The Flops Theory of the Origin of Government : Evolution from tribalism to socialism

[seymourflops]

Just explaining my theory of government, how it has become such a negative force in the lives of human beings and how it can become a positive one.

I'll split the theory into several posts, to give other posters a chance to comment on different parts of the theory.

PART 1 - The first governments

This was told to me and my classmates by a sociology professor.

Once humans were herd animals. As our technology communications skills developed, we became tribal. The difference being that instead of instinctive grouping together and instinctively following an alpha member, we had discussions, taught our young the importance of the group and followed the leader because our parents taught us to. We were tribal hunter gatherers with little division of labor other than men and women likely doing different work, and one of us being a leader and perhaps another being a healer/spiritual adviser.

At that point, the leader was not a government. Because people followed the leader only so long as the leader led us well to food sources, led us well in battle with other tribes, other animals and the elements and did not try to force us to do things we did not want to. If a leader failed at any of those, we could simply abandon him and follow another, or split of to form another tribe. That is leadership, but not government.

At some point some tribes developed agriculture to the point that they would stay in one place, hunting and fishing occasionally, but depending on the land for our main source of food. This required shelter for ourselves, storage for the food and agreement not to take food from each other. The leader was likely less important, but still held a place of honor, in the farming village. Sometimes the farming tribes would have a bad crop year and die off. Such is life.

The hunter/gatherer tribes would also sometimes have a bad year and begin to run out of food. At some point some of them noticed the farming people had food readily available for the taking. Since they were skilled at weapons and coordinated movement, and understood the use of surprise, they no doubt most often prevailed. So they killed all the villagers and took all the food. Again, such is life.

At some point a tribe might have two bad years in a row and the leader might say, "Remember when we raided that village and killed everyone and took all their food? Let's go do that again!" But when they got to the village, there was nothing but the bones of the villagers they had killed. So a forward thinking leader said, "Let's find another village. This time instead of taking all the food, we take half, so they can keep working to grow more. Instead of killing all of them, we kill the first one that smarts off and repeat until they submit.

The hunters enjoyed their lives as hunters, while living more and more on the fruits of the labors of the farmers from whom they extorted food, and other agricultural products and other fruits of their labor such as cloth, and earth ware. They were as kind or as cruel as they chose since the farmers had no means to fight back.* That was how government as a taxing and ruling entity was first formed.

The next step was the feudal system, which I will discuss in another post.

*Unless they did.

It is likely that in some of those encounters, the farmers were large strong men who wrestled and fought for fun and who still maintained hunting weapons, while the hunters were smaller and undisciplined and hungry and so lost the battle. In that case, nothing of historical significance happened. The farmers would just shrug and say, "those little dudes were crazy, amirite?"

 

[What if...?]

Just explaining my theory of government, how it has become such a negative force in the lives of human beings and how it can become a positive one.

I'll split the theory into several posts, to give other posters a chance to comment on different parts of the theory.

PART 1 - The first governments

This was told to me and my classmates by a sociology professor.

Once humans were herd animals. As our technology communications skills developed, we became tribal. The difference being that instead of instinctive grouping together and instinctively following an alpha member, we had discussions, taught our young the importance of the group and followed the leader because our parents taught us to. We were tribal hunter gatherers with little division of labor other than men and women likely doing different work, and one of us being a leader and perhaps another being a healer/spiritual adviser.

At that point, the leader was not a government. Because people followed the leader only so long as the leader led us well to food sources, led us well in battle with other tribes, other animals and the elements and did not try to force us to do things we did not want to. If a leader failed at any of those, we could simply abandon him and follow another, or split of to form another tribe. That is leadership, but not government.

At some point some tribes developed agriculture to the point that they would stay in one place, hunting and fishing occasionally, but depending on the land for our main source of food. This required shelter for ourselves, storage for the food and agreement not to take food from each other. The leader was likely less important, but still held a place of honor, in the farming village. Sometimes the farming tribes would have a bad crop year and die off. Such is life.

The hunter/gatherer tribes would also sometimes have a bad year and begin to run out of food. At some point some of them noticed the farming people had food readily available for the taking. Since they were skilled at weapons and coordinated movement, and understood the use of surprise, they no doubt most often prevailed. So they killed all the villagers and took all the food. Again, such is life.

At some point a tribe might have two bad years in a row and the leader might say, "Remember when we raided that village and killed everyone and took all their food? Let's go do that again!" But when they got to the village, there was nothing but the bones of the villagers they had killed. So a forward thinking leader said, "Let's find another village. This time instead of taking all the food, we take half, so they can keep working to grow more. Instead of killing all of them, we kill the first one that smarts off and repeat until they submit.

The hunters enjoyed their lives as hunters, while living more and more on the fruits of the labors of the farmers from whom they extorted food, and other agricultural products and other fruits of their labor such as cloth, and earth ware. They were as kind or as cruel as they chose since the farmers had no means to fight back.* That was how government as a taxing and ruling entity was first formed.

The next step was the feudal system, which I will discuss in another post.

*Unless they did.

It is likely that in some of those encounters, the farmers were large strong men who wrestled and fought for fun and who still maintained hunting weapons, while the hunters were smaller and undisciplined and hungry and so lost the battle. In that case, nothing of historical significance happened. The farmers would just shrug and say, "those little dudes were crazy, amirite?"

Not bad, but I've read the path went hunting and gathering, then casual agriculture then sedentary agriculture.

One thing led to another and eventually they had to lock up and dole out the food. This created wage labor, the management class, the professional guard/soldier. And rigid heirarchies. And we lost our right to say "No".

 

[seymourflops]

Not bad, but I've read the path went hunting and gathering, then casual agriculture then sedentary agriculture.

Yes, I think it did. Casual agriculture meaning planting and coming back to the plants during the cycle of the hunt?

The sedentary farmers would be the target of both hunter and hunter/casual farmer.

One thing led to another and eventually they had to lock up and dole out the food. This created wage labor, the management class, the professional guard/soldier. And rigid heirarchies. And we lost our right to say "No".

That is also a very plausible explanation. When I post about the start of feudalism, I will explain why I think the hunter/gatherer extortion of farmers explanation fits more in with that system.

But in other systems, such as the Greek city-states, your idea would probably make more sense.

 

[What if...?]

Yes, I think it did. Casual agriculture meaning planting and coming back to the plants during the cycle of the hunt?

The sedentary farmers would be the target of both hunter and hunter/casual farmer.

That is also a very plausible explanation. When I post about the start of feudalism, I will explain why I think the hunter/gatherer extortion of farmers explanation fits more in with that system.

But in other systems, such as the Greek city-states, your idea would probably make more sense.

Gotta remember that this predated Greece by millennia. We made the shift from h/g to casual (you are correct in the usage) to sedentary relatviely quickly about 12-14,000 years ago.

This is a pet theory of mine, for which I have some actual scientific support. This change of lifestyle applied more rapid evolutionary pressure on us as a species than anything before in it's history. For instance, as hunter/gatherers we were all relatively physically equal alpha predators. Even those who did the gathering part had to deal with hostile megafauna. And we lived in extended families. From studies of primitive tribes we have encountered we likely had councils or first fire or some such. This is where our drive for status evolved. I'll cover this idea later. Those at the top eat better, make decisions, better mate access, etc. But in groups under 700 or so human beings usually get along relatively well.due to family ties and the fact that everybody knows everybody. And we were all relatively equal physically. The "weak" didn't survive well.

But when the food got locked up and you started getting told what to do by others with overwhelming force to back it up, this made what made us strong before a handicap now. LSS, a strong hunter with fast relflexes and a hunger for the horizon makes a terrible potato farmer. Many likely died in this transition. And we started evolving to our new way of life. "Follower" became an archetype. Like "hunter" or "toolmaker" or "sheriff".

 

[seymourflops]

Gotta remember that this predated Greece by millennia. We made the shift from h/g to casual (you are correct in the usage) to sedentary relatviely quickly about 12-14,000 years ago.

This is a pet theory of mine, for which I have some actual scientific support. This change of lifestyle applied more rapid evolutionary pressure on us as a species than anything before in it's history. For instance, as hunter/gatherers we were all relatively physically equal alpha predators. Even those who did the gathering part had to deal with hostile megafauna. And we lived in extended families. From studies of primitive tribes we have encountered we likely had councils or first fire or some such. This is where our drive for status evolved. I'll cover this idea later. Those at the top eat better, make decisions, better mate access, etc. But in groups under 700 or so human beings usually get along relatively well.due to family ties and the fact that everybody knows everybody. And we were all relatively equal physically. The "weak" didn't survive well.

But when the food got locked up and you started getting told what to do by others with overwhelming force to back it up, this made what made us strong before a handicap now. LSS, a strong hunter with fast relflexes and a hunger for the horizon makes a terrible potato farmer. Many likely died in this transition. And we started evolving to our new way of life. "Follower" became an archetype. Like "hunter" or "toolmaker" or "sheriff".

Ok, not sure what LSS is, I may have missed it. What you say makes sense. I'm guessing that I'm going to think LSS became the first "kings," in feudal systems.

I've been wanting to ask questions in some of another poster's numerous threads about ID theory, but questions seem to be frightening to them.

Why did humans evolve away our fur, our ape-like strength, speed and tree-climbing ability, our sense of smell, and other qualities that made us physically strong? What was the survival benefit of those losses?

 

[seymourflops]

Part 2 - Feudalism

So these hunter gatherers who took over a village realized that there were other villagers who could also be extorted for their food and other products of labor. It was easy to conquer them, especially once the hunter/gatherers adopted the horse for fighting, travel and transport.

So the leader of the hunter gatherers would send his men to four or five villages to collect his payoffs and bring it to him. On horseback, they could carry plenty of armor and weapons in case the villagers were foolish enough to make a stand. But there was just one problem.

What was to prevent his mounted deputies from simply keeping the spoils for themselves? What stopped them from realizing that the chief that sent them was really the son, grandson, etc. of the original chief and was no more fearsome than they and perhaps a great deal less. The chiefs solved this problem by awarding specific villages to specific favored deputies. They would collect the spoils, and sent only a part of them to the central chief. The punishment for not doing so was that the chief could organize the other deputies against the rebellious one and take this land grant away.

With that, the feudal system of knights beholden to a king developed. As the system grew, layers of power grew with barons, lords, counts, dukes, etc. At the bottom of the pyramid was the producer, whose role was to work and produce the goods to be split up among these nobility and royalty.

That is why the royalty sees themselves as separate and distinct from those they rule over. They are special. They are different. They are descended from those who had sword and knew how to use it.

Notice the pattern here. Government is not "for the people," in any way. No pretense is made that anything is going on other than the people serve the monarchy and the nobility.

How to make the people accept this and keep working?

How about inventing fanciful enemies, such as dragons, and telling tales of the noble knights protecting the villagers from them?

 

[What if...?]

Ok, not sure what LSS is, I may have missed it. What you say makes sense. I'm guessing that I'm going to think LSS became the first "kings," in feudal systems.

I've been wanting to ask questions in some of another poster's numerous threads about ID theory, but questions seem to be frightening to them.

Why did humans evolve away our fur, our ape-like strength, speed and tree-climbing ability, our sense of smell, and other qualities that made us physically strong? What was the survival benefit of those losses?

I would venture that language and the ability to coordinate that came with it along with tool making proved to be superior adaptations and we went down that path.

Somewhere along the way we picked up compassion. We're the only species that does things for others with no expectation of reward. Like teaching.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

How to make the people accept this and keep working?

Well, first I think it is important to understand that the feudal system was very stable. It lasted longer than our current system has by thousands of years.

Second, there was an element of religious indoctrination. It was just considered the natural, holy order, ordained by god. Everyone was born in their place and that's the place they deserved to be in.

Finally, if you were born into a system that had exist for thousand of years before you were born, with virtually no change, would you question the system? Look how today one of the main arguments against socialism is that it has never worked, when we only have had a capitalist system for a few hundred years. Imagine trying to convince someone that you could have a government without a king, when kings were all that had existed for the last two THOUSAND years.

 

[soylentgreen]

I would venture that language and the ability to coordinate that came with it along with tool making proved to be superior adaptations and we went down that path.

Somewhere along the way we picked up compassion. We're the only species that does things for others with no expectation of reward. Like teaching.

That is not true at all. It is easy to observe the use of empathy and altruism in many species. It manifests itself in some form in any species that lives communally, even insects.

 

[soylentgreen]

Part 2 - Feudalism

So these hunter gatherers who took over a village realized that there were other villagers who could also be extorted for their food and other products of labor. It was easy to conquer them, especially once the hunter/gatherers adopted the horse for fighting, travel and transport.

So the leader of the hunter gatherers would send his men to four or five villages to collect his payoffs and bring it to him. On horseback, they could carry plenty of armor and weapons in case the villagers were foolish enough to make a stand. But there was just one problem.

What was to prevent his mounted deputies from simply keeping the spoils for themselves? What stopped them from realizing that the chief that sent them was really the son, grandson, etc. of the original chief and was no more fearsome than they and perhaps a great deal less. The chiefs solved this problem by awarding specific villages to specific favored deputies. They would collect the spoils, and sent only a part of them to the central chief. The punishment for not doing so was that the chief could organize the other deputies against the rebellious one and take this land grant away.

With that, the feudal system of knights beholden to a king developed. As the system grew, layers of power grew with barons, lords, counts, dukes, etc. At the bottom of the pyramid was the producer, whose role was to work and produce the goods to be split up among these nobility and royalty.

That is why the royalty sees themselves as separate and distinct from those they rule over. They are special. They are different. They are descended from those who had sword and knew how to use it.

Notice the pattern here. Government is not "for the people," in any way. No pretense is made that anything is going on other than the people serve the monarchy and the nobility.

How to make the people accept this and keep working?

How about inventing fanciful enemies, such as dragons, and telling tales of the noble knights protecting the villagers from them?

Your missing a step here.

Primitive man lived as small communal and family tribes. While the bond in one tribe may be strong there would be little incentive for the tribes to join together under one leader. It would simply make life hard and without the family connection there is nothing to hold one tribe together with another.

Kings and feudalism began only when civilisation appeared. Until then there is no evidence that humans lived in groups larger than a few families.

Humans if we look at archeological evidence have been around for millions of years. And except for what is the last 11,000 odd years of that history there is no evidence of civilisations appearing. Humans lived as nomadic or settled tribes and did not gather in large numbers to live together to warrant the conception of a king.

You seem to think that the change from primitive communism to a feudal system happened without any good reason for a change. But a species that lived for a couple of million years as tribes one would expect there would be a reason why change happened and humans went from tribal to feudal.

Your part in bold is fanciful and not to be taken seriously. stories of monsters and evil would have existed for as long as humans had the ability to tell stories. . A society of civilisation would already have to exist for a knight to exist as a reason to create a civilisation. You put the cart before the horse.

The much better explanation as to why there was a change from tribes to feudal and the evidence to support it is the invention of religion. It is no coincidence that the oldest temple that displays signs of death culture worship which is basic religion appear at the around the same time we see evidence of the first civilisations.

 

[What if...?]

That is not true at all. It is easy to observe the use of empathy and altruism in many species. It manifests itself in some form in any species that lives communally, even insects.

That's instinct. Mothers give to their babies in humans too.

But animals don't teach. They just demonstrate in front of and instinct fills in the blanks. Or not. Chimazees don't teach the fishing for termites with a stick thing. They just do it in from of their kids. Some get it, some don't.

We teach. We do charity. We have burial rituals.

That is not true at all. It is easy to observe the use of empathy and altruism in many species. It manifests itself in some form in any species that lives communally, even insects.

I stand corrected. Science has moved on since I first heard about the empathy thing. It isn't universal. Only some species.

 

[soylentgreen]

That's instinct. Mothers give to their babies in humans too.

But animals don't teach. They just demonstrate in front of and instinct fills in the blanks. Or not. Chimazees don't teach the fishing for termites with a stick thing. They just do it in from of their kids. Some get it, some don't.

We teach. We do charity. We have burial rituals.
I stand corrected. Science has moved on since I first heard about the empathy thing. It isn't universal. Only some species.

Instinct is not given it is something we are born with.

But nearly all behaviour is learned. How we treat others always comes down to what we are taught. But the actual ability to empathize with others is an innate ability we call empathy and altruism. It is a trait that exists in all species who live communally.

Of course it would not be universal. Why would a creature like a crocodile who is completely territorial and will kill any of it's own species who trespass including its own children if they stay around to long have a need for such a thing as empathy or altruism. It would not be a survival trait for any species that lives its life alone. Altruism and empathy however is a necessary attribute of any social animal.

 

[Lafayette]

But when the food got locked up and you started getting told what to do by others with overwhelming force to back it up, this made what made us strong before a handicap now. LSS, a strong hunter with fast relflexes and a hunger for the horizon makes a terrible potato farmer. Many likely died in this transition. And we started evolving to our new way of life. "Follower" became an archetype. Like "hunter" or "toolmaker" or "sheriff".

The food never got locked up.

What happened historically is that people banded together around Walled Cities to escape interference from bands -of-intruders (with boats) who would depart from their "mother territories" to look for more food - and take it when they could.

So people started toiling the ground around large cities where they were able to sell the extra-produce (which also fed their families). These cities had protectie-walls to keep out marauders. And I can point to a good number of such cities here in France.

By the 16th/17th centuries European royalty got interested in the "wealth" of the New World and sent over its armies to protect those parts which they decided belonged to them. The Indians they found in the Americas were not considered as "people" and they were treated badly by the "whites" coming from Europe ...

 

[What if...?]

The food never got locked up.

What happened historically is that people banded together around Walled Cities to escape interference from bands -of-intruders (with boats) who would depart from their "mother territories" to look for more food - and take it when they could.

So people started toiling the ground around large cities where they were able to sell the extra-produce (which also fed their families). These cities had protectie-walls to keep out marauders. And I can point to a good number of such cities here in France.

By the 16th/17th centuries European royalty got interested in the "wealth" of the New World and sent over its armies to protect those parts which they decided belonged to them. The Indians they found in the Americas were not considered as "people" and they were treated badly by the "whites" coming from Europe ...

You're way further along.

This process occurred in many places as sedentary agriculture was adopted.

Reader's.digest versiosln goes.something like this:

We realized we could grow food and stay put. Lots of benefits. Every body shared.

But eventually there was bad pest infestation and half the tribe lost their food. So they came.up with the pest proof hut. And that was good. But population keeps.going up. And one winter the tribe ran short but not before they noticed that the folks.living closest to the food hut were suspisciously fat...

And then the food got locked up. Which meant it was doled out.

And we ended up with managers to dole out the food and decide how much you worked to get food which meant you became a wage laborer. And of course you need guards for the food hut. And to guard the managers, of course.

Some variation of this played out all over. 12-14,000 years ago at least. Settled tribes.

Conflict comes later. As every population of living things expands to the limit of it's food.supply.

What you describe comes many centuries later.

We were pretty sparse as a species then. Too easy to just move a few miles down the river. And lots of benefits to getting along. Trade in goods and knowledge. Markets.for goods.

 

[Lafayette]

WHAT'S IN FOR ME-ME-ME?

We were pretty sparse as a species then. Too easy to just move a few miles down the river. And lots of benefits to getting along. Trade in goods and knowledge. Markets.for goods.

Naive nonsense this bit.

None of which stopped dead the penchant for warring in Europe - that hopefully ended with WW2 - with American forces and money necessary to win because the Brits could not on their own. More than 400K Americans died in WW2 and 120K in WW1 to end both. That's more than ENOUGH!

It took the Europeans after WW2 another 60-years to formulate and execute what it has today - a European Union! Which more than likely will stop the wars on this continent.

(Quick! Somebody tell that ash-hole of president in Russia he's way-off-limits ... !)

You are demonstrating far-too-much naivete as regards human nature. It hasn't changed - especially on the male-side. We men still gotta-be-number-1 and it is that singular-deficiency in mankind that propels wars between countries and killings within countries!

"What's in it for me-me-me?" is still the key-question that motivates most of them ...

 

[What if...?]

WHAT'S IN FOR ME-ME-ME?



Naive nonsense this bit.

None of which stopped dead the penchant for warring in Europe - that hopefully ended with WW2 - with American forces and money necessary to win because the Brits could not on their own. More than 400K Americans died in WW2 and 120K in WW1 to end both. That's more than ENOUGH!

It took the Europeans after WW2 another 60-years to formulate and execute what it has today - a European Union! Which more than likely will stop the wars on this continent.

(Quick! Somebody tell that ash-hole of president in Russia he's way-off-limits ... !)

You are demonstrating far-too-much naivete as regards human nature. It hasn't changed - especially on the male-side. We men still gotta-be-number-1 and it is that singular-deficiency in mankind that propels wars between countries and killings within countries!

"What's in it for me-me-me?" is still the key-question that motivates most of them ...

What you describe is the end result of the path I describe.

Hunter gatherer tribes consisted of extended families of arelatively physically equal lpha predators. We were no joke. But familiarity and interdependence bred earned status. And social.structures evolved around that.

After we.settled.down and locked up the food rigid heirarchies developed. Based on the phenomenon you posit.

But no longer based on true prestige. Just the power one could gather around them.

One fundamental difference between hunter/gatherers and farmers is the former cannot make war. They can raid and what have you. But you have to store food to make true war. Hunter gatherers store little.food. They forage constantly. Farmers can fight day and night for much longer.

When the decide they need the land those other folks.live on. That they arent using...

This is a process.of millenia. But is pretty close to accurate if overly simplified.

 

[Lafayette]

THE ULTRA-RICH AND THE TRULY POOR

One fundamental difference between hunter/gatherers and farmers is the former cannot make war.

The "political system" in the US vs EU is quirky. There is no "Real Left" in the US as there is in Europe.

What happened? Historically, a great many things happened in Europe (resulting in WW2) that incited Europeans to be far more "Leftist" oriented than Americans. Moreover, "success" in the US is mostly a question of how-much-money you tell the world that you got. Because in the US the singularly most important sign of success is Wealth.

Very Idiocratic, that. Which is a word that borders on "eccentric" - and I wonder often if it is not pervasive amongst the rich and super-rich.

The difference between the EU and the US is that upper-income is far more taxed in the former than the latter. Total US tax revenue is 24 percent of gross domestic product, well below the 34 percent weighted average for OECD countries.

Which means comparably that the EU has 10% more taxation of individuals that is employed to fund national needs/desires that it considers politically-paramount. The most important of which is giving those below the Middle-class standard of living governmental assistance in order to survive (and perhaps push some upwards).

The two entities (US & EU) are significantly different in the matter of aggregate income, from here:

The share of American adults who live in middle-income households has decreased from 61% in 1971 to 51% in 2019. This downsizing has proceeded slowly but surely since 1971, with each decade thereafter typically ending with a smaller share of adults living in middle-income households than at the beginning of the decade.

Comparably, the EU has higher upper-income taxation in an effort to diminish the distinction between the two population-opposites (very rich and very poor) - whereas the US does not ...

 

[soylentgreen]

THE ULTRA-RICH AND THE TRULY POOR



The "political system" in the US vs EU is quirky. There is no "Real Left" in the US as there is in Europe.

What happened? Historically, a great many things happened in Europe (resulting in WW2) that incited Europeans to be far more "Leftist" oriented than Americans. Moreover, "success" in the US is mostly a question of how-much-money you tell the world that you got. Because in the US the singularly most important sign of success is Wealth.
.

While I agree with most of what you have said, the part about WW2 I disagree.

Whether left or right in europe was influenced far more by revolutions occurring in various europen countries in the latter part of 19th century. The first world war is also known as the last monarchist war and because it was a war of attrition many of those who died were those that had lineage to royalty. WW1 very much saw to the final nail of monarchism and the rise of capitalism.

From WW2 came a technology surge along with a period of capital growth and evolutionary change in society for both europe and america.

 

[Lafayette]

WHAT'S SOCIALISM?

Socialism is a big word in the US employed disparagingly, and much less so in Europe. Because, in Europe it was once (post-war) a major element of national politics. Not any longer but key elements are still there in any party with a majority in government.

Leftist parties may be called "socialist", but if one looks at its definition then the word simply no longer applies.

According to WikiPedia, that definition goes like this:

Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production. It includes the political theories and movements associated with such systems.

Some components of the economy are indeed run/owned by governments but even the Right understands that socialist-definitions no longer apply in most European economies - and to a lesser/greater minority in parliaments. The countries that came knocking at the door resulting from the demise of Communist Russia espoused no particularity of either Right- or Leftist views. The EU insisted only that open-voting be applied to all electoral positions.

Meaning what? That EU countries have socialist-tendencies (like National Healthcare and Very Low Cost postsecondary education) but Socialism per-se no longer exists. Whyzat?

Because post-WW2 (and since the UK was on the winning-side) the EU countries followed a political-pattern that existed already in the UK. Both Left & Right had legal political-parties and all parties shared the governance of the nation depending upon their electoral-strengths in Parliament/Congress.

Which is the only way for any truly "free-country" to exist ...

 

[Lafayette]

While I agree with most of what you have said, the part about WW2 I disagree.

Whether left or right in europe was influenced far more by revolutions occurring in various europen countries in the latter part of 19th century. The first world war is also known as the last monarchist war and because it was a war of attrition many of those who died were those that had lineage to royalty. WW1 very much saw to the final nail of monarchism and the rise of capitalism.

From WW2 came a technology surge along with a period of capital growth and evolutionary change in society for both europe and america.

De gustibus non disputandum est ... :^)

 

[Lafayette]

FINANCIALLY BLIND IDIOTS

Not bad, but I've read the path went hunting and gathering, then casual agriculture then sedentary agriculture.

One thing led to another and eventually they had to lock up and dole out the food. This created wage labor, the management class, the professional guard/soldier. And rigid heirarchies. And we lost our right to say "No".

Wrong - that right is still there.

We just don't know how to employ it. That is, we start early (bank statements) with a service and we just don't look for another. And yet, we all assume that "our economy" is perfectly competitive.

Wrong. Very wrong - but most of us don't bother to find out how competitive (or better yet "non-competitive") a service might be. Funnily enough, that does not seem to happen with products we buy. We shop around for a car, but a bank-account rarely changes hands.

So, puh-leeze, let's stop talking generally about competition unless we have the factual evidence to support our opinion. And that can be difficult to do - which is why we should have Market Overview administrations to look at the "cost-side" of many human activities.

But we won't have that, will we. The Replicants will never allow it!

If you don't think you are being shafted by a "highly singular, methodical and wretched congressional party" then you are the perfect consumer. A tiny bit of a blind-idiot but where it counts most - Personal Finances ... !

 

[What if...?]

FINANCIALLY BLIND IDIOTS



Wrong - that right is still there.

We just don't know how to employ it. That is, we start early (bank statements) with a service and we just don't look for another. And yet, we all assume that "our economy" is perfectly competitive.

Wrong. Very wrong - but most of us don't bother to find out how competitive (or better yet "non-competitive") a service might be. Funnily enough, that does not seem to happen with products we buy. We shop around for a car, but a bank-account rarely changes hands.

So, puh-leeze, let's stop talking generally about competition unless we have the factual evidence to support our opinion. And that can be difficult to do - which is why we should have Market Overview administrations to look at the "cost-side" of many human activities.

But we won't have that, will we. The Replicants will never allow it!

If you don't think you are being shafted by a "highly singular, methodical and wretched congressional party" then you are the perfect consumer. A tiny bit of a blind-idiot but where it counts most - Personal Finances ... !

We're not having the same conversation.

I'm.just talking about the first steps on the path to where we are. Thinking about why chose do things the way we do them.

Basically we built a system that feeds one evolutionary drive, status seeking, above all others. And replaces "prestige" status with heirarchical systems that provide the rewards through power/force rather than accomplishments that benefit the group as a whole.

And as this is an addictive behavior, those folks feeding the drive to be at the top never stop until stopped by overreach or rebellion.

This is the cycle of human civilizations. We're repeating it now.

 

[Lafayette]

WHAT IF THIS

And as this is an addictive behavior, those folks feeding the drive to be at the top never stop until stopped by overreach or rebellion.

This is the cycle of human civilizations. We're repeating it now.

This drive you mention, to my mind, is simply due to two facets:
*Money, money, money has always been a capital-factor in our "way of living". Which is why upper-income taxation is so low (in the US) and so high (in Europe). From here:

Total US tax revenue equaled 24 percent of gross domestic product, well below the 34 percent weighted average for other OECD countries.

And,
*The US has never really implemented a sense of sharing. That is, higher incomes producing higher tax-revenues thus allowing the US to have a National Healthcare System or a very low-cost post-secondary diploma allowing more to earn much higher incomes (as both exists in the EU).

The country would be much better off with a decently low-cost Healthcare System and Post-secondary Education ...

 

[Lafayette]

Basically we built a system that feeds one evolutionary drive, status seeking, above all others. And replaces "prestige" status with heirarchical systems that provide the rewards through power/force rather than accomplishments that benefit the group as a whole.

Yes, after WW2 the US expanded its production capacity enormously. But, that time is long since passed.

Developed world-economies changed in the 1990s with the advent of the Internet. Look where both Europe and Uncle Sam are now - people work of a screen in their homes. And, if they lose a job one week, in the following weeks they pick up another (working from home).

Everything "goes faster", and I suspect we (as a people) are not totally prepared for it. But, that does not matter. What matters is that America's youth be prepared to seek and live an existence that is brand-new to most of the world.

Such has been the key-impact of the Internet ...

 

[What if...?]

Yes, after WW2 the US expanded its production capacity enormously. But, that time is long since passed.

Developed world-economies changed in the 1990s with the advent of the Internet. Look where both Europe and Uncle Sam are now - people work of a screen in their homes. And, if they lose a job one week, in the following weeks they pick up another (working from home).

Everything "goes faster", and I suspect we (as a people) are not totally prepared for it. But, that does not matter. What matters is that America's youth be prepared to seek and live an existence that is brand-new to most of the world.

Such has been the key-impact of the Internet ...

We're still not having the same conversation.

I'm talking about HOW and WHY we do what we do how we do it.

I'm talking about a time over ten thousand years ago when we "abruptly" on a geological.scale.completely changed the way we.lived in an extremely short time.

The period when all of the things you talk about began. Looong before they began.