violence before government

[doodle]

Well, according to lecture 5 lesson 2 of my course on the history of humankind, about 20-25% of premature male deaths in simple agricultural societies (pre cities and government institutions) was due to violence. Today that figure stands at less than 1% and is even lower in many advanced countries.

So, it seems from an anthropological standpoint, your chance of dying in an early pre-governmental agricultural society from human inflicted violence was much higher than it was once centralized power structures began to emerge.

https://class.coursera.org/humankind-001/lecture/45

[MediumTex]

Tell that to someone who had to live through a nightmare like Mao Tse-tung's reign.

Modern governments seem to have a knack for concentrating death into organized activities like war and famine in ways that simply wouldn't have been possible in past societies.

[doodle]

No doubt..mao is a bad guy, ...but according to this course there have been many many anthropological studies regarding early agricultural societies and upwards of 20 percent of premature deaths in such societies happened by the hands of other humans. These studies are from about 10,000 years ago before the development of large centralized power structures. It wasn't until later when larger societies and empires began to coalesce that the death rate began to drop.

Sorry if this violates the romantic notion that a society without government would be so peaceful and free. The anthropological record suggests it was extremely violent. In fact, the most dangerous thing that humans had to worry about dying from back then (besides starvation or disease) were other humans.

[doodle]

You are making a big logical mistake in this argument, and I'm surprised that someone as incredibly intelligent as you continues to use this line of reasoning:

Governments can be violent. Therefore, if we eliminate the governments, violence will decrease.

[doodle]

By the way, the violence rate in hunter gather societies (which didnt have government either) was much lower than in early agricultural societies.

Why? To sum it up....property.

a nomadic group could always move to avoid conflict. a society that was attached to a particular piece of land had no choice but to stay and fight to the death.

[doodle]

Whatever happened to the discussion thread on that course? Are you waiting until the whole thing is over to exchange ideas? I am mostly caught up, but doubt I could keep up with you and PS [I went to college in the late 70's before they taught critical thinking , and my job distracts me from the forum ] anyway, and he mentioned in another thread that he was behind on the lectures.

BTW, I hated anthropology in high school, but I find this course fascinating and the professor is awesome.

Ill try to revive that thread again....it kind of died off. I agree the professor for this course is great. I'm really getting a lot of perspective regarding human history.

[notsheigetz]

Well, according to lecture 5 lesson 2 of my course on the history of humankind, about 20-25% of premature male deaths in simple agricultural societies (pre cities and government institutions) was due to violence. Today that figure stands at less than 1% and is even lower in many advanced countries.

So, it seems from an anthropological standpoint, your chance of dying in an early pre-governmental agricultural society from human inflicted violence was much higher than it was once centralized power structures began to emerge.

https://class.coursera.org/humankind-001/lecture/45

Did the course include any causal proof of this correlation or it just an inference that you have drawn on your own?

[doodle]

Well, according to lecture 5 lesson 2 of my course on the history of humankind, about 20-25% of premature male deaths in simple agricultural societies (pre cities and government institutions) was due to violence. Today that figure stands at less than 1% and is even lower in many advanced countries.

So, it seems from an anthropological standpoint, your chance of dying in an early pre-governmental agricultural society from human inflicted violence was much higher than it was once centralized power structures began to emerge.

https://class.coursera.org/humankind-001/lecture/45

Did the course include any causal proof of this correlation or it just an inference that you have drawn on your own?

Yes, farming societies made good targets for hungry roaming mauraders. They had things to steal and in the beginning they were easy targets. They had no walls, or standing armies to defend themselves. Later, after they had been pillaged enough times these things began to evolve which made them less attractive targets.

[annieB]

And then the white man came ?

[doodle]

And then the white man came ?

The first societies formed around the middle east.....not every group of humans underwent the agricultural revolution to the same degree. In certain regions, the land and native plants were not suitable to agriculture...these societies maintained more of a hunter gather type society.

The global dominance of european white man is the topic of Jared Diamonds book...guns, germs, and steel. A confluence of factors led to this outcome.

[Kshartle]

Governments can be violent. Therefore, if we eliminate the governments, violence will decrease.

All government action is backed with the threat of violence which is violence. Bank robber doesn't need to shoot anyone he/she just needs to say he/she has a gun and will use it.

The most wonderful government deed is paid for with stolen money or stolen purchasing power from counterfeiting, or borrowed money that will be paid back by stealing from people in the future. The theft only seems legitimate because it's backed with the threat of such overwhelming violence that few even have the emotional strength to recognize it. It's can't be involuntary and not theft. It's clearly not voluntary so it's theft.


People can be violent, therefore if we eliminate people, violence will decrease. - Is that a logical mistake in your opinion?

[doodle]

Governments can be violent. Therefore, if we eliminate the governments, violence will decrease.

All government action is backed with the threat of violence which is violence. Bank robber doesn't need to shoot anyone he/she just needs to say he/she has a gun and will use it.

The most wonderful government deed is paid for with stolen money or stolen purchasing power from counterfeiting, or borrowed money that will be paid back by stealing from people in the future. The theft only seems legitimate because it's backed with the threat of such overwhelming violence that few even have the emotional strength to recognize it. It's can't be involuntary and not theft. It's clearly not voluntary so it's theft.


People can be violent, therefore if we eliminate people, violence will decrease. - Is that a logical mistake in your opinion?

Kshartle, I think you are hung up on this thought pattern. I really think you would benefit from the course that I referenced above. I think it would give you a perspective on human development over a much longer time span and maybe lead you to realize why certain things developed the way they did.

As I said before, in early agricultural societies 25% of men died violent deaths at the hands of other men. Can you see why this state of affairs would lead to the development of centralized power structures in order to provide security and protection? The power that this central government was given was done so in order to prevent other more destabilizing violence. Again, about 1 percent of any population dies a violent death today....compared to 25% before. Does that not indicate anything to you?

I'm not condoning government violence, I'm just saying that in a world where 25% of men die violent deaths, it is the lessor of two evils. Your argument to that is to simply say that violence is bad....YES, it is! But what do you propose to do? Ban violence? That sounds wonderful, do you have a way of putting that into practice right here and now?

[doodle]

In fact, banning violence is a self contradicting statement as banning something necessitates the use of force.

[Kshartle]

Your argument to that is to simply say that violence is bad....YES, it is! But what do you propose to do? Ban violence? That sounds wonderful, do you have a way of putting that into practice right here and now?

The use of force by government is accepted. I am saying it should be rejected. It is the only use of force we currently accept as ok. Is that weird to you? If we know the use of force is bad......then why is it acceptable if only some people do it?

What can you do right now about it?

Point it out to people. Discuss it with them. Convince them to reject asking people to use it on their behalf. Talk to them about raising their kids peacefully.

How many millions did governments kill in the last century? This is like hiring Freddy Kruger and Jason to protect you from the lunch money bully.

[doodle]

Your argument to that is to simply say that violence is bad....YES, it is! But what do you propose to do? Ban violence? That sounds wonderful, do you have a way of putting that into practice right here and now?

The use of force by government is accepted. I am saying it should be rejected. It is the only use of force we currently accept as ok. Is that weird to you? If we know the use of force is bad......then why is it acceptable if only some people do it?

What can you do right now about it?

Point it out to people. Discuss it with them. Convince them to reject asking people to use it on their behalf. Talk to them about raising their kids peacefully.

How many millions did governments kill in the last century? This is like hiring Freddy Kruger and Jason to protect you from the lunch money bully.

Kshartle....watch this thousand year time lapse of Europe as kingdoms give way to empires which eventually give rise to nation states. Does any part of this process seem particularly peaceful to you? Since the dawn of mankind and especially since the advent of agricultural socities we have been living with violence. The fact that it is codified and applied according to a standard that is delineated by cultural norms, ethics and morals and voted on by society at large is preferable in my mind than violence which is applied by a group of mafia strongmen.

If you want to abolish government violence...ok...I can respect that belief. But then at least be logically consistent and say that you are for the abolishment of private property RIGHTS. That right is meaningless unless it is backed up by force. You can argue all day with the mafia that you have a right to your property until they get tired of listening to you and beat you to death with a baseball bat and take your "rightfully" owned property.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=14d_1348 ... 47Zf2Ip.01

[Pointedstick]

If you want to abolish government violence...ok...I can respect that belief. But then at least be logically consistent and say that you are for the abolishment of private property RIGHTS. That right is meaningless unless it is backed up by force. You can argue all day with the mafia that you have a right to your property until they get tired of listening to you and beat you to death with a baseball bat and take your "rightfully" owned property.

I'll admit that. Any claim must be backed up by force or the threat of it; in a non-government world, property claims would need to be backed by force just like they do today. The only difference is that instead of the government providing the force or the threat of it, you or your chosen proxy would do it.

about 1 percent of any population dies a violent death today....compared to 25% before. Does that not indicate anything to you?

Correlation does not imply causation, have you eliminated all the other variables? or just jumping to the conclusion that government force is the only reason we have less death at the hands of other humans?
the libertarian view you tend to mis-characterize then dispute (straw-man) isn't saying what you think it is saying, you seem to have anarchists and libertarian confused.... yes libertarians do acknowledge all government is force as a philosophical foundation, and they also acknowledge that humans are less than perfect and often violent, and so some government is necessary, but they understand we need to work toward a better world and that is one where less force is used and when it is used it is limited and justified. the fundamental pro government fallacy is that a small group with a monopoly on using excessive force, somehow leads to our becoming a better and less violent race, it doesn't.. it only changes the name and organizational structure of the violent mob. Only when people assume responsibility for their own actions and respect the property of others do we move our society in that direction.. if the only thing keeping us from killing each other is government monopoly on violence and the threat of violence.. then we have made exactly zero progress from the high death rate early agricultural tribes you are sighting

[Kshartle]

Guys do you realize there is a difference between force and defense? I am not using force against someone trying to rob me or kill me. He/she is using force. This is bad. Me trying to save my own life cannot be morally wrong. I own my life. It belongs to me, just the same as my property. I have the natural right to defend it just like I have the natural right to defend my life. I can assign that right to anyone else I choose and compensate them anyway I choose.

I don't have the right to use force against anyone. I cannot assign a right to someone that I don't have. I don't need force to protect myself or my property.

Saying it's a democracy or majority rule does not change anything.

Imagine an island has three people on it, two guys and one girl. They decide that all rules on the island for conduct will come from majority decision. They vote on whether rape is acceptable. She is outvoted.

Is rape ok now? Is it lovemaking?

Same principle applies to a republic.

If we had 100 people and 5 were considered the government, and the majority voted that these 5 could rape but no one else could it's still not legitimate. Why is it not legitimate? Because it's forcing another human to do something they don't want to rather than trading with them.

Calling yourself a government official does not bestow special powers allowing you to use force when everyone knows it's unacceptable behavior.

[Pointedstick]

Defense is a form of force.

You seem to be defining force as aggressive violence while drawing a line before defensive violence, but I don't think that'll wash. We make moral judgements regarding whether one is good or one is bad, but it's all force. As doodle points out, we can't live without using force. In a primitive government-less society, hunting an animal is using force. Eating a bug is using force. Even picking a fruit is using force. We don't imbue these actions with a moral dimension because eating food is one of the most basic biological functions of an organism, but it's still force to end another creature's life to power your own metabolic processes.

[Kshartle]

Ok the let's do a better job of defining our terms.

Where I've written force please sustitute aggressive force or compulsion. Whatever word allows us to understand the difference between attcking someone and defending yourself or someone else from attack.

[notsheigetz]

Guys do you realize there is a difference between force and defense?

I do, which is why I thought Doodle's seeming conclusion that the result of people banding together for the purpose of self-defense = centralized government is therefore good was a bit of a stretch.

[doodle]

Guys do you realize there is a difference between force and defense?

I do, which is why I thought Doodle's seeming conclusion that the result of people banding together for the purpose of self-defense = centralized government is therefore good was a bit of a stretch.

How do you defend your little agricultural honey hole against a group of people like the Vikings? You need trained soldiers, walls, defenses, armaments. You aren't going to fend them off with a bunch of pitchforks.

How are you going to raise such an army and organize and provision it? Who is going to make decisions regarding where to position the walls etc. etc.

What if two farmers have a dispute within the society? Who is going to arbitrate that dispute and enforce the decision in order to maintain peace and order so you don't have families squaring off against each other like the Hatfields and McCoys?

You guys are living in some kind of fantasyland when you think a society of 10,000 people is going to be able to do all of this without some central decision making body. Again, my condo has 100 people and we cant do anything without a board of directors. It would be chaos without them.

Defense is only a type of force. It is force that is used to stop an countervailing force. Force is as inextricably linked to our existence on this planet as gravity. Survival requires that one imparts force on their environment.

[Kshartle]

Guys do you realize there is a difference between force and defense?

I do, which is why I thought Doodle's seeming conclusion that the result of people banding together for the purpose of self-defense = centralized government is therefore good was a bit of a stretch.

You believe centralized government is people banding together for the purpose of self-defense? I just want to be clear.

[doodle]

Guys do you realize there is a difference between force and defense?

I do, which is why I thought Doodle's seeming conclusion that the result of people banding together for the purpose of self-defense = centralized government is therefore good was a bit of a stretch.

You believe centralized government is people banding together for the purpose of self-defense? I just want to be clear.

If you have a city of 8 million people....what are you going to do? I think you are expecting too much from people who just want to go to work and come home and relax...they don't want to discuss military maneuvers and train after spending all day toiling creating things.

[doodle]

For the record, doodle, I'm really enjoying your perspective here.

And though I signed up for the course, I still haven't watched anything because my internet connection is SLOW.

The videos are compressed so they don't require a lot of bandwidth. My internet sucks and I haven't had an issue yet.

I don't disagree with Kshartle that force isn't a great way for humans to solve problems between one another. I just think he is being a bit unrealistic and utopic in his thinking and he is failing to recognize the reasons why governments came to exist in the first place. Maybe one day in the future when humans don't have emotions like anger and greed we can live in a society without force or government. But at the moment, constantly berating government as a bunch of goons is just an example of overly simplistic thinking that fails to recognize the enormous complexities of the present world and the innate human need for some kind of structure.....at least if you want organized marketplaces and economic activity to take place. If Kshartle agrees that his beliefs would probably lead to a simple landless hunter gatherer type society then I would say at least he is being logically consistent in his thinking and this whole disagreement would simply come down to different beliefs about the best way for humans to live. 

[notsheigetz]

You believe centralized government is people banding together for the purpose of self-defense? I just want to be clear.

Not necessarily. I think it is at least theoretically possible for people to band together for the purpose of self-defense while eschewing centralized government. The American Indians come to mind. It didn't work out so well for them when they came up against a centralized government however.