On 2001-11-28 14:42, Stonewall Patton wrote:
Virgil, I have never been a fan of organized political parties and I really wish that the founding fathers would have placed a constitutional ban on them at that start.

If so, they'd still exist, but they'd be 'unofficial', and probably far less controlled and more destructive than they are.

All I'm saying is that I see no basis for a conclusion that a constitutional right to secede existed. I would add that attempting to secede from any government is a grave and serious business likely to provoke lots of bloodshed -- and so the cause had better be worth it before you try.

I think a case can be built either way about the technical legality of secession. If you go through the quotes of the Founders who wrote the Constitution, you can find contradictory statements on the matter, often from the same individual. If you took a poll at the Convention in Philadelphia, I think you'd probably get multiple versions of several answers.

As a practical matter, any government is going to try to sustain its authority by force when challenged by force under most circumstances. So Brian is right about being very sure.

On 2001-11-28 20:22, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

Where did you find those secession declarations? Are they on-line, or do you have copies of them in your possession? If the later, where did you find them?

HC, I did not save any links but you can easily find them online. Do a search for "declaration of secession" and you will get a number of hits. There appear to be four of them: SC, GA, MS, and TX.

Whether the secession of states was legal or moral, I believe the political temperament of the time called for a fight to the finish (which made the Civil War a 4th Turning). Lincoln may not have had support for launching an unprovoked assault on the seceding states, but I think he knew he didn?t have to. The South was not about to just go their own way in peace; they were determined to end the United States as an institution forever. They didn?t say so for political reasons, just as Northern leaders would not declare their intent to wage war to end slavery. Lincoln knew that he only had to fortify Fort Sumter, and it would be attacked just because it was so close to the South Carolina coast. Then, the first real battle, the First Battle of Bull Run, was a Confederate assault on Washington, not a Union attack on Richmond.
Perhaps this is relevant to the current ?assault? on Saddam Hussein. The Bush administration doesn?t have to make any new demands on the Baghdad regime, just insist that it keep the agreements made for inspections that should have been enforced over the past ten years.

The natural, default state of mankind is freedom. Government only happens when people decide to give it power and submit to it, whether out of choice or under force. There is illegitimate government such as with the hijackers ruling over their doomed planes; and there legitimate government such as our own. How do we tell them apart? It is simply based on who is the strongest? Or something else?

After all, government is force. When is force legitimately used and when is it not? That is the basic question.

The Civil War was complicated because the North wasn't fighting (on paper) to abolish slavery. They were fighting to reconquer the South, which was said to not have the right to secede, because the Great Seal of the United States was said to have predated the states. Thus, the North's case was that the powers of states were given out by the federal government; to them it was the "Civil War." The South's was the opposite; to them it was known as the "War Between the States."

If slavery was not the proverbial elephant hiding in the corner of the room in the War Between the States, I would have to say that the South's idea was better. However, millions and millions of enslaved people never had a chance to vote on this question. So the secession was not legitimate (by my standards, not the law of the time) for that reason. But it SHOULD be legitimate if it is fairly decided.

In theory, governments should be allowed to devolve down to the single sovereign individual. This might not be wise for this person but hey, live and let live.

JCarson:

The natural, default state of mankind is freedom.

The natural, default state of mankind.


That would be the way that humans actually lived from the time our species first separated genetically from Homo erectus until the beginning civilization roughly 10,000 years ago. A period of between one and two hundred thousand years.


The economy of that natural, default state was based on foraging, hunting, and individual craftsmanship. The social order consisted of small bands of families without any formal organization.


There was no formal government; collective decisions were made in informal council or by a "big man" who was respected by all. (Sometimes it was a "big woman" instead.)


There was no private capital property; the land belonged to the band as a communal possession. It could be defended against encroachment by another band, but not seized by one individual within the band nor sold from one to another.


There was no organized religion. The spiritual needs of the people were met informally, through rituals that had developed over time, perhaps led by a naturally-talented shaman.


The thing is, that absence of government -- that state of freedom, if you want to say that absence of government is a state of freedom -- can only exist when those other conditions are met, too. If we could return to life in small bands living by foraging and hunting, then we could surely dispense with government just as our distant ancestors did.


Of course, we'd also be dispensing with private property.

Mr. Rush, as you yourself point out, government has always existed. It may have been informal rather than formal at first, but it existed. Any time more than two people try to live together, some arrangement must be made to work out disputs. This usually means someone has to be in charge. Most primative poeples today living in small family bands still have some form of organization which can be labeled a government. The natural state of mankind is not freedom from government. This is a myth.

DOC and Brian (and anyone else):

I think the discussion is getting confused by the use of the word 'government'. Perhaps we can revise our terminology to clear things up:

I offer two words to take the place of 'government' -- State, and Politics. Politics is the means used by human beings to coordinate living together -- the basis of a society. The State is a particular type of politics which better fits Brian's timeline.

DOC is correct, that since humans have been forming social groupings, they have had politics. The one requires the other. The organization of the State came about relatively recently in our history as homo sapiens, but has existed for most of recorded history.

What I believe jcarson was arguing, and others have said, was that the particular form of political arrangement -- the State -- is not the only way for society to work.

Human beings are social creatures. Frogs are amphibious creatures. The words 'social' and 'amphibious' describe the same thing with regard to human beings and frogs, respectively. People can only live in society. Politics must happen for society to exist. It is a part of what makes us human beings. As jcarson said (using the more specific terms):

"The natural, default state of mankind is freedom. [The State] only happens when people decide to give it power and submit to it, whether out of choice or under force. "

Clearly, freedom does not mean the absence of society/politics.

Justin:

What I believe jcarson was arguing, and others have said, was that the particular form of political arrangement -- the State -- is not the only way for society to work.

What other way?

Plain Dealer November 29, 2001 page A20:
ASHCROFT RULE NOW LETS INS IGNORE JUDGE, JAIL FOREIGNERS INDEFINITELY
and on page A18:
LOCAL POLICE TO BEGIN QUESTIONING VISITORS FROM MIDEAST
We be 4T.

On 2001-11-29 17:18, Brian Rush wrote:
Justin:

What I believe jcarson was arguing, and others have said, was that the particular form of political arrangement -- the State -- is not the only way for society to work.

What other way?

Always with the hard questions...

The one that comes immediately to mind is called (I think) a Commune. I'm sure others have been tried -- of course, if any had worked out, I'd probably know what they were called. Let's just say that, just because we haven't succeeded with an alternative to the state doesn't mean no superior one exists.

The real question is: is the State necessary?

The only answer I can come up with is: Nobody knows.

Given the problems inherent in the State as a political framework, I think it might be a good thing to find out.



_________________
"It is evident that the most fair-minded man must become intolerant if you place him in a position where he has only the unpleasant choice either to eat or be eaten. Cut the cord, give us full freedom for differing amongst ourselves, and it at once becomes possible for a man to hold by his own convictions and yet be completely tolerant of what his neighbor says and does." -- Auberon Herbert


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Justin '77 on 2001-11-30 08:35 ]</font>

Justin, let's take a look at how the state evolved.


First thing to recognize is that it evolved in conjunction with several other things. These include the concept of private capital property, the practice of commerce, and civilized war. Of these, the first is I think the most important.


Our precivilized ancestors had no private capital property; the land was owned by the band or tribe. As they emerged into civilization, our distant ancestors tried to preserve this situation in various ways but uniformly failed. The ancient Gauls of Caesar's time, who were definitely civilized (though less advanced than the Romans), still had all land technically owned in common by the tribe, but in practice the nobles held fief over portions of it and owned the land in all but name. More or less the same arrangement existed in early medieval Europe, when land was technically owned by the King, but held in fief by nobles who owned it for all practical purposes.


In the ancient Hebrew kingdom, property was privately owned, but there was a curious institution called the "Jubilee," held every 50 years. At the Jubilee, all land was redistributed so that every family had an equal share. Between Jubilees, land could be bought and sold, and divisions emerge between rich and poor, but all these endured only until the next Jubilee. The custom was abolished under King Solomon.


The truth is that all historical agrarian economies went from communal ownership to de facto (whether or not de jure) private ownership of land. The only historical examples of genuine communal ownership in agrarian economies come from quite primitive societies that had only very recently made the transition from foraging/hunting to farming, like the Iroquois.


I believe there are two reasons for this, a good one and a bad one. The good reason is that farming is drudge work. It is not work for which we are genetically suited. It is work that feels like work, and that we instinctively try to avoid. So the only way to get people to do this work is either to reward them individually for doing it, or to punish them for not doing it. On a communal farm, the tendency is for members to slack off and try to get others to do their jobs.


The bad reason is simply greed. Communal ownership doesn't lead to relative wealth. Private ownership does.


Be that as it may, the fact is that communal farming (unlike communal foraging and hunting) has never worked well. It did not work well in the Soviet Union, nor has it worked well on the utopian communes that always seem to spring up in Awakenings.


This is getting long. I'm going to split it into two or three posts. More in the next.

So, the development of agriculture led to that of private capital property.


This in turn led to increased importance for commerce. Trade had always happened between tribes, but within the tribe gift-giving and sharing was more normal, with status accruing to those who could give the most. That's natural when capital property is commonly owned. But when a plot of land becomes the exclusive property of a farmer, the produce of the land is also his exclusive property and not that of the tribe. To feed the rest of the people, it's got to be transferred from one to the other, and the only way to do that within the context of private ownership is to trade something else of value.


Meanwhile, farming itself produces a lot more food than foraging and hunting, and this allows for a large population, many of which don't need to be in the business of food production. Sadly, one of the specialties that had to emerge was that of the warrior, because any settlement that didn't do this would be conquered by those that did.


So you get a professional military class, and also a professional merchant class (since not everyone is equally skilled at trade any more than war), and the natural tendency, given the backdrop of private capital property, is for successful members of both these classes to be rewarded with ownership of land. Merchants could accumulate capital with which to buy land, while warriors (and especially war leaders) could be rewarded by the community with land conquered from enemies -- complete with slaves taken from those same enemies to work it for them.


Here we have two of the three elites of classical civilization: the merchant princes and the warrior/aristocrats.


The third elite arose because all this private property ownership and disparity of wealth and power led to conflicts and resentments. In addition, the sheer size of a civilized community multiplied the vectors of potential conflict. And finally, the way of life having changed so much from the state of nature, new religious approaches were needed to give that life meaning.


All of this led to the formalization of government, and ultimately to the creation of the state. The state, which in ancient times was also the official religion (separating these is a modern innovation), was dominated by the third elite, the priest/bureaucrats.


One last post to sum this up.

What I've described above is something I call the "classical civilized paradigm." It includes an economy based on agriculture, and the dominance of the three elites. (It also includes slavery, or a variant such as serfdom, together with the reduction of women to brood mares, more or less contant warfare, and hierarchical and dogmatic religion having the support of the state, and vice-versa.)


In the classic civilized paradigm, the state is certainly necessary and there is no alternative. But in some ways, clearly we are no longer in the classic paradigm. Our economy is based on industry, not agriculture, as the primary source of wealth. One of the three elites, the warrior/aristocrats, no longer exists. Religion has been separated from government and now operates outside the state. Women are no longer reduced to brood mares, and population growth has slowed and will soon reverse. Slavery and serfdom have been abolished.


Is the state still necessary? For the moment, yes. But if we want to explore whether it will continue to be, I suggest taking these trends forward and seeing what is likely to emerge.


If the state can be replaced, it won't be by communes, or anything else from the precivilized past. It will be with something new.

On 2001-11-30 12:33, Brian Rush wrote:
If the state can be replaced, it won't be by communes, or anything else from the precivilized past. It will be with something new.

Excellent history in a nutshell, Brian. Quite logical.

What will be the next system to emerge? Will we cycle back to earlier states? Will we phase shift?

First I will say that what any of expect will not happen. But even still, I can make some guesses. So if the classical modern state is not to survive (which I believe is the case) what will emerge?

I see four scenarios:

1) a global technocratic system based on a superficial democratic global state managed by a totalitarian suborder,
2) a localized agrarian system,
3) a system based in Deep Ecology (return to a hunter/gatherer state),
4) a state that is beyond human.

Scenario 1 seems impossible to me, because of the need of a reliable, clean, and powerful energy source. I believe that after oil, no effective alternative will be available.

If scenario 2 occurs, it will just like us going back three or four thousand years. Mankind's history will entirely repeat itself. I have more hope than that. Cycles can be taken only so far, eventually waves hit the shore. Waves break.

Although, I prefer the utopian perspective of scenario 3 to the previous two, it is not possible, IMHO, because we have too much knowledge. Our inherent fears, drives, inter/intrapersonal struggles would quickly evolve us into a system like scenario 2.

Scenario 4 is the state of Grace that I discussed in the Religion and Spirituality thread. I could only fantasize on what the state of Grace really is: Confinements of time and space would not exist. The Flesh would be transformed. Mind would be body. Body would be mind. Energy would be matter. Matter would be energy. Survival concepts would not exist. Eternity would be upon us.

Brian,

Clearly, communes are inferior to the State as a means of political organization. In fact, everything that has been implemented so far has been as well. That's why the State persists.

That said, I am intrigued by your idea of moving past the "classical civilized paradigm". I agree that, since the ownership of land -- the keystone of said paradigm -- has become less and less relevant, a new model should develop. My main beef against the State is the presence of elites. Since power in the classical paradigm was centralized around land, it was also centralized in the people who controlled the land, and those who controlled its spoils.

Need this centralization continue? Must people (by which I am not limiting myself to talking about homo sapiens alone, btw) live in an environment where power is centralized and imbalanced? Is the State part of the nature of society?

I suspect not. Now is a good time to explore options (though when isn't?).

Finally, thank you for taking the time to post such a detailed and well-thought-out response. I disagree with you (I think) on some items, but I always enjoy following your thought processes.

[quote]
On 2001-11-30 13:19, Dave'71 wrote:

What will be the next system to emerge? .....
I see four scenarios:

1) a global technocratic system based on a superficial democratic global state managed by a totalitarian suborder,
2) a localized agrarian system,
3) a system based in Deep Ecology (return to a hunter/gatherer state),
4) a state that is beyond human.

Scenario 1 seems impossible to me, because of the need of a reliable, clean, and powerful energy source. I believe that after oil, no effective alternative will be available.

If scenario 2 occurs, it will just like us going back three or four thousand years. Mankind's history will entirely repeat itself. I have more hope than that. Cycles can be taken only so far, eventually waves hit the shore. Waves break.

Although, I prefer the utopian perspective of scenario 3 to the previous two, it is not possible, IMHO, because we have too much knowledge. Our inherent fears, drives, inter/intrapersonal struggles would quickly evolve us into a system like scenario 2.

Scenario 4 is the state of Grace that I discussed in the Religion and Spirituality thread. I could only fantasize on what the state of Grace really is: Confinements of time and space would not exist. The Flesh would be transformed. Mind would be body. Body would be mind. Energy would be matter. Matter would be energy. Survival concepts would not exist. Eternity would be upon us.

Scenario 4 reminds me of Star Trek TOS's "Organians" from the episode "Errand of Mercy"-- creatures of pure energy which had evolved beyond the need for physical bodies. I suppose that may be possible given another billion years or so of human evolution. But unless mankind exterminates itself and the good among us become angels, that is obviously not going to happen in the near-to-intermediate future.

Meanwhile, I disagree that Scenario 1 is impossible or even unlikely. Should oil run out, I believe that an alternative will be found and implemented-- most likely direct and indirect solar power and, eventually, nuclear fusion.

Regarding Scenario 1, Dave, why would a totalitarian suborder be required, and why a superficial democracy? Why not a global representative democracy from bottom to top, with the upper layer (world government) being delegated powers over only those issues that affect the entire globe (such as watchdogging the environment, major corporations and space exploration)? This I believe is the most likely scenario in the relatively-near future-- call it Scenario 1A.

On 2001-11-30 17:17, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:
Scenario 4 reminds me of Star Trek TOS's "Organians" from the episode "Errand of Mercy"-- creatures of pure energy which had evolved beyond the need for physical bodies. I suppose that may be possible given another billion years or so of human evolution. But unless mankind exterminates itself and the good among us become angels, that is obviously not going to happen in the near-to-intermediate future.

I am not speaking of an evolution, but of an entire phase shift. What I am speaking of is to "become angels," but it is not those of us who are simply "good," as you suggest. Grace is a gift given by God alone.

Meanwhile, I disagree that Scenario 1 is impossible or even unlikely. Should oil run out, I believe that an alternative will be found and implemented-- most likely direct and indirect solar power and, eventually, nuclear fusion.

The most effect solar power plants are chlorophyll. Mankind will never be as efficient as those microscopic creations. One just can't beat the function of kelp!

Re: Fusion...Nuclear fusion happens most effectively on large bodies, i.e., the Sun. Only in uncontrollable instances will we produce reliable fusion. Even if we were able to produce fusion in stationary facilities. Mankind's infrastructure depends on mobile energy sources. Oil for cars or grass for horses have been the most effective so far. Oil will run out and there is no effective alternative, IMHO.

Regarding Scenario 1, Dave, why would a totalitarian suborder be required, and why a superficial democracy? Why not a global representative democracy from bottom to top, with the upper layer (world government) being delegated powers over only those issues that affect the entire globe (such as watchdogging the environment, major corporations and space exploration)? This I believe is the most likely scenario in the relatively-near future-- call it Scenario 1A.

The infrastructure necessary to allow the necessary transfer of goods and services in a global society is so complex that one must maintain a precise level of order. With inorganic systems, inflexibility is not an option. Silicates crack. It's just like writing code: the upperlevel interfaces will crash if your bottom level code is funky. The suborder must be dictatorial in order for the infrastructure to survive; technology is a bottom-up system. Try being flexible with your character structure even in the flexible HTML. It's the "technocratic" model; it mirrors system design. A code must be written and adhered to. In the end, the flexibility of the organic "Grace" will consume that which is inflexible. Others will argue that top-down systems can be developed, I disagree. God is the only top-down system which is also bottom up and middle out, all at the same time.

I know some of my posts may seem a bit out there, maybe this is because my ideas are gifts based in both metaphor and reason. Much of the time I am more of a poet than I am a philosopher/scientist.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Dave'71 on 2001-11-30 21:06 ]</font>

To return for a moment to initial thread topic, this looks like a 4T kind of notion to me:

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/ne...por_right.html

If you live in Europe, be afraid.

On 2001-11-30 21:01, Dave'71 wrote:

Meanwhile, I disagree that Scenario 1 is impossible or even unlikely. Should oil run out, I believe that an alternative will be found and implemented-- most likely direct and indirect solar power and, eventually, nuclear fusion.

The most effect solar power plants are chlorophyll. Mankind will never be as efficient as those microscopic creations. One just can't beat the function of kelp!

Depends on your definition of 'efficient'. If your goal is to produce electricity, then human solar technology is _already_ better than photosynthesis. If chemical production of sugars is the goal, then photosynthesis remains the top dog.

If it should become necessary, we can most certainly supply our electrical needs from solar power. If we really had to, we could do it now . It would be clumsy and far from ideal, but it could be done, and the technology continues to improve.

Re: Fusion...Nuclear fusion happens most effectively on large bodies, i.e., the Sun. Only in uncontrollable instances will we produce reliable fusion. Even if we were able to produce fusion in stationary facilities. Mankind's infrastructure depends on mobile energy sources. Oil for cars or grass for horses have been the most effective so far. Oil will run out and there is no effective alternative, IMHO.

If you've got fusion power, safe fission power using U-238 (if you could do that, the power shortage is solved for the time being), or large-scale solar, then you can get around the mobility problem by using liquid hydrogen in place of gasoline. Use the power from your big, stationary energy source to split water into H and O. If effect, you're storing the power in chemical form for later use.

Again, not the ideal solution, but it could be done, expensively, today , if we really had to do it. The technology continues to improve.

On 2001-11-30 23:26, HopefulCynic68 wrote:
or large-scale solar, then you can get around the mobility problem by using liquid hydrogen in place of gasoline. Use the power from your big, stationary energy source to split water into H and O. If effect, you're storing the power in chemical form for later use.

In a mobile form, hydrogen is not safe. Think Hindenberg.

One could argue that in mobile form, petroluem isn't safe. What is safe? Define "safe", please.

Hydrogen is much safer than any other fuel. In the Hindenburg accident, not one passenger was burned to death in the fire. Those who stayed in the dirigible as it descended survived with minor injuries. Only those who fell or panicked and jumped were killed.


Hydrogen doesn't burn very hot, is the thing. There are dangers associated with it as with any flammable gas or liquid, but they are less serious dangers than with petroleum products.

Hydrogen if safe as long as it is stored a liquid form in a container to keep it from interacting with oxygen.

To put the idea of where we're going in perspective, consider that agriculture is believed to have developed about 10,000 years ago, and recorded history began about 8,000 years ago, at which time we have solid evidence of several societies organized according to the classic paradigm (Egypt, Sumeria, Jericho). Societies went through transitional phases during those two millennia, including communal farming settlements, tribal organization with chiefdoms, and so on. It was not a clear-cut, instant transition from the natural-society paradigm to the classic civilized paradigm. It took time.


The classic paradigm began to morph into something different in the 14th or 15th century, with the Renaissance, the scientific revolution, the expansion of literacy and the printing press, the dawn of the modern saeculum; moving into the industrial revolution, the wave of democratic revolutions, the end of slavery, the end of the warrior/aristocrat elite, and on to the feminist revolution, the invention of the computer, the dawn of environmental consciousness . . .


I believe we're still in transition. We are moving towards something different, something I call the "advanced civilized paradigm." The modern saeculum can be seen as the morphology of that transition.


As unpleasant as the classic paradigm was, it was nonetheless a stable, sustainable setup. Civilized life proceeded under that paradigm for over five thousand years. The natural-society paradigm was also stable and sustainable. Precivilized societies lived under it for over a hundred thousand years!


What we have today is not stable or sustainable, any more than the transitional farming communities were. It is colliding with natural limits and with its own internal dysfunctions, and will soon collide with significant new technological developments in artificial intelligence and genetic engineering.


Is the advanced paradigm one of instability? Or do we proceed toward another equilibrium, a paradigm that achieves a dynamic (instead of a static) balance? Assuming the latter, what will the advanced paradigm consist of?


That is probably stuff for another thread.