I wouldn't say those last three cases are the same. All three states, despite their divisions (feudal lords in China and France, Upper and Lower Kingdom rivalry in Egypt, and aristocratic squabbling all the way around) had at least an overall sense of nationality. Egypt and China more often then not had a united heartland, the "nation" part of their empires, and then had outer territories that were run more like a classic multinational empire. The relationship was sort of like that between the US and Puerto Rico. They also had a sense of who they were by exclusion of "barbarians" who did not speak some variation of their language or had different customs. France is trickier, since the feudal states developed very distinct personalities, but at least in the later years of the monarchy the country as a whole had a sense of being French on top of being a Gascon or a Breton, irrespective of the what the aristocrats may have said.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hide myself within my flower
That, wearing on your breast,
You, unsuspecting, wear me too -
And angels know the rest.
Portugal is more debatable, but ultimately the state's identity was the Kingdom of Portugal, not the Portugese [sic] people.
As far as I can gather, the fundamental characteristic of a nation-state is that these two identities are coterminous, not that there's any particular association with one or the other. Indeed, your source Wikipedia contends that the association of the state with the people is an effect rather than cause of the rise of nation-states.
Egypt didn't have a unifying national identity. It gained and lost territory over time. It wasn't a nation-state.
Sure it did. You've got Egyptians and barbarians (everyone else). Unlike other, similar cultural perceptions, such as in Greece and Rome, the Kingdom of Egypt was generally coterminous with the Egyptian people, with, I'll grant, a few foreign holdings, particularly in the Levant. But for thousands of years the Egyptians were the People of the Nile, the People of the Pyramids, the People of the Pharaohs.
You've got to be kidding. Imperial China is perhaps the textbook example, maybe after Germany and Italy, of political union by cultural identity. Even today, when China controls a great deal of central Asia and the indigenous people who go with it, something like 96% of its population is Han.
Same. A nation-state's identity is culturally-based, with ethnic and historical boundaries, and centralized power that derives from the unifying national identity. None of the states you're describing meet that definition. Imperial power comes from the authority of a royal line, not a national identity.
The King of France was originally the King of All Franks. Indeed, long before any of the states of Europe had dynasties or fixed borders, political divisions were tribal. One people, one leader. The famous Heptarchy of Anglo-Saxon England was not Wessex, Sussex, Essex, Mercia, Northumbria, East Anglia, and Kent, but rather the West Saxons, South Saxons, East Saxons, Mercians, Northumbrians, East Anglians, and Kentishmen. And when Ælfred began the process of unifying the Viking-free kingdoms under his (West Saxon) leadership, he did so in no small part by appealing to a common cultural identity of the English people, saying, "We are all Angles". There couldn't be a West Saxon king ruling the Kentish people; there had to be an English king ruling the English people.
I have to agree with Blinking Spirit on China. Ever hear of Sinification? The Chinese have made extensive efforts in the past to make the populations they rule Chinese, and even some populations they didn't. A large, large portion of the Chinese population has had for a long time a sense of Chinese culture, and a certain sense of "Chineseness"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Cochese »
Do threads in this forum ever not get hijacked by the magical invisible hand of the market guys?
Yes and no. Realistically, no decisions reached will be absolutely final or enforceable. But if the Socialists are correct---and I by no means think they are, but let's assume it for the sake of argument---then most conflicts will have been eliminated with the elimination of class and of governance.
I can see how most and maybe even all conflict could be eliminated, but the continued presence of basic dispute, due even to human nature, perhaps, to spring up from time to time.
Also, I'm arguing from the assumption that the anarchism you're talking about has nothing to do with class warfare, right to equality, or any of that nonsense, and simply means governance sans force.
Well, in theory, such a society could punish the violation of rights; namely, through exile. The communities in question would be small-scale, voluntary communities, participation in which is and use of resources produced in which is contingent upon following certain guidelines. The society at large, rather than a central state, can choose, if they feel it necessary, to expel someone from this community if they fail to follow these guidelines. Thus, personal freedom is maintained more or less without coercion.
How is it possible to expel without coercion? I can see the individuals in the community refusing to engage him, but in the event of disagreement as to the outcome of any particular decision, there doesn't seem to be any procedure to prevent a complete split of the society between those that wish to stay in economic contact with the "violator" and those that advocate his exile. Sure, these voluntary contracts can get as tangled and complex as any modern legal statement, but there's always the caveat of... "you can't make me do anything."
Also, I want to raise the concern of powerful economic entities overpowering the voluntary organizations that might spring up. Through providing economic benefits to a majority of a society, the "anarchist corporation," if you will, can and probably will dictate their own rule of "organization."
Though the possibility of economic slavery of the minority is very slim, due to their choice of simply moving out, it is hard to justify a system that awards those that can win over the majority with a basically unopposed ability to repress any minority.
The state provides security and organization at the cost of liberty.
So the question is, how much security and organization do we need?
The more technologically advanced we become, the less need there is for the government to organize our lives because food, shelter, education, etc. are easy to come by.
But technological advance also means greater capacity for harm and abuse of powers. A larger government would be desired to protect the populace from those things. In this day and age thats the only really necessary part of the government.
So when will people have no need for security? Either:
1) small communities where there is mutual trust (communes)
2) When people are so codependent they can't afford to betray each other (EU in theory)
3) When there is no incentive or massive disincentives to violence (these would be socially constructed, not state-sponsored. A tribe was found with no culture of manhood, and it had no violence)
4) People are no longer able to hurt or control each other. (internet)
So unless you have one of these things, anarchism isn't going to work. Power tends to gravitate, and once it does Anarchy is on its way down the tubes.
Think of the state as a weapon. If someone else has one, you'd better get one if you don't want to get stabbed.
Where? If that's actually the impression you got from the Wiki article, I'm dumbfounded. Either you didn't read it or you're being disingenuous.
"The origins and early history of nation-states are disputed. A major theoretical issue is: "which came first — the nation or the nation-state?" For nationalists themselves, the answer is that the nation existed first, nationalist movements arose to present its legitimate demand for sovereignty, and the nation-state met that demand. Some "modernisation theories" of nationalism see the national identity largely as a product of government policy, to unify and modernise an already existing state. "
The article is pretty explicity that the two things are not coincidental or unrelated.
And I didn't say they were. For what it's worth, I was referring specifically to this paragraph:
However, the most obvious impact of the nation-state, as compared to its non-national predecessors, is the creation of a uniform national culture, through state policy. The model of the nation-state implies that its population constitute a nation, united by a common descent, a common language, and many forms of shared culture. When the implied unity was absent, the nation-state often tried to create it. It promoted a uniform national language, through language policy. (When Italy was united as a political entity, the majority of the population could not speak Italian.) The creation of national systems of compulsory primary education and a relatively uniform curriculum in secondary schools, was the most effective instrument in the spread of the national languages. The schools also taught the national history, often in a propagandistic and mythologized version, and (especially during conflicts) some nation-states still teach this kind of history.
Independent, for much of Egypt's history. Nor should their subjugating foreign territories from time to time be held as disqualifying them from nation-state status, unless you'd also like to disqualify the British, German, French, Belgian, Spanish, and all the other Empires during the very period of nationalism that's supposed to be the birthtime of the nation-state!
It may be that Egyptians had a sense of Egyptianness(although I wouldn't mind some support for the claim, seeing as you're the one asserting)...
I'm not really sure what you're looking for, if a common language (including centralized scribal education), religion (including centralized priesthood), agricultural style (including centralized bureaucracy), and centuries of history aren't enough. But I do seem to recall that the story of Atlantis is recounted in Plato by an Egyptian who displays vast cultural chauvinism. Will this do?
Traditionally, China has been split into many warring kingdoms and provinces, ruled by outside peoples with different languages and customs, and even now encompasses various languages and peoples. Give me an example of a specific period in history that you think qualifies China as a nation-state, and why.
The Ming Dynasty seems an especially strong example, featuring a united and xenophobic China newly emerged from Mongol rule.
Which is different than a nation-state, seeing as a tribe is not a state.
No, it's a nation (according to Wikipedia's definition of "nation" in the nation-state article). The state is the thing that bosses the people in the tribe around, which uncoincidentally happens to be coterminous with the nation.
There was no united French language until the past couple centuries, either. And France under the kings traded territories regularly through war and marriages.
It also traded territories regularly with Germany up until the end of World War II. Germany, for its part, changed dramatically in shape from its formation to the fall of the Third Reich - most of Prussia is now Poland. The United Kingdom pretty obviously isn't a nation-state by this definition, encompassing as it does Scotland and Northern Ireland. Ireland's missing a bit. Russia's not as bad as the Soviet Union was, but still encompasses a number of minority peoples. The Balkans are, well, the Balkans. And states all over Europe are experiencing a surge of immigration from North Africa and the Middle East.
Ultimately the burden of proof lies with you. The vast majority of historians consider nation-states a product of the past couple centuries. If you want to say otherwise, I for one would like some compelling evidence that any of these kingdoms or empires you've mentioned qualify as nation-states.
Look, you're obviously much better read on this subject than I. I'm not trying to defend a thesis here; I'm still trying to wrap my head around what exactly makes states after the 19th Century so qualitatively different from those before, to understand why historians think the way they do. Because to me, the picture that you're painting almost seems to be that there has never been a nation-state, or that some magical and unprecedented thing called "nationalism" happened sometime during the Industrial Revolution that made coterminous nation/states into something new.
Anyone who doesn't know what the word nation means should look it up now.
Before governments had the power to hold sway over their populace people lived their lives as if they did not belong to a state. Often there was no culture or ethnicity they defined themselves by; they just had customs and practices.There was no feeling of national or cultural identity.
The powers that be in 19th century Europe began a campaign to "civilize" the natives in the countryside and incorporate them into the state. Deeply ancient customs were outlawed, traditions erased and such. The idea was to give these people a new identity as subjects of the state. Nationalism was a phenomenon created by the higher-ups to unify the country under their leadership, and in doing so they created a nation from which none existed before.
Nations and national identity also emerged out of nothingness in South America, Russia and Eastern Europe. In South America, the territories demarcated by the Spaniards eventually became the boundaries for countries. It is needless to state that the people living there had never considered themselves as part of a country separate from the rest of South America until after the fact, and culturally the differences between the countries are slight (aside from Brazil which was owned by the Portuguese).
In Russia, the Soviets decided that each facet of the various "cultures" throughout Russia had to be preserved and treated equally. Groups who had never interacted and who were only loosely geographically created were put literally given cultures (folklore was assembled and made into books, and written languages were developed specifically for that culture if it had none of its own).
Nations are very interesting because they can be completely artificially constructed and are a result of what group(s) an individual feels they belong to. The fastest and most certain way to create a nation is to subject a populace to an event like war or slavery, and through that they gain a fellowship that leads to a nation. Otherwise they don't feel all that close to each other.
The more technologically advanced we become, the less need there is for the government to organize our lives because food, shelter, education, etc. are easy to come by.
I take issue with this.
When has it ever been necessary for a government to "organize" a populace?
Even hunter/gatherer didn't really need central organization. Self-sustaining agriculture didn't need central organization. Etc.
When has it ever been necessary for a government to "organize" a populace?
Even hunter/gatherer didn't really need central organization. Self-sustaining agriculture didn't need central organization. Etc.
The government provides things like infrastructure, scientific research and the justice system, things that promote the common good but nobody would enact on their own.
The security a government provides also allows markets to exist.
I'm pretty sure people would do these things without government, if not to the same degree in some places. And saying that government security enables markets is not the same as saying that the government organizes them. Certainly organization and cooperation exist outside of governance.
The government provides things like infrastructure, scientific research and the justice system, things that promote the common good but nobody would enact on their own.
The security a government provides also allows markets to exist.
The justice system is a security feature.
The rest exist independently in many fields, independent of government "organization," a concept that is, on the whole, extremely market-ignorant and market-inefficient.
I['d like to] think he meant "order", like security, instead of "organization". But I agree with you.
If he meant "order," the statement doesn't make any sense. It reads like typical statist propaganda: "Only government can direct a collection of individuals efficiently."
Even hunter/gatherer didn't really need central organization. Self-sustaining agriculture didn't need central organization. Etc.
Well, if you live in a flat plain with just enough rain, yes. If, however, you're living in Mesopotamia in 5000 BC or so, someone has to make sure all that fancy irrigation keeps working, and that someone or someones eventually turn into a government. Not a State in the sense that you dislike so much, but something that can eventually become one.
Quote from einsteinmonkey »
I'm pretty sure people would do these things without government, if not to the same degree in some places. And saying that government security enables markets is not the same as saying that the government organizes them. Certainly organization and cooperation exist outside of governance.
To repeat, from a certain point of view all that organization and cooperation is, or, from a more traditional perspective, can and probably will become a government. The point is that true anarchy is nonexistent except in a world of hunter-gatherers where every person lives completely by themselves and meets with another only to first, trade, or procreate. Non-Statist governments, however, are quite possible and have plenty of historical precedent.
Quote from msun »
If he meant "order," the statement doesn't make any sense. It reads like typical statist propaganda: "Only government can direct a collection of individuals efficiently."
What a load of hogwash.
In this we agree. However, I'm of the opinion that a government, though not necessarily an unpleasantly controlling State, will be there in the background somewhere. It's a reasonable assumption that if power tends to gather in the hands of a few people, which it does, governments will exist. We may, however, attempt to be enlightened enough to oppose that tendency when it goes to excess.
One of the key uses of early government was prevention of the tragedy of the commons. Prior to any sort of regulation, people would overfish rivers, drink too much of the water supply and destroy the grasslands by herding too much cattle. One of the functions of early leaders was to prevent this from happening by declaring off-seasons and such.
Today this is not as necessary because we have private property. But to argue that the state has never provided organization, not even as a means to decide who is leader, is ridiculous.
To repeat, from a certain point of view all that organization and cooperation is, or, from a more traditional perspective, can and probably will become a government. The point is that true anarchy is nonexistent except in a world of hunter-gatherers where every person lives completely by themselves and meets with another only to first, trade, or procreate. Non-Statist governments, however, are quite possible and have plenty of historical precedent.
I'm just saying that things can be accomplished by the state that will generally not be accomplished by people acting individually or within a free market.
Well, if you live in a flat plain with just enough rain, yes. If, however, you're living in Mesopotamia in 5000 BC or so, someone has to make sure all that fancy irrigation keeps working, and that someone or someones eventually turn into a government. Not a State in the sense that you dislike so much, but something that can eventually become one.
Obviously, people are going to come together and talk and solve problems in groups.
It's never had to be a proposition of force, i.e. Do this or we will make you do this, because this is good for you.
One of the key uses of early government was prevention of the tragedy of the commons. Prior to any sort of regulation, people would overfish rivers, drink too much of the water supply and destroy the grasslands by herding too much cattle. One of the functions of early leaders was to prevent this from happening by declaring off-seasons and such.
Today this is not as necessary because we have private property. But to argue that the state has never provided organization, not even as a means to decide who is leader, is ridiculous.
The tragedy of the commons is a relatively recent phenomenon, created by government land holdings and the subsequent common usage of said holdings. Government leaders have tried to correct the problem in various ways, none of which work quite as well as simply turning the land over to private interests.
I've never said that the state has never provided organization. I've simply stated that it has never been necessary.
Obviously, people are going to come together and talk and solve problems in groups.
It's never had to be a proposition of force, i.e. Do this or we will make you do this, because this is good for you.
My point being, those groups become governments over time simply because of the nature of human beings, particularly once they're settled down in an agricultural community with property to own. In all the original heartlands of agriculture, i.e., Mesopotamia, China, and Mesoamerica, with farming has come local groups of organization to handle complex projects. From these local groups come oligarchies of either the "wise" or the propertied, and eventually after the needs of a growing population or the needs of defense come into play, someone becomes king. The king requisitions more and more men and provisions, first out of actual need and then simply because the precedent has been set and he's got force behind him now. You now have, in basic terms, a government, and eventually a State. So by historical precedent, it follows that it has had to be, "Do this or we will make you." It isn't right, but people let it happen to give themselves protection and order and once they did, that system took over and ran over any other system like all those not-really-anarchic nomadic bands until it is now the way that pretty much all of the world lives by.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hide myself within my flower
That, wearing on your breast,
You, unsuspecting, wear me too -
And angels know the rest.
It's never had to be a proposition of force, i.e. Do this or we will make you do this, because this is good for you.
Fact: People respect force. Without power in somebody else's hands, nothing gets done. What, you think people pay taxes out of charity and goodwill? Don't be so foolish.
I've never said that the state has never provided organization. I've simply stated that it has never been necessary.
So, taxes, public works, infrastructure, government contracts (think what medicine and science would be without them), public services (e.g. police), safety from foreign powers, so on and so forth; these things are all unnecessary because you deem them to be?
The rest exist independently in many fields, independent of government "organization," a concept that is, on the whole, extremely market-ignorant and market-inefficient.
The government can do any of the following things to help an economy:
1) Central banking to encourage/discourage spending or increase/reduce the money supply, any of which can improve the economy.
2) Create jobs, especially in a recession by deficit spending.
3) Open/close channels of trade between countries.
Obviously, people are going to come together and talk and solve problems in groups.
It's never had to be a proposition of force, i.e. Do this or we will make you do this, because this is good for you.
Talking has alway been a possibility, but if a group of individuals decides they want to be violent words are not going to protect you. It's the same reason we have policemen; most people are peaceful but some aren't.
The tragedy of the commons is a relatively recent phenomenon, created by government land holdings and the subsequent common usage of said holdings. Government leaders have tried to correct the problem in various ways, none of which work quite as well as simply turning the land over to private interests.
Uh, no. The tragedy of the commons has been around as long as droughts have. Wikipedia it and one of the first quotes is by Aristotle.
I've never said that the state has never provided organization. I've simply stated that it has never been necessary.
Its really, really easy in America to talk about being anarchist, but try going to a developing country and see how much they DON'T get by. I invite you and some of your friends to go to Africa and try to get by for a while.
It's also really easy to think that the market is the natural state of things. On the contrary, a properly working market is one of the hardest things to achieve because the powerful are always trying to steer the game in their favor. I suggest you look into some developing nations to see how ****ed up their economies and political systems are.
If we restarted the world today, would anarchy work? Potentially. But there's way too many extenuating circumstances in today's world for it to be viable. At least not for a long, long time.
The government can do any of the following things to help an economy:
1) Central banking to encourage/discourage spending or increase/reduce the money supply, any of which can improve the economy.
2) Create jobs, especially in a recession by deficit spending.
3) Open/close channels of trade between countries.
But first and foremost:
4) Stop monopolies.
I'd like to see anarchy deal with that.
Read up on some economics other than the Keynesian crap you've been spoon-fed and you'll see that all four of those things can be handled quite well without government guidance.
Talking has alway been a possibility, but if a group of individuals decides they want to be violent words are not going to protect you. It's the same reason we have policemen; most people are peaceful but some aren't.
Stop confusing the readers. This is a question of government organization, not of government existence. Government can provide security without organization.
Uh, no. The tragedy of the commons has been around as long as droughts have. Wikipedia it and one of the first quotes is by Aristotle.
Reread my quote. "Relatively" "As a feature of government"
It's not that hard to understand my point.
Its really, really easy in America to talk about being anarchist, but try going to a developing country and see how much they DON'T get by. I invite you and some of your friends to go to Africa and try to get by for a while.
I've never said anything about being Anarchist. I've raised numerous points that cover much of what you are saying. The only issue I have against you is that you believe that government organization is a good thing.
It's not. Frankly, I agree with most of the other stuff you're saying. Don't characterize and go after what you think I believe.
Stop confusing the readers. This is a question of government organization, not of government existence. Government can provide security without organization.
Do me a favor and define exactly what you mean by "organization", because you've got some very specific use for it here that I don't understand in the slightest. Government is organization, or at least one particular form of it. And in any case, it's impossible for a government to provide security without the organization required to conscript troops or organize volonteers and train them.
Quote from msun »
Read up on some economics other than the Keynesian crap you've been spoon-fed and you'll see that all four of those things can be handled quite well without government guidance.
How is anyone supposed to stop a monopoly without a power greater than that of the corporation that holds it, i.e., some form of government? It's not possible to break a monopoly unless you can provide the product for a lesser cost (which is difficult if the corporation controls all the supply of raw materials required) or supersede it, which is simply not possible with some (very important) things, like food.
Do me a favor and define exactly what you mean by "organization", because you've got some very specific use for it here that I don't understand in the slightest. Government is organization, or at least one particular form of it. And in any case, it's impossible for a government to provide security without the organization required to conscript troops or organize volonteers and train them.
Refer back to the original post. I'm using a concept of organization that aurorasparrow implicitly proposed. If you don't understand, maybe you should've waited a bit before sticking your head in
How is anyone supposed to stop a monopoly without a power greater than that of the corporation that holds it, i.e., some form of government? It's not possible to break a monopoly unless you can provide the product for a lesser cost (which is difficult if the corporation controls all the supply of raw materials required) or supersede it, which is simply not possible with some (very important) things, like food.
The only "true" monopolies (monopolies that require state power to be broken) are born of state power.
"Monopolies" can only be maintained through continued mutual benefit to the consumer, especially in regards to necessary goods. Look through your examples of "naturally occurring monopolies" and you'll see that all of them were either protected by the state (railroads, oil, sugar, utilities) or were created by the state (post office, licensing arrangements, major league sports).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That, wearing on your breast,
You, unsuspecting, wear me too -
And angels know the rest.
You might as well say that the internal divisions within a federal system are incompatible with a nation-state. Is the United States a nation-state?
What about when it wasn't?
As far as I can gather, the fundamental characteristic of a nation-state is that these two identities are coterminous, not that there's any particular association with one or the other. Indeed, your source Wikipedia contends that the association of the state with the people is an effect rather than cause of the rise of nation-states.
Sure it did. You've got Egyptians and barbarians (everyone else). Unlike other, similar cultural perceptions, such as in Greece and Rome, the Kingdom of Egypt was generally coterminous with the Egyptian people, with, I'll grant, a few foreign holdings, particularly in the Levant. But for thousands of years the Egyptians were the People of the Nile, the People of the Pyramids, the People of the Pharaohs.
You've got to be kidding. Imperial China is perhaps the textbook example, maybe after Germany and Italy, of political union by cultural identity. Even today, when China controls a great deal of central Asia and the indigenous people who go with it, something like 96% of its population is Han.
The King of France was originally the King of All Franks. Indeed, long before any of the states of Europe had dynasties or fixed borders, political divisions were tribal. One people, one leader. The famous Heptarchy of Anglo-Saxon England was not Wessex, Sussex, Essex, Mercia, Northumbria, East Anglia, and Kent, but rather the West Saxons, South Saxons, East Saxons, Mercians, Northumbrians, East Anglians, and Kentishmen. And when Ælfred began the process of unifying the Viking-free kingdoms under his (West Saxon) leadership, he did so in no small part by appealing to a common cultural identity of the English people, saying, "We are all Angles". There couldn't be a West Saxon king ruling the Kentish people; there had to be an English king ruling the English people.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I can see how most and maybe even all conflict could be eliminated, but the continued presence of basic dispute, due even to human nature, perhaps, to spring up from time to time.
Also, I'm arguing from the assumption that the anarchism you're talking about has nothing to do with class warfare, right to equality, or any of that nonsense, and simply means governance sans force.
How is it possible to expel without coercion? I can see the individuals in the community refusing to engage him, but in the event of disagreement as to the outcome of any particular decision, there doesn't seem to be any procedure to prevent a complete split of the society between those that wish to stay in economic contact with the "violator" and those that advocate his exile. Sure, these voluntary contracts can get as tangled and complex as any modern legal statement, but there's always the caveat of... "you can't make me do anything."
Also, I want to raise the concern of powerful economic entities overpowering the voluntary organizations that might spring up. Through providing economic benefits to a majority of a society, the "anarchist corporation," if you will, can and probably will dictate their own rule of "organization."
Though the possibility of economic slavery of the minority is very slim, due to their choice of simply moving out, it is hard to justify a system that awards those that can win over the majority with a basically unopposed ability to repress any minority.
So the question is, how much security and organization do we need?
The more technologically advanced we become, the less need there is for the government to organize our lives because food, shelter, education, etc. are easy to come by.
But technological advance also means greater capacity for harm and abuse of powers. A larger government would be desired to protect the populace from those things. In this day and age thats the only really necessary part of the government.
So when will people have no need for security? Either:
1) small communities where there is mutual trust (communes)
2) When people are so codependent they can't afford to betray each other (EU in theory)
3) When there is no incentive or massive disincentives to violence (these would be socially constructed, not state-sponsored. A tribe was found with no culture of manhood, and it had no violence)
4) People are no longer able to hurt or control each other. (internet)
So unless you have one of these things, anarchism isn't going to work. Power tends to gravitate, and once it does Anarchy is on its way down the tubes.
Think of the state as a weapon. If someone else has one, you'd better get one if you don't want to get stabbed.
4th place at CCC&G Pro Tour
Chances of bad hands (<2 or >4 land):
21: 28.9%
22: 27.5%
23: 26.3%
24: 25.5%
25: 25.1%
26: 25.3%
Also glad to see you here.
And I didn't say they were. For what it's worth, I was referring specifically to this paragraph:
An issue I address in the very next sentence. Greece wasn't a single state. Egypt was.
Independent, for much of Egypt's history. Nor should their subjugating foreign territories from time to time be held as disqualifying them from nation-state status, unless you'd also like to disqualify the British, German, French, Belgian, Spanish, and all the other Empires during the very period of nationalism that's supposed to be the birthtime of the nation-state!
I'm not really sure what you're looking for, if a common language (including centralized scribal education), religion (including centralized priesthood), agricultural style (including centralized bureaucracy), and centuries of history aren't enough. But I do seem to recall that the story of Atlantis is recounted in Plato by an Egyptian who displays vast cultural chauvinism. Will this do?
Indeed, it also encompassed the Lower Nile; hence the double crown of the Pharaoh.
The Ming Dynasty seems an especially strong example, featuring a united and xenophobic China newly emerged from Mongol rule.
No, it's a nation (according to Wikipedia's definition of "nation" in the nation-state article). The state is the thing that bosses the people in the tribe around, which uncoincidentally happens to be coterminous with the nation.
Anglo-Saxon England predated all that messiness. William the Bastard muddled everything up.
It also traded territories regularly with Germany up until the end of World War II. Germany, for its part, changed dramatically in shape from its formation to the fall of the Third Reich - most of Prussia is now Poland. The United Kingdom pretty obviously isn't a nation-state by this definition, encompassing as it does Scotland and Northern Ireland. Ireland's missing a bit. Russia's not as bad as the Soviet Union was, but still encompasses a number of minority peoples. The Balkans are, well, the Balkans. And states all over Europe are experiencing a surge of immigration from North Africa and the Middle East.
Look, you're obviously much better read on this subject than I. I'm not trying to defend a thesis here; I'm still trying to wrap my head around what exactly makes states after the 19th Century so qualitatively different from those before, to understand why historians think the way they do. Because to me, the picture that you're painting almost seems to be that there has never been a nation-state, or that some magical and unprecedented thing called "nationalism" happened sometime during the Industrial Revolution that made coterminous nation/states into something new.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Before governments had the power to hold sway over their populace people lived their lives as if they did not belong to a state. Often there was no culture or ethnicity they defined themselves by; they just had customs and practices.There was no feeling of national or cultural identity.
The powers that be in 19th century Europe began a campaign to "civilize" the natives in the countryside and incorporate them into the state. Deeply ancient customs were outlawed, traditions erased and such. The idea was to give these people a new identity as subjects of the state. Nationalism was a phenomenon created by the higher-ups to unify the country under their leadership, and in doing so they created a nation from which none existed before.
Nations and national identity also emerged out of nothingness in South America, Russia and Eastern Europe. In South America, the territories demarcated by the Spaniards eventually became the boundaries for countries. It is needless to state that the people living there had never considered themselves as part of a country separate from the rest of South America until after the fact, and culturally the differences between the countries are slight (aside from Brazil which was owned by the Portuguese).
In Russia, the Soviets decided that each facet of the various "cultures" throughout Russia had to be preserved and treated equally. Groups who had never interacted and who were only loosely geographically created were put literally given cultures (folklore was assembled and made into books, and written languages were developed specifically for that culture if it had none of its own).
Nations are very interesting because they can be completely artificially constructed and are a result of what group(s) an individual feels they belong to. The fastest and most certain way to create a nation is to subject a populace to an event like war or slavery, and through that they gain a fellowship that leads to a nation. Otherwise they don't feel all that close to each other.
4th place at CCC&G Pro Tour
Chances of bad hands (<2 or >4 land):
21: 28.9%
22: 27.5%
23: 26.3%
24: 25.5%
25: 25.1%
26: 25.3%
I take issue with this.
When has it ever been necessary for a government to "organize" a populace?
Even hunter/gatherer didn't really need central organization. Self-sustaining agriculture didn't need central organization. Etc.
The government provides things like infrastructure, scientific research and the justice system, things that promote the common good but nobody would enact on their own.
The security a government provides also allows markets to exist.
4th place at CCC&G Pro Tour
Chances of bad hands (<2 or >4 land):
21: 28.9%
22: 27.5%
23: 26.3%
24: 25.5%
25: 25.1%
26: 25.3%
The justice system is a security feature.
The rest exist independently in many fields, independent of government "organization," a concept that is, on the whole, extremely market-ignorant and market-inefficient.
If he meant "order," the statement doesn't make any sense. It reads like typical statist propaganda: "Only government can direct a collection of individuals efficiently."
What a load of hogwash.
Well, if you live in a flat plain with just enough rain, yes. If, however, you're living in Mesopotamia in 5000 BC or so, someone has to make sure all that fancy irrigation keeps working, and that someone or someones eventually turn into a government. Not a State in the sense that you dislike so much, but something that can eventually become one.
To repeat, from a certain point of view all that organization and cooperation is, or, from a more traditional perspective, can and probably will become a government. The point is that true anarchy is nonexistent except in a world of hunter-gatherers where every person lives completely by themselves and meets with another only to first, trade, or procreate. Non-Statist governments, however, are quite possible and have plenty of historical precedent.
In this we agree. However, I'm of the opinion that a government, though not necessarily an unpleasantly controlling State, will be there in the background somewhere. It's a reasonable assumption that if power tends to gather in the hands of a few people, which it does, governments will exist. We may, however, attempt to be enlightened enough to oppose that tendency when it goes to excess.
That, wearing on your breast,
You, unsuspecting, wear me too -
And angels know the rest.
Today this is not as necessary because we have private property. But to argue that the state has never provided organization, not even as a means to decide who is leader, is ridiculous.
4th place at CCC&G Pro Tour
Chances of bad hands (<2 or >4 land):
21: 28.9%
22: 27.5%
23: 26.3%
24: 25.5%
25: 25.1%
26: 25.3%
He was talking about a Statist-type, no?
edit: I'm very confused now.
4th place at CCC&G Pro Tour
Chances of bad hands (<2 or >4 land):
21: 28.9%
22: 27.5%
23: 26.3%
24: 25.5%
25: 25.1%
26: 25.3%
Obviously, people are going to come together and talk and solve problems in groups.
It's never had to be a proposition of force, i.e. Do this or we will make you do this, because this is good for you.
The tragedy of the commons is a relatively recent phenomenon, created by government land holdings and the subsequent common usage of said holdings. Government leaders have tried to correct the problem in various ways, none of which work quite as well as simply turning the land over to private interests.
I've never said that the state has never provided organization. I've simply stated that it has never been necessary.
And you're still shoving up strawmans.
Aurora's not really answering any of the charges.
Remember, the key phrase is "organize our lives."
My point being, those groups become governments over time simply because of the nature of human beings, particularly once they're settled down in an agricultural community with property to own. In all the original heartlands of agriculture, i.e., Mesopotamia, China, and Mesoamerica, with farming has come local groups of organization to handle complex projects. From these local groups come oligarchies of either the "wise" or the propertied, and eventually after the needs of a growing population or the needs of defense come into play, someone becomes king. The king requisitions more and more men and provisions, first out of actual need and then simply because the precedent has been set and he's got force behind him now. You now have, in basic terms, a government, and eventually a State. So by historical precedent, it follows that it has had to be, "Do this or we will make you." It isn't right, but people let it happen to give themselves protection and order and once they did, that system took over and ran over any other system like all those not-really-anarchic nomadic bands until it is now the way that pretty much all of the world lives by.
That, wearing on your breast,
You, unsuspecting, wear me too -
And angels know the rest.
Fact: People respect force. Without power in somebody else's hands, nothing gets done. What, you think people pay taxes out of charity and goodwill? Don't be so foolish.
So, taxes, public works, infrastructure, government contracts (think what medicine and science would be without them), public services (e.g. police), safety from foreign powers, so on and so forth; these things are all unnecessary because you deem them to be?
The government can do any of the following things to help an economy:
1) Central banking to encourage/discourage spending or increase/reduce the money supply, any of which can improve the economy.
2) Create jobs, especially in a recession by deficit spending.
3) Open/close channels of trade between countries.
But first and foremost:
4) Stop monopolies.
I'd like to see anarchy deal with that.
Talking has alway been a possibility, but if a group of individuals decides they want to be violent words are not going to protect you. It's the same reason we have policemen; most people are peaceful but some aren't.
Uh, no. The tragedy of the commons has been around as long as droughts have. Wikipedia it and one of the first quotes is by Aristotle.
Its really, really easy in America to talk about being anarchist, but try going to a developing country and see how much they DON'T get by. I invite you and some of your friends to go to Africa and try to get by for a while.
It's also really easy to think that the market is the natural state of things. On the contrary, a properly working market is one of the hardest things to achieve because the powerful are always trying to steer the game in their favor. I suggest you look into some developing nations to see how ****ed up their economies and political systems are.
If we restarted the world today, would anarchy work? Potentially. But there's way too many extenuating circumstances in today's world for it to be viable. At least not for a long, long time.
4th place at CCC&G Pro Tour
Chances of bad hands (<2 or >4 land):
21: 28.9%
22: 27.5%
23: 26.3%
24: 25.5%
25: 25.1%
26: 25.3%
Read up on some economics other than the Keynesian crap you've been spoon-fed and you'll see that all four of those things can be handled quite well without government guidance.
Stop confusing the readers. This is a question of government organization, not of government existence. Government can provide security without organization.
Reread my quote. "Relatively" "As a feature of government"
It's not that hard to understand my point.
I've never said anything about being Anarchist. I've raised numerous points that cover much of what you are saying. The only issue I have against you is that you believe that government organization is a good thing.
It's not. Frankly, I agree with most of the other stuff you're saying. Don't characterize and go after what you think I believe.
Do me a favor and define exactly what you mean by "organization", because you've got some very specific use for it here that I don't understand in the slightest. Government is organization, or at least one particular form of it. And in any case, it's impossible for a government to provide security without the organization required to conscript troops or organize volonteers and train them.
How is anyone supposed to stop a monopoly without a power greater than that of the corporation that holds it, i.e., some form of government? It's not possible to break a monopoly unless you can provide the product for a lesser cost (which is difficult if the corporation controls all the supply of raw materials required) or supersede it, which is simply not possible with some (very important) things, like food.
That, wearing on your breast,
You, unsuspecting, wear me too -
And angels know the rest.
Refer back to the original post. I'm using a concept of organization that aurorasparrow implicitly proposed. If you don't understand, maybe you should've waited a bit before sticking your head in
The only "true" monopolies (monopolies that require state power to be broken) are born of state power.
"Monopolies" can only be maintained through continued mutual benefit to the consumer, especially in regards to necessary goods. Look through your examples of "naturally occurring monopolies" and you'll see that all of them were either protected by the state (railroads, oil, sugar, utilities) or were created by the state (post office, licensing arrangements, major league sports).