For the vast majority of h. sapiens existence (ctwo hundred millennia), people lived in small familial groups without strangers (until about five millennia ago) in which third-party arrangements like "governments" and "police" were not needed. I think libertarian (privatization-über-alles!) arguments are, at best, completely anachronistic in this densely populated, highly mobile, economically alienating and heavily armed historical era.

Even if this were true how would it help today? :wink: Behavior is largely determined by situation - class, status, economic market systems, labour market, technology, codes of conduct (ethics), political participation, immigration and population changes/increases, poverty, and diversity. In a tribe it's not hard to develop/maintain a shared view of things and fairly easy to manage behaviours.

Does a term like parent or teacher not include aspects of policing and law making/imposition?
Anytime I taught a class, I also acted as the behavioural policeman in the room.
We have always experienced 'authority,' even in tiny groups.

Is it true that for the majority of homo sapiens existence, we got along without having police officers or laws governing our behavior? — Shawn

Sure.

Homo sapiens has existed for 200 000 years. Advanced societies have been around only for a tiny part of time of that. As @180 Proof already noted.

Perhaps better question would to ask of a modern police force integrated to a central government?

Even if this were true how would it help today? — Tom Storm

I think it's interesting to advocate libertarianism from an evolutionary standpoint. If homo sapiens needs governments and enforcers of the law to promote its own welfare, then it's a moot point. In other words, are governments and police forces inevitable from an evolutionary perspective? Is the question incoherent or is there any sense to it?

We have always experienced 'authority,' even in tiny groups. — universeness

Is that really true? I can't imagine any authority imposed on prehistoric homo sapiens other than satisfying basic needs such as food, clothing, and shelter.

Perhaps better question would to ask of a modern police force integrated to a central government? — ssu

A self policing government sounds pretty cool, but, isn't that called fascism?

We have always experienced 'authority,' even in tiny groups. — universeness

:up:

We have always experienced 'authority,' even in tiny groups. — universeness

:up:

I can't imagine any authority imposed on prehistoric homo sapiens other than satisfying basic needs such as food, clothing, and shelter. — Shawn

Even in primitive times, the groups needed a leader/authority to follow with the aim to get the basic needs you mentioned.

Is it true that for the majority of homo sapiens existence, we got along without having police officers or laws governing our behavior? I raise this because libertarians sometimes quip this fact as justification for limited government in regulating our behavior. — Shawn

A popular thread in anarchist thinking today is that humans are evolutionarily adapted for pro-social behavior, and the Hobbesian assumption that we need social controls and policing to restrain our natural tendency for selfish brutishness needs to be modified.

“These thick conceptions converged on an idea of culturally induced rational control of brutal, recalcitrant, and at best tamable emotions. And the accounts of an essentially violent emotional constitution held in check by culturally induced top-down cognitive structures leave us with a pessimism that forecloses many political reforms based on positive and bottom-up care and cooperation capacities, labeling them as idealistic fantasies.

Despite that history, I think a philosophical intervention to reclaim human nature is worth the risk. For one thing, past efforts to destroy the above-sketched concept because of its abusive consequences and replace it with social constructivism have left those sympathetic to the constructivist position open to charges of adopting a naïve and politically motivated reliance on cultural anthropology at the expense of evolutionary biology.

But we don't have to give up on the life sciences to distance ourselves from the old notion of human nature, and to rescue quite a bit of what made social constructivism appealing, namely deep cultural variability. There are live debates at the intersection of biological, evolutionary, and cultural anthropology that put the above longstanding assumptions about human nature in question.

Prosociality or other-directed care and cooperation, even at a cost to the agent, is our evolutionary heritage; it is an adaptation; it helped our ancestors and can help us if we let it. It was and is so wide-spread as to have been, and continue to be, the oft-overlooked glue of society. It is the water the economistic fish doesn't notice.1

It's rational egoism that depends on extreme social conditions. What distinguishes classical liberalism from neoliberalism is that the latter has given up the former's notion of a natural “propensity to truck, barter, and exchange” and has devoted itself to the construction of institutions that produce rational egoist behavior via artificially imposed scarcity.

We can hope that we've turned the corner in appreciating post-disaster prosociality. The comparison of media coverage of Hurricane Harvey with that of Hurricane Katrina is striking, notably, the lack of initial credence to subsequently proven false “security” fears – anarchy in the streets, food riots, "looting," sexual predation – that delayed and militarized the US response to Katrina [Protevi 2009; Tierney et al 2006]. The people of New Orleans had not "descended into anarchy" but “were their own first responders" (CNN 2010; Rodriguez et al, 2006). It's a kind of litmus test: when you think of Katrina, do you think of Kropotkin or of Hobbes? What was needed was technical support for already operating rescue efforts, as well as logistical support for the relief phase; there was very little need to securitize the situation.

So, far from showing a Hobbesian nightmare of atomized or gang predation in the wake of the failure of the state, prosocial behavior in disasters shows the fragility of the atomization practice of contemporary Western society. It's not that the state is needed to keep a precarious social contract together so that otherwise “naturally” atomic individuals will not prey upon each other; it's that the state is needed to enforce policies that produce rational egoists by artificial scarcity that forecloses the prosocial behavior that would otherwise emerge and that does in fact emerge in disasters.”

( John Protevi)

We have always experienced 'authority,' even in tiny groups. — universeness

Absolutely. Police in uniforms may have not been involved, but tribal discipline was enforced. Same thing.

The libertarian concept ignores two facts: any (not just human, but all other) social structure in living beings is built hierarchically. If you get away from hierarchy(**), you destroy social structure. 2. social structure in human societies is more protective and accommodating for an individual than living outside a social structure.

Libertarians are small-minded, myopic, selfish, and greedy individuals, void of any basic insight into human nature.

(**) This is the basic inherent fault in the idea of democracy. The only way to achieve that is to make the demos the top of the hierarchy, but it turns out that voted-representative system easily manipulates the Demos and destroys the ideal mechanism of the system. The other inherent problem with democracy is the multi-directional will. In any monocracy, such as absolute monarchies and dictatorships, the absolute decision and executive power rests in the hand of one individual, in which case there are no contentious directives. Once the authority grows beyond decisions made by one person to be made by more than one person, then opinions are liable or bound to be different on issues, and no consensus can be found. If the top of the hierarchy is the demos, then it's seven billion different directions that policy wants to develop, yet it can only do one direction.

The libertarian concept ignores two facts: any (not just human, but all other) social structure in living beings is built hierarchically. If you get away from hierarchy(**), you destroy social structure. 2. social structure in human societies is more protective and accommodating for an individual than living outside a social structure. — god must be atheist

The Dawn of Everything , a book by anarchist anthropologist David Graeber and archeologist David Wengrow, claims that the above received wisdom is wrong. Their arguments have created quite a stir in anthropological circles.

“Human society, in this view, is founded on the collective repression of our baser instincts, which becomes all the more necessary when humans are living in large numbers in the same place. The modern-day Hobbesian, then, would argue that, yes, we did live most of our evolutionary history in tiny bands, who could get along mainly because they shared a common interest in the survival of their offspring (‘parental investment’, as evolutionary biologists call it). But even these were in no sense founded on equality. There was always, in this version, some ‘alpha-male’ leader.

Hierarchy and domination, and cynical self-interest, have always been the basis of human society. It’s just that, collectively, we have learned it’s to our advantage to prioritize our long-term interests over our short-term instincts; or, better, to create laws that force us to confine our worst impulses to socially useful areas like the economy, while forbidding them everywhere else.
As the reader can probably detect from our tone, we don’t much like the choice between these two alternatives. Our objections can be classified into three broad categories. As accounts of the general course of human history, they:

1. simply aren’t true;
2. have dire political implications;
3. make the past needlessly

This book is an attempt to begin to tell another, more hopeful and more interesting story; one which, at the same time, takes better account of what the last few decades of research have taught us. Partly, this is a matter of bringing together evidence that has accumulated in archaeology, anthropology and kindred disciplines; evidence that points towards a completely new account of how human societies developed over roughly the last 30,000 years. Almost all of this research goes against the familiar narrative, but too often the most remarkable discoveries remain confined to the work of specialists, or have to be teased out by reading between the lines of scientific publications.

To give just a sense of how different the emerging picture is: it is clear now that human societies before the advent of farming were not confined to small, egalitarian bands. On the contrary, the world of hunter-gatherers as it existed before the coming of agriculture was one of bold social experiments, resembling a carnival parade of political forms, far more than it does the drab abstractions of evolutionary theory. Agriculture, in turn, did not mean the inception of private property, nor did it mark an irreversible step towards inequality. In fact, many of the first farming communities were relatively free of ranks and hierarchies. And far from setting class
differences in stone, a surprising number of the world’s earliest cities were organized on robustly egalitarian lines, with no need for authoritarian rulers, ambitious warrior-politicians, or even bossy administrators. Information bearing on such issues has been pouring in from every quarter of the globe. As a result, researchers around the world have also been examining ethnographic and historical material in a new light.”

A self policing government sounds pretty cool, but, isn't that called fascism? — Shawn

Uh, no. I'm referring when in various countries a so-called "Police Departments" emerged I think in the 17th Century. Of course a similar role as now we have for police could be found in ancient Babylon etc, but in your question of limited government / libertarianism / role of police, I think looking at countries pre-17th Century starts to be a bit difficult. The whole question that libertarians apply is for modern societies, not so useful for medieval or tribal societies.

The Dawn of Everything , a book by anarchist anthropologist David Graeber and archeologist David Wengrow,claims that the above received wisdom is wrong. Their arguments have created quite a stir in anthropological circles.

“Human society, in this view, is founded on the collective repression of our baser instincts, which becomes all the more necessary when humans are living in large numbers in the same place. The modern-day Hobbesian, then, would argue that, yes, we did live most of our evolutionary history in tiny bands, who could get along mainly because they shared a common interest in the survival of their offspring (‘parental investment’, as evolutionary biologists call it).But even these were in no sense founded on equality. There was always, in this version, some ‘alpha-male’ leader. — Joshs

If the text-quote is from "The Dawn of Everything," then the their own text contradicts their proposition, inasmuch as the proposition calls me wrong, when I said there have always been hierarchies in social arrangements, so much among humans as much among other social animals.

Inasmuch as the underlined part calls the wisdom wrong that states we have always lived in hierarchical societies (my point), the italicised part directly contradicts that assertion.

180 proof, here's an example in which the author invoked the underlining and the italicization properly to explain the point. You don't do it that much any more, thank goodness, but in the past you heavily relied on all kinds of editing marks in your posts, which served no purpose but to make the reading of those posts harder.

I am glad you are gradually giving up that old bad habit. Good going, man!

Most human groups, especially ones based on the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, under the Darwinian rules of the jungle, will develop some sort of hierarchical authority structure pdq(pretty damn quick). Even if it's just the 'alpha male' style authority. It's only when raw brawn, cannot just use force to easily overpower brain, that, 'controlled' hierarchical authority may come into existence. A system of, for and by the people where authority is truly in the service of the people and is fully answerable to the people.

Methinks the reason why there were no police & laws in the past is the very same reason why we need police & laws now. The morally-challenged were evolutionarily successful (might was right) and the good were simply killed off. Now, I somehow don't feel as proud about my ancestry anymore, not that there was anything there to begin with, its bad vs. bad or worse vs. bad and then we had an eureka moment, what?, about a thousand years ago, give/take 500 - we needed to put some of us in uniform & given arms to, well, save us from ourselves. In the process, I conjecture, some dormant genes have resurfaced and we see quite a number of really good peeps out there, doin' their bit in their own small way. God, if you exist, please bless 'em.

Kali Yuga mes amies, just round the corner!

Evil comes naturally or did you forget?

I think it's interesting to advocate libertarianism from an evolutionary standpoint. If homo sapiens needs governments and enforcers of the law to promote its own welfare, then it's a moot point. In other words, are governments and police forces inevitable from an evolutionary perspective? Is the question incoherent or is there any sense to it?

I don’t think there is anything evolutionary about governments. They’re just there, the technological remnants of predatory men, who have long ago devised the means to exploit the vanquished and protect their interests.

Look at the Islamic State, for instance, which we got to witness form itself not too long ago. No social contract, no sense of community, nothing emerging as if a colony, just pure imposition.

@Joshs, what are your own thoughts about rational egotism and how facilitating it is dependent on governments?

I think it's interesting to advocate libertarianism from an evolutionary standpoint. — Shawn

Sure. I never use evolution as a basis for advocating anything. What humans may have done and what humans require may be two utterly different things.

The morally-challenged were evolutionarily successful (might was right) and the good were simply killed off. Now, I somehow don't feel as proud about my ancestry anymore, not that there was anything there to begin with, its bad vs. bad or worse vs. bad — Agent Smith

I've often thought that for me to be here, some of my ancestors must have, at some time, done a few really horrendous things. Take a direct line back and there were obviously some really bad dudes on that family tree.

I've often thought that for me to be here, some of my ancestors must have, at some time, done a few really horrendous things. Take a direct line back and there were obviously some really bad dudes on that family tree — Bradskii

Why do good girls like bad boys? :chin:

The Dawn of Everything , a book by anarchist anthropologist David Graeber and archeologist David Wengrow, claims that the above received wisdom is wrong. Their arguments have created quite a stir in anthropological circles. — Joshs

I'm about a third the way through it. I have to say that I don't agree with a lot of what they say. They seem to use quite small exceptions to try to disprove generally accepted rules. But it's making me question whether my understanding of the move from hunter gatherer to agriculturist and the concomitant rise of authority figures and the stratification of socity is as rock solid as I thought.

I still think I'm right, but with possible exceptions. But hey, another 400 pages to go yet...

Why do good girls like bad boys? — Agent Smith

More testosterone?

Is it true that for the majority of homo sapiens existence, we got along without having police officers or laws governing our behavior? — Shawn

Yes, it's true. They had no money, either. Once you invent money, you need police to guard it.

More testosterone? — Bradskii

:lol: I forgot what testosterone does to the body. I believe it increases muscle mass (bodybuilders), makes you (hyper)aggressive, hairier, horny, etc. Basically it puts the male/female in FF mode (fight/fuck).

Anyway, the point is testesterone makes a man out of a boy in the traditional (sex + protection) sense. No wonder!

If the text-quote is from "The Dawn of Everything," then the their own text contradicts their proposition, inasmuch as the proposition calls me wrong, when I said there have always been hierarchies in social arrangements, so much among humans as much among other social animals. — god must be atheist

This from a little further in the preface to the book:

'...a surprising number of the world’s earliest cities were organized on robustly egalitarian lines, with no need for authoritarian rulers, ambitious warrior-politicians, or even bossy administrators.'

This is the thrust of their position. That there was no simple evolution from hunter gatherer to major civilisations. As they say that some argue:

"For Diamond and Fukuyama, as for Rousseau some centuries earlier, what put an end to that equality – everywhere and forever – was the invention of agriculture, and the higher population levels it sustained. Agriculture brought about a transition from ‘bands’ to ‘tribes’. Accumulation of food surplus fed population growth, leading some ‘tribes’ to develop into ranked societies known as ‘chiefdoms’.

They are not saying that hierarchies did not develop. They are saying that some societies didn't have them. That it's not an unavoidable consequence of population numbers or a static lifestyle or agriculture. That it is, to some extent, a choice.

Yes, it's true. They had no money, either. Once you invent money, you need police to guard it. — Vera Mont

You need to protect that which is yours. Food, cattle, weapons, crops, home, women (yeah, those too back then).

You need to protect that which is yours. Food, cattle, weapons, crops, home, women (yeah, those too back then). — Bradskii

You need to protect your own stuff. Police are needed to protect the elite who have taken more than their share.

Joshs, what are your own thoughts about rational egotism and how facilitating it is dependent on governments? — Shawn

I would say that rational egotism is a cultural ‘meme’ that is widely shared within a society rather than being forced upon people in a top-down fashion. Governments are just as much reacting to demands of citizens for police protection from their selfish neighbors as they are foisting police-state tactics upon a passive citizenry. It’s a reciprocal feedback loop.