I have long thought about this question. Did states originally arise through the cooperation of good people, wanting to create mutual protection systems against brigandage? Or did states arise (per Oppenheimer, and as you depict here) as brigands sought to regularize and "legitimize" their predations—turning their predation into parasitism? Or was it a combo?
I would speculate on "Combo." I have a strong feeling that the really successful, GREAT civilizations were built from very high functioning, synergistic forces running at their best and this is how they showed such incredible flourishing in megalithic monuments and art and culture. Not the slave cultures we've been lead to believe they were. It was the late stages that resembled the very oppressive, slave cultures of the last 3000 yrs or so.
You've got it! I believe this is the only way. The Greeks and Romans were an exception but they after the Bronze age collapse and they're megalithic works were no where near the size and scope.
If Tacitus is to be believed, the Germanic tribes of the 1st century were somewhat like this. Meritorious leaders, leading by auctoritas rather than potestas…open-air meetings in which a strong, free people make decisions…
No megaliths, I suppose, and their wooden irminsuls were consumed by time…
YES! this is true of many indigenous, tribal warrior cultures where self sovereignty was paramount and they could come together in a synergistic form to accomplish great goals like sacking Empire. But that is very different than organized civilization and cosmopolitan flourishing like we see the remnants of in Central/South American Maya or South East Asian Laotian and of course the Mesopotamian/ Egyptian, which we've now seen were absolutely massive, high flourishing cultures accomplishing multi generational megalithic projects that have lasted the ages.
Yes, "nothing lasts and yet nothing is lost." WB. They did build very enduring monuments. Even steel would not last that long. Civilizations are like any other organism, they are born, grow, flower and die. How long they can sustain the process of slowing or even reversing entropy is what is significant, IMO. That is life in a nutshell.
Yep. Long-standing problem with the concept of finding true consent, when people are simply trying to get along and provide for themselves and their families, compared to the coercion being fomented via the tyranny of the herd.
Looking forward to today, we have a similar dilemma within a variety of institutions, especially the legal arena, which is essentially a pay-to-play venue. And to your point, another protection racket.
Replace the current ongoing drama in NYC by substituting yourself or anyone you know with whatever funds you have available, there's a very good chance that you'd be headed for a long prison sentence, regardless of whatever clarity or legal case law exists that you provide to defend yourself. In short, we do not live in an environment that offers a level playing field for the average citizen that would be available in a true republic. We live in an oligarchy.
I love parables!
I have long thought about this question. Did states originally arise through the cooperation of good people, wanting to create mutual protection systems against brigandage? Or did states arise (per Oppenheimer, and as you depict here) as brigands sought to regularize and "legitimize" their predations—turning their predation into parasitism? Or was it a combo?
You would LOVE The Enterprise of Law if you haven't seen it.
This? https://www.amazon.com/Enterprise-Law-Justice-Without-State/dp/1598130447
I would speculate on "Combo." I have a strong feeling that the really successful, GREAT civilizations were built from very high functioning, synergistic forces running at their best and this is how they showed such incredible flourishing in megalithic monuments and art and culture. Not the slave cultures we've been lead to believe they were. It was the late stages that resembled the very oppressive, slave cultures of the last 3000 yrs or so.
Interesting. A heroic people working together voluntarily for mutual aims?
You've got it! I believe this is the only way. The Greeks and Romans were an exception but they after the Bronze age collapse and they're megalithic works were no where near the size and scope.
If Tacitus is to be believed, the Germanic tribes of the 1st century were somewhat like this. Meritorious leaders, leading by auctoritas rather than potestas…open-air meetings in which a strong, free people make decisions…
No megaliths, I suppose, and their wooden irminsuls were consumed by time…
YES! this is true of many indigenous, tribal warrior cultures where self sovereignty was paramount and they could come together in a synergistic form to accomplish great goals like sacking Empire. But that is very different than organized civilization and cosmopolitan flourishing like we see the remnants of in Central/South American Maya or South East Asian Laotian and of course the Mesopotamian/ Egyptian, which we've now seen were absolutely massive, high flourishing cultures accomplishing multi generational megalithic projects that have lasted the ages.
Interesting, though, that neither sort of culture makes it forever…
Yes, "nothing lasts and yet nothing is lost." WB. They did build very enduring monuments. Even steel would not last that long. Civilizations are like any other organism, they are born, grow, flower and die. How long they can sustain the process of slowing or even reversing entropy is what is significant, IMO. That is life in a nutshell.
Yep. Long-standing problem with the concept of finding true consent, when people are simply trying to get along and provide for themselves and their families, compared to the coercion being fomented via the tyranny of the herd.
Looking forward to today, we have a similar dilemma within a variety of institutions, especially the legal arena, which is essentially a pay-to-play venue. And to your point, another protection racket.
Replace the current ongoing drama in NYC by substituting yourself or anyone you know with whatever funds you have available, there's a very good chance that you'd be headed for a long prison sentence, regardless of whatever clarity or legal case law exists that you provide to defend yourself. In short, we do not live in an environment that offers a level playing field for the average citizen that would be available in a true republic. We live in an oligarchy.