So, in this chapter, Widerquist and McCall start looking into anthropology and the more evidential side of these questions. They start looking at how many anthropologists used to be Hobbesian and had a model of progress not unlike what I proposed, in which small scale societies eventually beget states and become more complex over time for evolutionary reasons. This is portrayed as having the same colonial biases that most hobbesians seem to have.
Looking at more modern evidence, they tend to find that primitive life was often a lot less violent than originally expected, and that many hunter gatherers were not in a constant fear of survival. I do believe this. I want to keep in mind what my actual argument for states are. States arose out of violence. Early states were perhaps far worse than what came before. States then reformed themselves to be more and more just over time, at least in the west. Now every habitable place on earth is occupied and controlled by a state just about. My big argument for the necessity of modern states is that in absence of one, this pattern of violence will just repeat itself. Because everywhere is controlled by states. Abolishing them in favor of anarchy will just beget states taking over and filling the power vacuum, often on their terms, and not on ours.
Honestly, when I really think about it, the prehistory of modern states isn't super relevant to me. I will be willing to admit pre state life might not be as bad as westerners think. Still, I would also argue it isn't preferable. It is darned near impossible for many to return to it now. Those cultural traditions are lost, many of us would have no idea how to survive, as we would need to relearn that entire lifestyle, which has disappeared. Modern people are more domesticated for life in our current society, and that lifestyle is forced on us for better or for worse. We just cannot go back. And even if things weren't violent and as impoverished as we thought, I would argue that states still have benefits like modern technology, medical care, etc. Also, even before states, people still lived in tribes and sometimes bands with as few as a handful of people. Even that, by my own standard, is government. People are social animals, they must interact with others to survive, so people are going to exert power over people regardless and this comes at some loss of freedom. If anything, for me, UBI isn't just about freedom of the state, or corporations, but also individuals too. You need to be able to leave bad situations in which you just don't fit. So yeah.
Like, whatever things were like before, we are where we are now, and while my worldview description was intended to be descriptive, it's not necessarily prescriptive. Did early states fulfill the lockean proviso? DEFINITELY not. Early societies were rife with conquest. I dont normally appeal to the Bible of all things, but I did take those classes on it. I understand the geopolitical situation of those days. The state of Israel was a violent ethnostate that committed genocide back in its formation, if Joshua is any indication. And the history of Israel after was a history of being regularly conquered and being turned into a vassal state. The Assyrians were the first, then the Babylonians, then the Persians, then the Greeks, and then finally, the Romans. Israel was often in a very bad situation in most of these arrangements with many of them like the Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans being outright hostile toward the Jews and Jews probably preferring to live in their own state and do their own thing. But again, this was an age of empires, and conquest, and yeah, these guys turned them into a vassal state, and yeah. And if you recall before Israel's founding, they were allegedly slaves in Egypt, although the history on this is in question. So yeah, I won't appeal to the Bible for much, but given it is, effectively, a highly biased account of history of the Israelite people from 1000 BCE on, we can clearly see that even then, the state of states was one in which people were either sovereign over themselves, or were ruled by others. That is the nature of the era of states. Either you rule yourself, or are ruled by others. I dont see an alternative of a state as a positive. Because other states wont LET you be left alone, generally speaking.
Still, where does this leave states? As a barbaric invention that actually did make life worse for most of the history of their existence. I would argue most states prior to the modern era did NOT fulfill the lockean proviso. Including the US. Because the US at its founding only worked for white male property owners. Native Americans were genocided, blacks were enslaved, women were breeding cattle. It's no wonder some early colonists tried to escape and join the native americans. As Paine once said, and Widerquist quoted in another chapter, the life of the native american is like a holiday compared to the poor of Europe. It really was. Early states sucked.
The only reason Im remotely pro-state now is because I believe the state has been reformed to largely be better at fulfilling the proviso than it used to be. Modern western states are guided by a lot of lofty ideas that have greatly improved the quality of life of people. Again, democracy, rule of law, constitutional rights, separation of powers. And some states even have economies that work relatively well for the people themselves. I would argue the social democracies of Europe are the envy of the world at the moment. The US is a relatively regressive state that provides decent physical security but terrible economic security. I really do think if we want to talk about fulfilling the proviso we need to talk about economic security. And we need to talk not about jobs, but about income and freedom FROM work, rather than freedom TO work. I really dont think the modern economy is much more just than the economic models of old. Slavery is gone, feudalism is gone, and capitalism in its raw forms subjects people to a dehumanizing process of forcing them to be wage slaves for profit. And this must be addressed to make people free.
Human progress in the modern, state dominated era, isnt about eliminating the state, but in reforming it to actually fulfill its promises of being a better alternative to the state of nature. I fully admit that for most of state history, the lockean proviso and the hobbesian hypothesis have not been fulfilled. They haven't. States have sucked for many people for most of their history. Often subjugating the many to benefit the rich. Our modern states are better, but only in a relative sense, and we still ahve progress to make to make them right. Again, Widerquist already has answers for how to solve this, I largely agree with them and I expand on them. UBI is necessary to even the score, and I also think things like universal healthcare and free college should be things too. And yeah. That's where I'm at.
No comments:
Post a Comment