"But there is another school of thought that contends that governments are what happen when brigands and raiders figure out that it is easier to tax a captive people under the color of authority than it is to raid free people who might just fight back."
100%
Also, there are many famous quotes that go like this: History is told by the victors (with much color for control inserted).
Even if it's a combo—some polities formed to protect themselves, and others were forced by exploiters, the end result is the same. They all end up in exploitation.
Another great and, as always, thought provoking essay, Mr. Cook. thank you. Plus, anyone who can quote G.K. Chesterton and Homer Simpson in the same article, and with rather equal probity, well, need I say more? For me, Chesterton quotes are never too long. When you end a paragraph with “fracas or shindy” it simply illustrates the richness of the language and underscores something of what we have lost in modern “discourse”.
One other thing We might want to add in evaluating "cavemen." Were They in a place of scarcity or abundance? This is crucial, because societies that emerge in abundance are very different from ones that emerge in scarcity - and it's important to note, without political baggage, that We are post scarcity. If We took all the things in stores and warehouses and handed them to People who wanted them, there would be plenty left over. And if People could have access to food when fresh as They wanted, there would be food left over.
Of course, profit motive ensures that things stay in warehouses and on store shelves, and ensures that the food that does not sell goes bad and is tossed, rather than providing for One who is hungry but has no money.
But the point here is that Our society emerged in scarcity. The scarcity motivated competition, and accounting for the energy We each add into the society, with trade and barter, and with representational things. And these promoted the psychopaths in the society, who most likely DID start the idea of "government."
Our society took over the planet, having taken over and eliminated the (very few) societies that emerged in abundance. Virtually all of them were on "island paradises." The big differences between the societies emerging abundance in and those in scarcity were:
1. In abundance, the caring Ones took care of the problems that arose rather than the psychopaths controlling things
2. No money/accounting for energy added to ensure everyOne added Their "fair share"
3. The People were happy, loving, playful, giving, creative, and doing things They loved to do for the social currencies – the thanks, appreciation, reciprocation, honor, lauds, fame, love, and such that They received
4. When problems arose, They moved to solve them the best way, not the cheapest or most profitable – or left to fester because there was no money
5. They cooperated, rather than competed
6. There was no poverty
7. The psychopaths (about 1% of Us across the board are psychopaths) learned to choose Their behavior Ethically or be cast out (or killed)
From this, We can see that the classic picture of a "caveman" is predicated on the notion that there is scarcity. And We can see that in today's world, with automation, transportation, and all, We could live as the societies that emerged in abundance did.
But for that yoke that keeps Us in slavery. Money.
Anyway, I go into this more in many of my articles but thought You would like that to consider what the affects of abundance are on Human interaction.
That rather goes without saying! LOL! The point is that We have now what it would take to have a society based on abundance. I also know We have the technology to remove that dangerous tool called "money" (in all forms) to allow Us to live as freely as We should on Our planet. To effectively return the wealth that has been stolen from Us...
Today, government is the brute and they certainly don't want us slaves enjoying food or sex. If government wasn't in a constant state of fear over losing power, they would not care about the citizens having true freedoms. They have done little to earn a speck of trust.
"This is an assumption that almost everyone seems to make. The state of nature (a condition in the absence of government) is automatically presumed to be one of Hobbesian chaos. Nasty, solitary, brutish, and short. A war of 'all against all.'
"Why?"
Because certain personalities WILL attempt to dominate others and take their stuff.
Interestingly, it's thought by archaeologists that in hunter-gatherer times, if a man aggressively and persistently displayed these kinds of tendencies, the other men would confer and organize to murder him.
What an ICBM please? Can you please tell me more about Jeff Bezos and why he had an army? Did his money run out? He had $1 trillion. I know he gave half to his wife. But what was he doing with an army?
That was a sarcastic comment about the "prediction" that so many people make that without government, there would be endless warlords oppressing us, and that the rich would be the worst of them.
People have been conditioned to believe "Lord of the Flies' was based on a true story. Essentially, like other things, it is propaganda to condition us that government is the only thing keeping us civilized and out of cannibalism. It is a smooth brained reality tunnel but most people have it.
Did you ever read about the actual marooned-kids event that happened—-and how they created a functional society for months before being rescued? The opposite of Golding’s tale.
"We do not have much evidence for exactly how things were before the rise of regular governance. We have a ton of evidence after, and that evidence does not point to a record of success."
Actually, we do have some: the Wild West; any new settlements anywhere in the world, there would almost always be a period of self-government or some ad hoc governing taking place here and there when bigger decisions needed to be made. It doesn't seem to have worked any worse than what we have got today. And of course there have always been periods where the governing classes were at least unconcerned with the daily lives of the people and left them, by and large, to their own devices.
On legalizing drugs and so on: maybe the word is a bit misleading. You mean "letting them be sold and traded unchecked and without restrictions," right? That would definitely be a step in the right direction.
Yeah, and the Wild West actually serves to prove we ancaps' point: contra all the tall tales, the West during that period was quite peaceful. More so than today by a significant degree.
Re: legalizing, yep. I am always looking for shorthand, with the amount of writing I have to do each day.
Your productivity is very inspiring, actually. You somehow manage to get the chapters out, to keep the phrasing clear, and not to rip the heads off people who criticize your (genuinely clear) style. Attaman. (The usual spelling is “attaboy” but you are too sophisticated for that.)
I do occasionally get frustrated, dealing with the same objections over and over. But I try to be cool and remember that I was exactly where they were not all that long ago. Civil discourse is the way to go!
Quite an argument. A democratic government is an agreed alliance between states, or regions, or people to form a common system of rules. Government acts only by force of law, never consensual. You cannot “ agree” you will not follow the speeding laws, or not pay your taxes. You will be fined or go to jail, depending upon your level of disobedience.
Private actors and corporations and businesses operate only on consent. Even the biggest company, say Apple, cannot compel you to buy any of its products.
Thus, government overreach for political ends by elected officials is, to me anathema. There should be a strictly enforced oath upon taking elected office . Only the salary may be earned during the term, all other assets sold and held in a separate locked government account earning standard interest . No trading, no buying or selling of property directly or indirectly through surrogates or “ strawmen “.
I get it. Perhaps 335 million people is too large and cumbersome for a single, central government. Hence the idea of independent and sovereign states. But the Tenth Amendment has been long forgotten. I read that some 30% of a state’s budget- larger for some states- derives from the federal government. Hence, states have become like vassals or satellites to the central power. It would be great to untangle the mess that the last 150 years created.
I think the things you want would certainly constitute an improvement.
Just as a clarification, market anarchists are not saying that following laws would be optional. We are saying that the source of the laws would be something other than a single entity claiming a monopoly of authority over a given territory and people. Protective force (security and justice) would still exist. They would come from a different source. (This is a very complex topic not easily summarized in a few words.)
Another awesome chapter! The question from my side here is: Do you think without drug criminalization gangs would just disappear in a few months? Do you have any article of somebody you can point me to? (I agree with your writing (as you know), but I haven’t dug into this issue yet.)
When it comes to this issue, confirmation bias is always a problem. Libertarians for legalization/decriminalization will focus on the most positive outcomes in places where it has been tried, and conservatives for continued prohibition will find the most negative. Good info can be hard to come by. Though if you do a search, you will find plenty.
Of course a lot of the examples you find out there (Portland, OR, e.g.) do look kind of bad—with junkies everywhere, etc. But I believe I know the reason why that is: the continued existence of the welfare state.
Human is what? An evolved Cave Man? Certainly. I recall, from the Bible, that God spoke to the human and told them to seek out lands for where the people were that lived in a paradise; go there and take it.
What that exactly means, is a conundrum. Did that mean attack and consume or join and prosper?
In my argument, the Bible has been the greatest documentary regarding human virtue and morality. It's wonderful and violent on every aspect of the human psyche.
We, as humans, content in times of plenty and miserable in times of famine. We are born, some with intellectual capacity, some, not so much. That being said. Is it morally justified to assume that?
The intellectual is not always capable, neither is the dullard always incapable.
The answer is cooperation. The natural evolution between the helpful and the helpless is equilibrium.
The problem is when the intellectual considers itself omnipotent and subjects that emotion into abuse. Rather than empathy.
Let's consider the "Kingdom" analogy here. The intellectuals grooming the villagers into believing their existence is based upon the sustenance of the intellectual. Their safety based upon protection from whatever is lurking outside the village.
The trickery committed by the intellectual on the villagers is documented throughout history.
Another argument about superiority is that of an illusion. What if they simply hired simpletons to terrorize the villagers, on purpose? Sounds interesting and absolutely logical.
Government or governance isn't a person OR thing but rather a process, actually.
The intellectual fortitude from one is the motivation to another. The inspiration of prosperity is the motivation for all.
Corruption in the process of governance is absolutely oppressive.
Oppression breeds envy.
The cycle is canabalistic in nature; therefore equilibrium must prevail. Otherwise, there's - this: continuous scarcity with a sprinkling of fear. And completely unnecessary in reality. Humanity cannot fight or fear nature itself; but be one of and cooperating with nature.
So, here we are, again being manipulated by intellectual dullards.
America is founded upon the philosophy behind historical tyranny and what is possible with spiritual equilibrium as with and among nature.
Also, some intellectuals throughout history have simply sucked up to psychopaths in power to avoid having to go till the fields with the rest of the us.
Directed by the Athenian statesman Pericles, constructing the Parthenon was the work of the architects Ictinus and Callicrates under the supervision of the sculptor Phidias
Even the army of the declared epitome of evil, the Nazi's, had little stomach for mass murder. When tasked with executing the institutionalized undesirables, machine-gunning down the defenseless, thousands at a time, they became useless as a fighting force. Their grief and trauma at having participated in such atrocities left them debillitated, mental wrecks.
It was after watching the soldiers become spent and no longer capable war-fighters that the leaders of the mass eugenics extermination turned to the medical/petrochemical professionals.
Dr. Victor Brack had the first gas chambers constructed and tested on their victims. After watching two-dozen men die in agony Brack was pleased, smiled at the group that gathered and said his hallmark saying, "the needle belongs in the hand of the doctor." That 'success' became the model for industrial scale murder. Doctors could gleefully murder thousands at a time. The ordinary soldier could not.
Why does the western medical field demand we wear slave masks, take poisonous injections, mutilate the genitals of children? Allopathic medicine is largely a Rockefeller construct, as is his Standard Oil, its Big Pharma subdivisions - they've been paired from the start. Rockefeller and his heirs are ALL eugenicists, it's in their genes.
Medical doctors, the only profession permitted to diagnose, treat and prescribe medicine is a creation of government. And serves government first, their paycheck second and then patients.
Free people with free markets wouldn't permit their healers to be mass murderers. Iatrocide being the #2 cause of death in the US. And that was *before* 2020. Any guesses as to now?
"But there is another school of thought that contends that governments are what happen when brigands and raiders figure out that it is easier to tax a captive people under the color of authority than it is to raid free people who might just fight back."
100%
Also, there are many famous quotes that go like this: History is told by the victors (with much color for control inserted).
Even if it's a combo—some polities formed to protect themselves, and others were forced by exploiters, the end result is the same. They all end up in exploitation.
Another great and, as always, thought provoking essay, Mr. Cook. thank you. Plus, anyone who can quote G.K. Chesterton and Homer Simpson in the same article, and with rather equal probity, well, need I say more? For me, Chesterton quotes are never too long. When you end a paragraph with “fracas or shindy” it simply illustrates the richness of the language and underscores something of what we have lost in modern “discourse”.
Thank you, and agreed!
I will keep 'em coming as fast as I can!
Government exists to perpetuate government, not to defend natural human rights.
The definition of a dangerous cult. To serve it self at whatever cost even at its own, inevitably.
One other thing We might want to add in evaluating "cavemen." Were They in a place of scarcity or abundance? This is crucial, because societies that emerge in abundance are very different from ones that emerge in scarcity - and it's important to note, without political baggage, that We are post scarcity. If We took all the things in stores and warehouses and handed them to People who wanted them, there would be plenty left over. And if People could have access to food when fresh as They wanted, there would be food left over.
Of course, profit motive ensures that things stay in warehouses and on store shelves, and ensures that the food that does not sell goes bad and is tossed, rather than providing for One who is hungry but has no money.
But the point here is that Our society emerged in scarcity. The scarcity motivated competition, and accounting for the energy We each add into the society, with trade and barter, and with representational things. And these promoted the psychopaths in the society, who most likely DID start the idea of "government."
Our society took over the planet, having taken over and eliminated the (very few) societies that emerged in abundance. Virtually all of them were on "island paradises." The big differences between the societies emerging abundance in and those in scarcity were:
1. In abundance, the caring Ones took care of the problems that arose rather than the psychopaths controlling things
2. No money/accounting for energy added to ensure everyOne added Their "fair share"
3. The People were happy, loving, playful, giving, creative, and doing things They loved to do for the social currencies – the thanks, appreciation, reciprocation, honor, lauds, fame, love, and such that They received
4. When problems arose, They moved to solve them the best way, not the cheapest or most profitable – or left to fester because there was no money
5. They cooperated, rather than competed
6. There was no poverty
7. The psychopaths (about 1% of Us across the board are psychopaths) learned to choose Their behavior Ethically or be cast out (or killed)
From this, We can see that the classic picture of a "caveman" is predicated on the notion that there is scarcity. And We can see that in today's world, with automation, transportation, and all, We could live as the societies that emerged in abundance did.
But for that yoke that keeps Us in slavery. Money.
Anyway, I go into this more in many of my articles but thought You would like that to consider what the affects of abundance are on Human interaction.
Money... Do We Need It? (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/money-do-we-need-it
Well, I think the best thing I can say is that we must learn to behave ourselves in scarcity and in abundance.
That rather goes without saying! LOL! The point is that We have now what it would take to have a society based on abundance. I also know We have the technology to remove that dangerous tool called "money" (in all forms) to allow Us to live as freely as We should on Our planet. To effectively return the wealth that has been stolen from Us...
Trusts: The Big Heist Against Humanity (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/trusts-the-big-heist-against-humanity
And We really do not need to "learn." We all know it's wrong to break the three Laws...
The three Laws of Ethics (Natural Law expressed as the three things not to do):
1. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent hurt or kill the flesh of anOther
2. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent take or damage anything that does not belong to You alone
3. Do not willfully defraud anOther (which can only happen without fully informed consent)
But the psychopaths, promoted by money, teach that it's okay to attack other "countries..."
But the psychopaths, promoted by money, teach that it's okay to attack other "countries..."
—But but but we need our psychopaths to protect us from their psychopaths!
LOL! I think not! Haha! 🤗 💜 🤗
🤣🔥🤣
Today, government is the brute and they certainly don't want us slaves enjoying food or sex. If government wasn't in a constant state of fear over losing power, they would not care about the citizens having true freedoms. They have done little to earn a speck of trust.
If the "government"(using a loose term to what that is) did care bout us achieving true freedom, would they stop "being government"you?
Motion to strike the last word "you".
💯
https://open.substack.com/pub/jonfleetwood/p/assistant-police-chief-accuses-tennessee?r=38a8y&utm_medium=ios
This police chief found out firsthand what our government is like at all levels .
Hopefully other LEOs hear his message.
"This is an assumption that almost everyone seems to make. The state of nature (a condition in the absence of government) is automatically presumed to be one of Hobbesian chaos. Nasty, solitary, brutish, and short. A war of 'all against all.'
"Why?"
Because certain personalities WILL attempt to dominate others and take their stuff.
Interestingly, it's thought by archaeologists that in hunter-gatherer times, if a man aggressively and persistently displayed these kinds of tendencies, the other men would confer and organize to murder him.
The simple justice of natural law.
What an ICBM please? Can you please tell me more about Jeff Bezos and why he had an army? Did his money run out? He had $1 trillion. I know he gave half to his wife. But what was he doing with an army?
That was a sarcastic comment about the "prediction" that so many people make that without government, there would be endless warlords oppressing us, and that the rich would be the worst of them.
I unpack it in more detail here:
https://christophercook.substack.com/p/people-allowed-own-nuclear-weapons
Thank you
People have been conditioned to believe "Lord of the Flies' was based on a true story. Essentially, like other things, it is propaganda to condition us that government is the only thing keeping us civilized and out of cannibalism. It is a smooth brained reality tunnel but most people have it.
Did you ever read about the actual marooned-kids event that happened—-and how they created a functional society for months before being rescued? The opposite of Golding’s tale.
Yea, it was pretty much an inversion of what he put forth.
Yet you never hear about it, while every schoolboy and schoolgirl is forced to read Golding’s propaganda.
You and I know why that is, so do many of your readers. Oh, nice essay by the way. Usually I lead with that but I jumped right in to commenting 😅
Thanks, and jumping right in is fine!
"We do not have much evidence for exactly how things were before the rise of regular governance. We have a ton of evidence after, and that evidence does not point to a record of success."
Actually, we do have some: the Wild West; any new settlements anywhere in the world, there would almost always be a period of self-government or some ad hoc governing taking place here and there when bigger decisions needed to be made. It doesn't seem to have worked any worse than what we have got today. And of course there have always been periods where the governing classes were at least unconcerned with the daily lives of the people and left them, by and large, to their own devices.
On legalizing drugs and so on: maybe the word is a bit misleading. You mean "letting them be sold and traded unchecked and without restrictions," right? That would definitely be a step in the right direction.
Yeah, and the Wild West actually serves to prove we ancaps' point: contra all the tall tales, the West during that period was quite peaceful. More so than today by a significant degree.
Re: legalizing, yep. I am always looking for shorthand, with the amount of writing I have to do each day.
Your productivity is very inspiring, actually. You somehow manage to get the chapters out, to keep the phrasing clear, and not to rip the heads off people who criticize your (genuinely clear) style. Attaman. (The usual spelling is “attaboy” but you are too sophisticated for that.)
Thanks, Iris!
I do occasionally get frustrated, dealing with the same objections over and over. But I try to be cool and remember that I was exactly where they were not all that long ago. Civil discourse is the way to go!
Only because you are one of the good ones :) Most people would have switched to rocks with sharp edges long before.
❤️🙏🏻🔥
thats 21 centurys values….
Exept food is crap and sex obsessional…
WE are Not caveman( some of us)
Lots of things have changed. But we're the same species.
Demo-n- cracy...
Yup.
Quite an argument. A democratic government is an agreed alliance between states, or regions, or people to form a common system of rules. Government acts only by force of law, never consensual. You cannot “ agree” you will not follow the speeding laws, or not pay your taxes. You will be fined or go to jail, depending upon your level of disobedience.
Private actors and corporations and businesses operate only on consent. Even the biggest company, say Apple, cannot compel you to buy any of its products.
Thus, government overreach for political ends by elected officials is, to me anathema. There should be a strictly enforced oath upon taking elected office . Only the salary may be earned during the term, all other assets sold and held in a separate locked government account earning standard interest . No trading, no buying or selling of property directly or indirectly through surrogates or “ strawmen “.
I get it. Perhaps 335 million people is too large and cumbersome for a single, central government. Hence the idea of independent and sovereign states. But the Tenth Amendment has been long forgotten. I read that some 30% of a state’s budget- larger for some states- derives from the federal government. Hence, states have become like vassals or satellites to the central power. It would be great to untangle the mess that the last 150 years created.
Yes. The central authority buys allegiance with money. It's a racket. It's evil!
Though even before that all came about, the system was better, but it was still morally impermissible.
I think the things you want would certainly constitute an improvement.
Just as a clarification, market anarchists are not saying that following laws would be optional. We are saying that the source of the laws would be something other than a single entity claiming a monopoly of authority over a given territory and people. Protective force (security and justice) would still exist. They would come from a different source. (This is a very complex topic not easily summarized in a few words.)
Another awesome chapter! The question from my side here is: Do you think without drug criminalization gangs would just disappear in a few months? Do you have any article of somebody you can point me to? (I agree with your writing (as you know), but I haven’t dug into this issue yet.)
Thank you.
When it comes to this issue, confirmation bias is always a problem. Libertarians for legalization/decriminalization will focus on the most positive outcomes in places where it has been tried, and conservatives for continued prohibition will find the most negative. Good info can be hard to come by. Though if you do a search, you will find plenty.
Of course a lot of the examples you find out there (Portland, OR, e.g.) do look kind of bad—with junkies everywhere, etc. But I believe I know the reason why that is: the continued existence of the welfare state.
Here is my take on that aspect: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/should-we-legalize-drugs
Awesome, thanks! I absolutely agree with the confirmation-bias issue and try to avoid it wherever I can.
Quite the analogy, Cave Man. 😁
Human is what? An evolved Cave Man? Certainly. I recall, from the Bible, that God spoke to the human and told them to seek out lands for where the people were that lived in a paradise; go there and take it.
What that exactly means, is a conundrum. Did that mean attack and consume or join and prosper?
In my argument, the Bible has been the greatest documentary regarding human virtue and morality. It's wonderful and violent on every aspect of the human psyche.
We, as humans, content in times of plenty and miserable in times of famine. We are born, some with intellectual capacity, some, not so much. That being said. Is it morally justified to assume that?
The intellectual is not always capable, neither is the dullard always incapable.
The answer is cooperation. The natural evolution between the helpful and the helpless is equilibrium.
The problem is when the intellectual considers itself omnipotent and subjects that emotion into abuse. Rather than empathy.
Let's consider the "Kingdom" analogy here. The intellectuals grooming the villagers into believing their existence is based upon the sustenance of the intellectual. Their safety based upon protection from whatever is lurking outside the village.
The trickery committed by the intellectual on the villagers is documented throughout history.
Another argument about superiority is that of an illusion. What if they simply hired simpletons to terrorize the villagers, on purpose? Sounds interesting and absolutely logical.
Government or governance isn't a person OR thing but rather a process, actually.
The intellectual fortitude from one is the motivation to another. The inspiration of prosperity is the motivation for all.
Corruption in the process of governance is absolutely oppressive.
Oppression breeds envy.
The cycle is canabalistic in nature; therefore equilibrium must prevail. Otherwise, there's - this: continuous scarcity with a sprinkling of fear. And completely unnecessary in reality. Humanity cannot fight or fear nature itself; but be one of and cooperating with nature.
So, here we are, again being manipulated by intellectual dullards.
America is founded upon the philosophy behind historical tyranny and what is possible with spiritual equilibrium as with and among nature.
If only the Kingdom never existed...
Intellectuals have been a menace for a long time!
Absolutely. *Evil* - genius, is the appropriate label for those who embrace omnipotence and lack Empathy: Psychopath Is the results.
Also, some intellectuals throughout history have simply sucked up to psychopaths in power to avoid having to go till the fields with the rest of the us.
Additionally, humanity is chalk full of them. The contemporary label is: "Sell-out". The path of least resistance, a "coward", essentially.
Yes, I'm gonna refer to the most infamous character that committed that henouse crime right here:
Directed by the Athenian statesman Pericles, constructing the Parthenon was the work of the architects Ictinus and Callicrates under the supervision of the sculptor Phidias
I do not know anything about that event…
Absolutely Christopher!
Even the army of the declared epitome of evil, the Nazi's, had little stomach for mass murder. When tasked with executing the institutionalized undesirables, machine-gunning down the defenseless, thousands at a time, they became useless as a fighting force. Their grief and trauma at having participated in such atrocities left them debillitated, mental wrecks.
It was after watching the soldiers become spent and no longer capable war-fighters that the leaders of the mass eugenics extermination turned to the medical/petrochemical professionals.
Dr. Victor Brack had the first gas chambers constructed and tested on their victims. After watching two-dozen men die in agony Brack was pleased, smiled at the group that gathered and said his hallmark saying, "the needle belongs in the hand of the doctor." That 'success' became the model for industrial scale murder. Doctors could gleefully murder thousands at a time. The ordinary soldier could not.
Why does the western medical field demand we wear slave masks, take poisonous injections, mutilate the genitals of children? Allopathic medicine is largely a Rockefeller construct, as is his Standard Oil, its Big Pharma subdivisions - they've been paired from the start. Rockefeller and his heirs are ALL eugenicists, it's in their genes.
Medical doctors, the only profession permitted to diagnose, treat and prescribe medicine is a creation of government. And serves government first, their paycheck second and then patients.
Free people with free markets wouldn't permit their healers to be mass murderers. Iatrocide being the #2 cause of death in the US. And that was *before* 2020. Any guesses as to now?
Powerful words.
And yes, the inhibition—among NORMAL people—to killing is very very high.