Subordination

[ZenitYerkes]

I posted something on the subject already, but nothing extensive.

First of all, let's take we've got an hypothetical equal society where everyone is at the same level, in the same class; perhaps with distinctions depending on its function on this society, but everyone works on his work and gets benefited from it directly, goods are traded by the old barter system.

With this imaginary and new, perfect and almost utopian society set up; let's see what situations arise that may lead a government, or actually any kind of superior level, appear; to see if it's actually a need or it's simply a way for the people on the top to get their work done easily.

How about conflicts? Imagine two farmers pissed off because the hens of the first one have been going out to the other's yard at night, or a person complaining because the fish of the fishmonger is rotting. Even if people were of a calm temperament, we know that sooner or later, there would be blood.

So, on a side, authority is thought to provide security and avoid people killing each other, or better said, they take out the freedom of stabbing someone to death.

Anyone else sees any practical or needed side of the subordination relationships?

[Isard]

Something we discussed on Skype last night actually. Ever notice, that all the largest times of peace, have always been during times of strong central authority?

The Roman empire, for example. They kept the peace within their empire through sheer force of will. And only fell apart due to lack of communications between the far reaches. The Native Americans have a story of a "time of great peace" when a majority of the tribes banded together to form a centralized government.

Anytime we break down central authority people will go for each others throats in months. Strong governments are necessary for any peaceful society to work.

[ZenitYerkes]

Originally Posted by Aihwa

Something we discussed on Skype last night actually. Ever notice, that all the largest times of peace, have always been during times of strong central authority?

The Roman empire, for example. They kept the peace within their empire through sheer force of will. And only fell apart due to lack of communications between the far reaches. The Native Americans have a story of a "time of great peace" when a majority of the tribes banded together to form a centralized government.

Anytime we break down central authority people will go for each others throats in months. Strong governments are necessary for any peaceful society to work.

Yeah, governments are necessary when they work to get everything leaning towards the common good. Though feudalism was also founded a strong authority, but centered on itself; hence why those weren't exactly peaceful periods, the powerful thought of lands and not people, wars were a current issue since for princes and kings, since it was their usual affair and their main ambition. Nothing for the people below.

However, making people work for the common good and stay under a common rule kills individual freedom.

[Isard]

Individual freedom seems to attract conflicts.

[Tsyal Makto]

[redneck] Yeah, gotta have a gummint, just keep it away from my money 'n guns. [/redneck]

[ZenitYerkes]

Originally Posted by Aihwa

Individual freedom seems to attract conflicts.

Actually, because we've got freedom to do absolutely everything, and that involves kicking, punching, torturing and killing in many varied ways, each one more terrifying than the previous one.

But as well freedom to do things such as thinking, provide knowledge, help starving people, share your goods with the people needing them,...

Freedom is a threat and a desired good, a two-edged sword; a tool, actually, that can be used to make good or bad on the rest.

The choice is ours.

[Fkeu 'Awpo]

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes

Actually, because we've got freedom to do absolutely everything, and that involves kicking, punching, torturing and killing in many varied ways, each one more terrifying than the previous one.

But as well freedom to do things such as thinking, provide knowledge, help starving people, share your goods with the people needing them,...

Except, with the first one, (unlike with the second one) there are consequences.

That's why there are people in authority; so you don't go around torturing and killing others. (oh and realistically speaking, I think kicking is far more terrifying than punching)


Haha best definition

Laws:

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes

they take out the freedom of stabbing someone to death.

[Sonoran Na'vi]

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes

With this imaginary and new, perfect and almost utopian society set up; let's see what situations arise that may lead a government, or actually any kind of superior level, appear; to see if it's actually a need or it's simply a way for the people on the top to get their work done easily.

With the presence of agriculture, you will see social stratification. A Utopian society, like the one you described, would not last very long.

How about conflicts? Imagine two farmers pissed off because the hens of the first one have been going out to the other's yard at night, or a person complaining because the fish of the fishmonger is rotting. Even if people were of a calm temperament, we know that sooner or later, there would be blood.

Societies without social stratification would commonly assign mediators to help settle disputes such as these. When Western explorers first happened upon a lot of these societies, they incorrectly assumed these mediators held a position of power in the society. The actual nature of the situation was that the mediator only had whatever power the society afforded them, and usually it would only apply in certain situations (such as helping to settle a conflict). But the mediator never held any ability to enforce what he felt was correct.