So, this is where Widerquist and McCall go over the actual DATA. FINALLY! We can finally put some stats to things. And like I suggested several posts ago, they focused a lot on violent death rates.
So, what's the prognosis? Well, stateless societies vary wildly in how violent they are, with some having next to ZERO violence, to others having violent death rates exceeding 1000/100,000 people. YIKES. For reference, the American murder rate is something like 4.2/100,000 people according to the book.
So what does that say about the hobbesian hypothesis? Well, as they pointed out, it doesn't prove it at all. After all, the hobbesian hypothesis argues the WORST person in a state society is better off than the BEST person in a stateless society. This is categorically false, for reasons, I already pointed out. You see, if you live during a major war, your death rate can easily exceed 1000/100,000 too. heck, they clocked the violent death rate for Jews during the holocaust at 10,000/100,000. So....are state societies always better? NO. Of course not, and to suggest that is stupid, i dont think it's even possible to approach the worst crimes against humanity committed in state societies with stateless societies.
Still, the data doesn't make me long to live in a jungle without a government. I mean, my own city's murder rate is around 20/100,000 people. And I feel very unsafe here. And your typical stateless society is going to be far worse. Generally speaking, I would say, at least in a modern western state like the US or one of those European social democracies I point out, you're gonna be a lot safer than you would be in the state of nature. But of course, that's not what the hobbesian hypothesis points out. Again, it's ALL states are better than ALL stateless societies. And this is false. Very, very false.
Stateless societies are no picnic. They can be violent, but the violence isnt as bad as someone like Hobbes made it out to be. Far from a war against all. If anything, as long as societies REMAIN stateless, they often have little reason to engage in widespread violence. The evidence presented shows that humanity's most violent phase seemed to be where we introduced states and the concept of property to the mix. Stateless societies that forage, have little to no idea of territory, and who live at levels of technology you would expect in a society with no government, often have little reason to engage in violence with each other. Because there's no point. It's when they start settling down, claiming territory, storing food, and increasing their technology level that they start engaging in serious violent disputes. In a stateless society, the violent "alpha male" I talked about is actually ostracized. If you're violent, youre unpredictable, no one wants to deal with you, and if they feel like you're a threat, they'll kill you. It doesnt matter if you're the strongest, meanest, baddest cave man of them all, if the weakest can still kill you in your sleep or gang up with others to put you in your place, that's not gonna last long. It's only when humans start organizing in ways where they actually can exert and project power that the real problems start.
So yeah, a lot of early states, incredibly violent. More modern ones, less so. But it does technically disprove the hypothesis. I say technically because I feel like widerquist and mccall are kind of muddying the discussion a bit. Sure, the hypothesis as presented is false. Okay. Fair enough. Still, would I want to disband the US tomorrow and go back to living in the forest? No. HELL no. We wouldnt know how to live, everyone would be violent as they tend to value the things people in states typically do, stuff like property, and storing food, and stuff. Watch any post apocalyptic movie. Often times there are roving bands of raiders fighting over the scraps of technology. Mad max, book of eli, any zombie film. Honestly? At this point, regardless of the true history of the situation, going back now just isnt an option, and it would devolve into a free for all war against all over whatever scraps of civilization remain.
And honestly? That's something that is also pointed out, although not directly. They point out that stateless societies merely coming into contact with the ways of state societies can cause spikes of violence. Introducing alcohol into stateless societies can cause increased murder rates for example. And of course, people start fighting over property.
Honestly, it really makes me think about how screwed up our society is. In a lot of way, unequal distribution of property and people enforcing their will over others and being able to do it is a core reason a lot of violence in our society happens. We have a society that has all of this poverty in it, and then with it comes crime and violence, and with that, police violence, and yeah, it's just a bad set of variables that all interact with each other creating the chain reaction that is...the problems with modern society.
This is again, not to say that stateless societies are preferable. The violence levels in most of them far exceed even my own city's murder rate, and I dont consider my city a safe place to live. But it's not as high as the worst state societies to ever exist. As Widerquist and McCall pointed out, Hobbes lived in a time where people murdered each other largely for material gain, gaining power, prestige, etc., So his observations would be far more violent than stateless societies often would be. Like, "living in the middle of drug cartel land" level violence.
Still, again, given where society is, I can only see getting rid of the state as going backwards. So outside of a philosophical discussion, I'm not seeing how this has much practical use if you're gonna advocate for anarchism or something. I dont find these kinds of discussions like "this hypothetical society is better" as relevant when we kinda have to deal with where we are now and should be focusing on where to go next. And I know widerquist eventually uses these books' conclusions to strengthen his argument for UBI, which is, a fair point I'd agree with, but yeah.
No comments:
Post a Comment