaining equality" is in and of itself a recognition that a hierarchy exists, sufficient to functionally create one even in the process of denying it, as to stop someone from rising above requires acknowledging that they have so risen, while to boost up anyone who has fallen behind equally requires noticing they have so lagged.

Quote
I think you're seeing this through the lens of our own society, where dominant figures use phrases like "not showing proper humility" to mean "not being properly subservient." Now, if the tribe was using ridicule to undermine a young man's self esteem in order to keep him brow-beaten and subservient, then yes, that would qualify as violent coercion--but that isn't how the situation is described.

And I think you are seeing this through the lens of your own idealized society, where position is presumed to note exist at all, and positions of authority can be parsed away by proper un-titles.
In fact the tribe is very much using ridicule to undermine some theoretical young man's self-esteem to keep him brow-beating and subservient, but you define that as egalitarian and so have no issues with it.

Indeed the whole thing highlights the problems of observer bias, coupled with the twin oxymorons of moral equivalence and cultural arrogance.
Mind you, not that I'll claim to be immune to it, but it essential to understand that:
1. We all view events through a filter of our own beliefs and biases.
2. Not everything is of equal moral value. If it were, then there is no grounds for condemning any preference other than your own, especially those in direct contradiction.
3. Proceeding from the two previous, cultural supremacy is as false as cultural idolization. Just because another culture is different is not a priori evidence that it is either inherently, objectively, or demonstrably superior or inferior, only that it is different. It must still be judged by subjective standards that are as objective as can be humanly managed. Skipping that inevitably leads to glossing over the flaws in both cultures and giving each its fair assessment.

Offline MrWolfe

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 376
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Political THEORY thread (spinoff from Politics thread)
« Reply #31 on: October 10, 2015, 11:04:36 PM »
Okay, I'll put the rest of my previous post here rather than editing the first one.

As for more general issues raised in the thread:

First and foremost, social science isn't a "science" like other sciences. There is no absolute answer as in math.
In math, the answer to an equation is either right or wrong, with no other options. You may not be able to solve the equation currently, but if it has an answer it has only one and all others are wrong.
In social "science", any nonsense you can get someone else to accept is right.
I say that as someone who calls himself a socio-historian.
As such, any citation is an appeal to authority, and consensus is a humorous footnote.

I expressed a similar sentiment to some of my engineering friends after my first sociology class. Their response was: "Not if you're taking the higher-level math classes." In the more advanced areas of mathematics, problems frequently do not having a single definite correct answer.

I'm still of the opinion that the social sciences are not always held to quite the same level of scientific rigor as the physical ones, but it would be a mistake to claim that sociology does not involve the same process of research->hypothesis->experimental verification->analysis->review as other sciences. Particularly when you provide no support for these claims other than stating that you call yourself a socio-historian.

Why would hunter-gatherer societies today be more peaceful?
Probably because they are protected and can afford to be peaceful.
It is quite easy to survive as a pacifist when a bunch of heavily armed lunatics are willing to slaughter anyone who pesters you.

[Citation Needed]

Are you claiming that national governments are protecting modern hunter-gatherer tribes? Because that would be hilarious.

Why did hunter-gatherers become farmers?
Probably not to eat better. Studies have shown that most early agrarian societies suffered from more severe malnutrition than hunter-gatherers and pastoralists at the time. (By the by, how come pastoralists are getting overlooked in all of this?)
Early farming was in no way as secure a lifestyle as modern farming. For that matter, middle and late farming were no way as secure lifestyles as modern farming. The only reason we have had any famines due to crop failure since 1970 is because of political manipulations. From 1900 to 1970 it was about half political and half natural. Before then it was almost all natural, and there were a LOT of famines due to crop failures.

Why hunter-gatherers turned to agriculture isn't really relevant to the discussion, though it is an interesting question. You are correct that the initial switch did lead to malnutrition, but from what I've read that was because the foods being cultivated did not supply all the same nutrients as their previous diet, even though the quantity of food being produced was greater. Same thing happens to modern-day vegetarians: try to subsist primarily on grains and vegetables and you're liable to develop some vitamin deficiencies. There weren't exactly a lot of nutritionists back in the Neolithic to teach people how to avoid that or prescribe supplements.

Also, I don't think anyone has been claiming that early farming was as reliable or productive as the modern variety. The key points were that it allowed a settled, rather than nomadic, lifestyle and that it became successful enough to allow populations to grow beyond what a hunter-gatherer lifestyle could have supported.

Pastoral societies are an interesting issue, however. They combine the semi-nomadic qualities of early hunter-gatherers with the greater focus on maintaining active control over their environment and food sources common to farming communities. Offhand I'd assume they would be less inclined towards the type of wealth disparity seen in agrarian tribes since the need to be mobile limits how much each member can accumulate, but more likely to see their lands and herds as "property" to be defended with violence. However, I haven't studied much about such cultures so I really wouldn't know. Do you have any information to share on the subject?

As for whether humans can be horrible, greedy, selfish creatures and still not run around slaughtering each other on a constant basis, has anyone ever read "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" by Adam Smith? He sets forth a rather functional construct for why.

In regards to the development of government to empower those already in power, I disagree. The progress of law within the Anglosphere is a prime example otherwise.
"Murder" as a crime does not exist to protect the state.
It derives from efforts to divert blood feuds from consuming small groups.
At first it consisted of "weregild" - "man gold" - a price paid as compensation for killing someone else, whether it be murder or manslaughter or outright accident, often paired with outlawry and exile.
It developed to include scaling by social status, and could be dependent on the same - not only could you get off with just a fine if you or your family or clan were rich enough, but you could also use connections to make a show off force to get off entirely.
Later this evolved to include collective responsibility and a mutual obligation on the social scale. Lower ranked people kept the "king's peace" while the king would retaliate against murderers. Along the way it brought in the "hue and cry" and "posse comitatus" as community law enforcement against criminals.
These developed to independents judges and juries as well as dedicated police forces.
Not to keep those in power secure in their power, but to reduce the need for personal/family/clan retaliation and feuds. That is why when Rule of Law breaks down, or is even perceived to break down, you hear more rhetoric of vigilante justice and personal self defense.

See, what you just described sounds to me like a perfect example of what I was talking about. You go from a system of mutual agreement to an increasingly stratified system where an ever-shrinking group at the top has the authority to use violence while those below them do not.

Does it not occur to you that the "King's peace" protects the king and his power? Blood feuds reduce the number of subjects supporting his empire, while peasants who are accustomed to using violence are harder to keep in line and pose a greater threat of rebellion.

"Murder" is considered a crime in modern statist societies for the same reason that suicide is outlawed and defecting to another (or no) country is made so difficult--your life is not your own, it belongs to your rulers.

When you set yourself above others using force of arms (actual or implied), you're painting a giant neon sign that says "violence is the way to get ahead." If you're a smart ruler, the first thing to do is convince your subjects that violence is inherently bad so they won't follow your example and use violence against you.

In a stateless society, discouraging violence is less of a concern, because force and aggression-based dominance are not explicitly rewarded by the social structure.

As for the other stuff you posted, I'm just going to say this:

Viewing yourself as "better" than someone else is never justified.

This isn't just some personal, subjective moral belief. History has demonstrated that valuing one person's life as less than another's leads to atrocities. It's called dehumanization and it is the basis of every form of bigotry and prejudice known to man. So long as you agree that bigotry and oppression are bad things, it rationally follows that ideals which foster bigotry and oppression are also morally objectionable--and whether it's openly stated or not, hierarchical societies carry the implicit assumption that some people are worth less than others.

That is why I'm an anarchist.
A little madness goes a long way...

Offline Samwise

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Political THEORY thread (spinoff from Politics thread)
« Reply #32 on: October 11, 2015, 01:54:27 AM »
Okay, I'll put the rest of my previous post here rather than editing the first one.

I expressed a similar sentiment to some of my engineering friends after my first sociology class. Their response was: "Not if you're taking the higher-level math classes." In the more advanced areas of mathematics, problems frequently do not having a single definite correct answer.

I suspect that is more due to them not actually knowing the answers than to questions having multiple answers, but then I really suck at advanced math. (Which is why I became a socio-historian.)

Quote
I'm still of the opinion that the social sciences are not always held to quite the same level of scientific rigor as the physical ones, but it would be a mistake to claim that sociology does not involve the same process of research->hypothesis->experimental verification->analysis->review as other sciences. Particularly when you provide no support for these claims other than stating that you call yourself a socio-historian.

The note that I call myself a socio-historian is to indicate that I do not exempt myself from the disdain I express for the field.
Seriously. While I do classify myself as an expert in the field, and really have studied enough to merit some consideration when I present actual facts of history, I in no way expect any sort of automatic deferral to my conclusions. While I certainly possess enough ego to think I'm right, my insanity in no way includes believing I'm "proven" right.

As for supporting it, how many references to exploded social theories do you want?
I forget who pointed out the dispute over Chagnon's work on the Yanomamo (which by chance I happened to be assigned during my brief foray into formal study of the subject), but there's a start.
Then there are the issues with Mead's work on Samoa.
The whole realm of eugenics and related issues, with The Bell Curve being a present incarnation.
The Colonialism debate, particularly the extremes of both sides.
It is less a question of a lack of scientific rigor as that it is simply a field almost completely subverted to ideological ends rather than any functional goals. That such winds up encouraging incessant attacks on established views rather than legitimate direct research, and using influence to corrupt the review process to accomplish such, is more a symptom of the problem than the actual problem.

Quote
[Citation Needed]

Are you claiming that national governments are protecting modern hunter-gatherer tribes? Because that would be hilarious.

The Brazilian tribes once again, with the entire dispute over "contamination" by researchers.
You may find the efforts to be so feeble as to be laughable, and they may well be, but the fact that these groups continue to exist at all in any accessible areas is a priori evidence that they are being protected to at least some degree.

Quote
Why hunter-gatherers turned to agriculture isn't really relevant to the discussion, though it is an interesting question.

Ultimately, it is.
And it is critical for any analysis to understand why, as it is the foundation of understanding why everyone didn't switch over.

Quote
You are correct that the initial switch did lead to malnutrition, but from what I've read that was because the foods being cultivated did not supply all the same nutrients as their previous diet, even though the quantity of food being produced was greater. Same thing happens to modern-day vegetarians: try to subsist primarily on grains and vegetables and you're liable to develop some vitamin deficiencies. There weren't exactly a lot of nutritionists back in the Neolithic to teach people how to avoid that or prescribe supplements.

Most people, no matter how scientifically "unsophisticated" (which is my best attempt at a functional descriptor but even that falls short) are capable of understanding when they are dying of malnutrition and taking action to correct the situation. Anything from continuing pastoral habits to some extent to manipulating their foods to seeking other foods. While legends may construct a supernatural source of something like the Three Sisters, it is much more reasonable to expect that people kept eating different things until they found the combination that kept them alive.
I would note, this is again an element of cultural arrogance, specifically technological arrogance, presuming that a less technologically adept people are somehow less capable regarding certain things. Don't project what we need to know we are malnourished onto the people who first adopted agricultural ways.

Quote
Also, I don't think anyone has been claiming that early farming was as reliable or productive as the modern variety. The key points were that it allowed a settled, rather than nomadic, lifestyle and that it became successful enough to allow populations to grow beyond what a hunter-gatherer lifestyle could have supported.

Actually the key points are that it required a greater degree of social organization than that of nomadic hunter-gatherers or pastoralists, along with promoting a number of key technological advancements.
As it goes, farming doesn't "allow" a settled lifestyle, it requires it.

Quote
Pastoral societies are an interesting issue, however. They combine the semi-nomadic qualities of early hunter-gatherers with the greater focus on maintaining active control over their environment and food sources common to farming communities.


While they do focus on control of food sources, they express as little active control over the environment as hunter-gatherers. It was only later animal husbandry that employed environmental control.

Quote
Offhand I'd assume they would be less inclined towards the type of wealth disparity seen in agrarian tribes since the need to be mobile limits how much each member can accumulate, but more likely to see their lands and herds as "property" to be defended with violence. However, I haven't studied much about such cultures so I really wouldn't know. Do you have any information to share on the subject?

Well, first remember that "wealth" is a thoroughly subjective term.
That said, their herds, as their wealth, were very much to be defended with violence. Equally they were often to be acquired by violence.
In terms of other wealth, it really depends. How much would you value a high quality, composite, recurved bow? A string of 4 horses rather than 2? (Contrasted against additional sheep or cattle.) An ornately carved leather saddle? A yurt that can withstand a Siberian blizzard? A handful of beaten silver chains with carved agates? And probably most critically, the oaths of 10/100/1000 leaders of lesser bands.
And then contrasted against that, there is the number of pastoralists that invaded, conquered, and were assimilated by neighboring agriculturalists, with of course a previous period of raiding and collecting loot and tribute from said agriculturalists.
Did Genghis Khan and his family and closest allied leaders enjoy as great a wealth disparity from other Mongols as existed in some agricultural groups before they conquered China?
(And of course that should suggest the Genghis Khan quote used in the Conan movie as to what is best in life as a example of different standards of wealth.)

Quote
See, what you just described sounds to me like a perfect example of what I was talking about. You go from a system of mutual agreement to an increasingly stratified system where an ever-shrinking group at the top has the authority to use violence while those below them do not.

Not really.
The question of direct, personal, self-defense remains (mostly) intact.
It is only retaliatory violence above and beyond self-defense that has become limited because of the evolution of the agreements.
It is critical to note this distinction which you want to gloss over.

Quote
Does it not occur to you that the "King's peace" protects the king and his power? Blood feuds reduce the number of subjects supporting his empire, while peasants who are accustomed to using violence are harder to keep in line and pose a greater threat of rebellion.

Does it not occur to you that the "King's peace" protects the people from casual violence? Blood feuds threaten bystanders and "innocents" (non-combatants) as well as active participants. Meanwhile, to have an army the rulers must have subject accustomed to using violence.
Such a circumstance defined a very real two-way obligation. A king unable to enforce his declared peace was very soon not a king at all, particularly as kingship among the Anglo-Saxons in England was significantly more elective than directly inheritable. If you couldn't secure justice people were more than happy to back someone who could, be it a direct relative, a collateral relative, an alternative family, or even a long-time rival.

Quote
"Murder" is considered a crime in modern statist societies for the same reason that suicide is outlawed and defecting to another (or no) country is made so difficult--your life is not your own, it belongs to your rulers.

Which presumes that all "statist" societies are absolutely equal in their expectations and requirements of members.
They aren't.
And just as you repudiate "violent" anarchists there are more than a few of us who believe in an ordered society who reject utterly, both on ideological and practical grounds, the demands of those who believe in more ordered societies. As you do not wish to be lumped together do not lump others together.

Quote
When you set yourself above others using force of arms (actual or implied), you're painting a giant neon sign that says "violence is the way to get ahead." If you're a smart ruler, the first thing to do is convince your subjects that violence is inherently bad so they won't follow your example and use violence against you.

As it happens, while convincing fellow citizens that violence is not the way to get ahead, the particular social ideology I believe also concedes that citizens have an inherent right to use violence against the government if said government exceeds its lawful bounds.
Hmmm . . .

Quote
In a stateless society, discouraging violence is less of a concern, because force and aggression-based dominance are not explicitly rewarded by the social structure.

Sure they are - who exactly is going to stop it?
By what justification?
Right, people using force and aggression to defend themselves.
Ultimately, violence really does solve many things.

Quote
As for the other stuff you posted, I'm just going to say this:

Viewing yourself as "better" than someone else is never justified.

Sure it is.
I am quite justified in viewing myself as better than a rapist.

Quote
This isn't just some personal, subjective moral belief. History has demonstrated that valuing one person's life as less than another's leads to atrocities.


Non-sequiter - believing yourself to be "better" than someone is not identical to valuing their life less.
I am "better" at history than my friend.
He is "better" at being an electrician than I am.
If we were both hired to assist people in learning history, clearly I should be in charge. Conversely, if we were both hired to wire a house, he should be in charge. In fact, he should stay outside for the history class and I should be sent to the next county for safety purposes to wire the house.
This doesn't make either of us more or less valuable as a human than the other.
It does make our labor more or less valuable at different tasks, and thus our relative status within those fields higher or lower.

You cannot use a term as general as "better" in such discussions without significant explanation of the scope of the context.
Certainly no one should be "better" before the law.
But to disparage any concept or form of hierarchy as a consequence?

Quote
It's called dehumanization and it is the basis of every form of bigotry and prejudice known to man.

Well, in some cases, that is still justified.
Remember my confidence that I am better than a rapist?
I certainly regard said individual as less human than I am, and well deserving of death.
The social issue arises when it is determined if I alone have the power to accuse, judge, and sentence any individual for rape on my own, or whether such things must be decided by the community as a whole.
But I, and ever other functioning member of the community, can absolutely view ourselves as better than rapists without engendering any automatic dehumanization of any group, or even individual accused of rape.

And I would note that even in a stateless society people must make similar judgments as to whether some act makes a person less worthy of participation within their society, including meriting punishment. If they do not, then they can never find any way to resist someone using violence to establish supremacy over them.
This is the Catch-22 that people who declare themselves incapable of passing judgment but wish to challenge the authority of others to pass judgment find themselves in. What gives "me" the authority to decide? "You" do, by abdicating all responsibility of judgment.

Quote
So long as you agree that bigotry and oppression are bad things, it rationally follows that ideals which foster bigotry and oppression are also morally objectionable--and whether it's openly stated or not, hierarchical societies carry the implicit assumption that some people are worth less than others.

Not at all.
You are viewing "worth" in an extremely limited fashion - exclusively that of imperium.
That is not the only manifestation of a hierarchical system.
It may well be an inevitable end of certain hierarchical systems, suggesting that such systems must be regularly "reset" in some fashion (new elections, new constitutions, violent revolutions), but it does not mandate the kind of absolute and dehumanizing aspects you assert.

There is nothing inherently wrong with recognizing expertise and accomplishment. By generalizing "hierarchies" as solely expressing such distinctions as essential statements of humanity rather than acknowledgements of different personal ability, you create a society that discourages achievement, and thus overall advancement and development of wealth.

Equality sounds all well and good - until it is equally poor. Just how many hunter-gatherers can produce an internet capable device?
A lack of recognizing distinctions sounds wonderful - until the plumber is the guy treating your appendicitis and the sewer worker the one bringing you water to drink. Just how many hunter-gatherers have a life expectancy above 40?

Offline Samwise

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Political THEORY thread (spinoff from Politics thread)
« Reply #33 on: October 11, 2015, 07:39:03 PM »
Quote
Particularly when you provide no support for these claims other than stating that you call yourself a socio-historian.

By serendipity, I came across this in my daily surfing:

http://www.intercollegiatereview.com/index.php/2014/07/21/the-fifty-worst-books-of-the-20th-century/

The introduction sets it up, the list lays it out.

That's what I mean by the problems within the social sciences.
Those are highlights from a century of pseudo-science, fraud, and ideolgical corruption.
And that's before you delve into the realm of the ideologues attacking their competitors within the broad camps.

Offline stanprollyright

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 248
  • The Looks
    • View Profile
Re: Political THEORY thread (spinoff from Politics thread)
« Reply #34 on: October 11, 2015, 09:30:59 PM »
OK, I'm back.

Plenty of experts are saying the opposite too.  The Economist is pretty well-reputed, but yeah, it seems if you want the author and citations you'd have to get the print version, unfortunately.

Basically, there are two logical ways to go about this debate: the first is to discredit all modern/historically encountered tribes because the circumstances are invariably different. The climate is different, the fauna are different, and the fact that 99.9% of the human race grows its own food and controls most of the land makes it so there is no good 1:1 comparison available, no matter how isolated a tribe may seem.  This leaves us with very little evidence that isn't forensic. The forensics show there was definitely human-on-human violence in the Pleistocene, though because of small sample size it is impossible to say how much.

The second way is to ignore circumstances altogether because we're looking for generalized behavior patterns, and the circumstances of different prehistoric tribes at different times in different locations would also have varied wildly.  If we take this route, it's pretty clear that the few peaceful hunter-gatherers we've come across are exceptions rather than the rule, as a large majority of primitive peoples that have been discovered throughout history have been excessively violent.

The Rousseauian adherents have very little evidence other than a few cherry-picked examples and a weak induction that suffers from presentism (i.e. modern people go to war for these reasons and primitive people wouldn't have those reasons). Lack of perceived motive does not mean motive does not exist.

Even those experts who oppose the view that hunter gatherers were peaceful and egalitarian acknowledge that it is the currently accepted scientific consensus. And while I've seen claims that the evidence that consensus is based on was flawed or biased, I have yet to see anyone provide a single ounce of support for those accusations. On the other hand, the "Rousseauian adherents", as you put it, provide numerous studies and examples to support their position.

Everyone wants to be the guy whose groundbreaking research proves the establishment wrong, but to overturn the current scientific consensus requires strong proof, not unsubstantiated slander. Maybe you've seen studies and articles that I haven't, which offer better methodology and evidence? The sources you've posted thus far haven't been terribly promising--such as the one that cited fortified settlements as archaeological evidence of warfare among nomadic hunter-gatherers.

Do you have any solid evidence that actually backs up your assertions that peaceful hunter-gatherers are an exception, and that the current scientific view was formed by cherry picking examples rather than an honest evaluation of the available evidence?

First of all, there is no consensus, and there never has been. This debate has been going on since Hobbes and Rousseau.  The people who are disputing the "peaceful savage" are simply acknowledging that it was a commonly-held view, especially after WWII.

Second, nomads have settlements too. Just not permanent ones. Being a nomad does not mean you sleep outside in a different place every night.  While you are correct that all of the large mass graves that contain dozens of bodies or more are from agriculture societies, this is only because those were the only places with that many people in one place.  And I cited that before you made the distinction between pre-state agrarian and hunter-gatherers.

Third: Examples of violent nomads? From which continent? North America? South America ? Africa? Eurasia? Pacific Islands? Australia?  What kind of violence would you prefer? War? Cannibalism? Slavery? Infanticide?

Before you bring it up, I realize that the Eurasian and African examples are from less-than-reliable ancient historians, but since these areas have been dominated by agrarian state societies for so long evidence of prehistoric peoples in these areas is scant. Pastoralist nomads are included as well, since you've been claiming that agriculture and sedentary lifestyle is what gives rise to violence.

Quote
As for the other stuff you posted, I'm just going to say this:

Viewing yourself as "better" than someone else is never justified.

Sure it is.
I am quite justified in viewing myself as better than a rapist.

Quote
This isn't just some personal, subjective moral belief. History has demonstrated that valuing one person's life as less than another's leads to atrocities.


Non-sequiter - believing yourself to be "better" than someone is not identical to valuing their life less.
I am "better" at history than my friend.
He is "better" at being an electrician than I am.
If we were both hired to assist people in learning history, clearly I should be in charge. Conversely, if we were both hired to wire a house, he should be in charge. In fact, he should stay outside for the history class and I should be sent to the next county for safety purposes to wire the house.
This doesn't make either of us more or less valuable as a human than the other.
It does make our labor more or less valuable at different tasks, and thus our relative status within those fields higher or lower.

You cannot use a term as general as "better" in such discussions without significant explanation of the scope of the context.
Certainly no one should be "better" before the law.
But to disparage any concept or form of hierarchy as a consequence?

Quote
It's called dehumanization and it is the basis of every form of bigotry and prejudice known to man.

Well, in some cases, that is still justified.
Remember my confidence that I am better than a rapist?
I certainly regard said individual as less human than I am, and well deserving of death.
The social issue arises when it is determined if I alone have the power to accuse, judge, and sentence any individual for rape on my own, or whether such things must be decided by the community as a whole.
But I, and ever other functioning member of the community, can absolutely view ourselves as better than rapists without engendering any automatic dehumanization of any group, or even individual accused of rape.

It's interesting that you brought up rape in this debate in particular. Let me start by saying it's a heinous act that is worse than murder. However, it does bring up an interesting question of how rape was handled before there were laws and governments.  Would there have even been such a thing as consent?  Historically, rape wasn't necessarily a crime, and when it was it was more often considered a "property crime" or "adultery."  It wasn't until the Roman Empire that we began to see laws actively prohibiting it.  Do animals rape each other?  In one sense, yes, since animals are not capable of consent the way we define it, therefore all animal sex is rape, the same way all sex involving children is rape (even between two consenting children). That's a slightly ridiculous way of looking at it, but without knowing how animals think about sex it's at least consistent. Even if we normalize their behavior to ours, I've seen pets engage in sexual activities where one participant is actively fighting back and trying to escape. Natural selection teaches us that the willingness to rape gives you a higher chance of passing on your genes than the unwilling.  Anyway, where this is all going is that without any kind of laws forbidding it or any kind of official marriage institutions, it seems likely that rape would have been quite widespread until civilization came along.  In other words, we're all descended from rapists.

And I would note that even in a stateless society people must make similar judgments as to whether some act makes a person less worthy of participation within their society, including meriting punishment. If they do not, then they can never find any way to resist someone using violence to establish supremacy over them.
This is the Catch-22 that people who declare themselves incapable of passing judgment but wish to challenge the authority of others to pass judgment find themselves in. What gives "me" the authority to decide? "You" do, by abdicating all responsibility of judgment.

That's why I brought up the Prisoner's Dilemma in the previous thread.
Goats are like mushrooms
If you shoot a duck I'm scared of toasters

Offline bhu

  • Uncle Kittie
  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 16306
  • Fnord bitches
    • View Profile
Re: Political THEORY thread (spinoff from Politics thread)
« Reply #35 on: October 11, 2015, 09:59:42 PM »
Quote
Particularly when you provide no support for these claims other than stating that you call yourself a socio-historian.

By serendipity, I came across this in my daily surfing:

http://www.intercollegiatereview.com/index.php/2014/07/21/the-fifty-worst-books-of-the-20th-century/

The introduction sets it up, the list lays it out.

That's what I mean by the problems within the social sciences.
Those are highlights from a century of pseudo-science, fraud, and ideolgical corruption.
And that's before you delve into the realm of the ideologues attacking their competitors within the broad camps.

Are you by chance an ideological conservative?

Offline Samwise

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Political THEORY thread (spinoff from Politics thread)
« Reply #36 on: October 11, 2015, 11:25:08 PM »
Are you by chance an ideological conservative?

I don't know, how do you define an "ideological conservative"?
I've certainly been called one in the past.
I've also been called a "statist", meaning a doctrinaire Marxist.
Then there are the really rude things I've been called.  :p

However, without going on a point by point list of at least major elements, yes, you can generally consider me to what is colloquially referred to as a "conservative" these days.
That is "generally", and I accept no responsibility for those characteristics called "conservative" that I neither endorse nor consider to be particularly "conservative" as I might happen to define the term.

Offline Samwise

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Political THEORY thread (spinoff from Politics thread)
« Reply #37 on: October 11, 2015, 11:59:47 PM »
It's interesting that you brought up rape in this debate in particular.

Well, I wanted something other than murder but I didn't want to get TOO depraved in the example.

Quote
Let me start by saying it's a heinous act that is worse than murder.


I happen to agree.

Quote
However, it does bring up an interesting question of how rape was handled before there were laws and governments.  Would there have even been such a thing as consent?  Historically, rape wasn't necessarily a crime, and when it was it was more often considered a "property crime" or "adultery."  It wasn't until the Roman Empire that we began to see laws actively prohibiting it.

The Torah contains laws against rape, including requirements to distinguish rape from being caught being a slut and claiming rape later.

Quote
Do animals rape each other?  In one sense, yes, since animals are not capable of consent the way we define it, therefore all animal sex is rape,

As we define it, but animals that go into heat do invite sexual activity, as do certain primates.

Quote
the same way all sex involving children is rape (even between two consenting children).

That's where the parsing between "forcible rape" and "non-consensual rape" begins, creating a variety of messes.

Quote
That's a slightly ridiculous way of looking at it, but without knowing how animals think about sex it's at least consistent. Even if we normalize their behavior to ours, I've seen pets engage in sexual activities where one participant is actively fighting back and trying to escape. Natural selection teaches us that the willingness to rape gives you a higher chance of passing on your genes than the unwilling.  Anyway, where this is all going is that without any kind of laws forbidding it or any kind of official marriage institutions, it seems likely that rape would have been quite widespread until civilization came along.  In other words, we're all descended from rapists.


Yes, but what of relevance is that unless we presume some form of inherited guilt?

Quote
That's why I brought up the Prisoner's Dilemma in the previous thread.

Sort of, but more fundamental than that.
It is related to what I noted about current hunter-gatherer societies existing because of 3rd party protection.
Which leads in to concepts that theoretical anarchist or other pacifist groups exist solely because non-pacifist states are willing to protect them.
Which leads to a lot of the criticism of the ideological assertions of various forms of "libertarianism", particularly including Randian Objectivism and Rothbardian Anarcho-Capitalism, that being they rely on a spontaneous, universal, acceptance of their non-force principals, becoming completely non-functional, utopian theorizing the moment they encounter the real world and people who prefer living as active predators.
Which cycles back around to the core of the flaw in any such models, that being presumptions of some universal agreement as to pretty much anything, especially what exactly constitutes "Reason". Such as MrWolfe declaring he has zero faith in "inherent goodness" but total faith in an ability to get along with nobody suddenly wanting any power.

Offline bhu

  • Uncle Kittie
  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 16306
  • Fnord bitches
    • View Profile
Re: Political THEORY thread (spinoff from Politics thread)
« Reply #38 on: October 12, 2015, 12:18:04 AM »
Are you by chance an ideological conservative?

I don't know, how do you define an "ideological conservative"?
I've certainly been called one in the past.
I've also been called a "statist", meaning a doctrinaire Marxist.
Then there are the really rude things I've been called.  :p

However, without going on a point by point list of at least major elements, yes, you can generally consider me to what is colloquially referred to as a "conservative" these days.
That is "generally", and I accept no responsibility for those characteristics called "conservative" that I neither endorse nor consider to be particularly "conservative" as I might happen to define the term.

In what manner do you personally define the term?

Offline Samwise

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Political THEORY thread (spinoff from Politics thread)
« Reply #39 on: October 12, 2015, 01:23:16 AM »
In what manner do you personally define the term?

1. a member of the Conservative Party,
2. a person identifying with a party generally considered to be to the "right" of the Democratic Party, particularly either the Republican Party or the Conservative party,
3. someone who generally supports a more literal interpretation of the Constitution,
4. I don't. I can give a list of various elements of my beliefs that is unlikely to be complete and let others decide how they feel comfortable classifying me, but I prefer not to limit myself into a pre-conceived definition that may include multiple elements I am in direct opposition to.

As an overview without addressing specific policy points:
I am "generally" a rather strict constructionist, with accommodations for developments of modern technology, predicated on the principles laid out in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence and expanded upon in The Federalist. This is within a context of identifying as a member of the Anglosphere as defined by Winston Churchill, with a preference for the cultural, social, legal, and political elements that characterize that community. That also includes noting that the United States is, generally, a country of Christians (distinct from a Christian country), though I myself am not a Christian.
I am a (modernized) Smithian laissez faire capitalist. I am conservative (in the more general definition sense of preferring the existing order and restraint than the more common political sense) socially, distinct from the colloquial category of "social conservatives", which I consider to be an oxymoron. I identify with Smith's "Theory of Moral Sentiments" and Nietzsche's general works, along with the Bible on moral issues.

What do you think I should be described as being on the political scale?
(Oh, and I don't consider such a scale to be linear or graphic, but circular, so that makes me consider myself in a different paradigm altogether.)