jpahmad Posted June 12, 2013 Posted June 12, 2013 I recently read the book Empire of the Summer Moon, by S.C. Gwynne. It details the confrontations on the western frontier between the Comanche Indians and the U.S. Army during the second half of the 19th century. The author makes a distinction between two types of Indian tribes. Those that stay put and farm, and those that ride around and raid other tribes, stealing suppies, horses, etc.. The plains Indians were the most feared and most ruthless supposedly. They were the most "savage." Now let's assume that the author is very accurate with his depictions and the picture painted about native american societies in his book is accurate. How then, would a "free society", if one were spontaniously to drop down from the sky and onto the great plains, be able to survive and evade surrounding aggressive tribes. I mean, in the "free" tribe, all relationships would be voluntary, there would be no central authority, and no superstition/religious beliefs. Although this would be great, I don't see a community like this surving the onslaught of other war-like tribes. I know this is all hypothetical, but I think this predicament could easily transfer to the modern world stage. If Stephan has already addressed this issue,then please tell me which podcast to listen to. Otherwise, I would appreciate anybody's insight on this "problem", and maybe point out where I'm not thinking correctly or if I'm missing something. Thanks, J.P.
TheRobin Posted June 12, 2013 Posted June 12, 2013 My personal guess would be: Snipers :)the more extended version: There's a big difference between having to defend yourself in a sword/spear-battle and in a hide-and-gun situation. Just look at Iraq to see what I mean.Also, the payoff now is way too bad to even consider something like that. Food and basic luxuries costs very little, so the risk of dying/injury while attacking and stealing from others compared to the little effort of having a part-time-job that get's you probably more (and doesn't cut you off from society) would prorbably be preferable to most people. Also whereas tribs can manufacture their own weapons, it's becoming increasingly more difficult to do so, now we have guns. And if you know the shortfilm "I, Pencil" you probably see why taking on to banditry is most likely not only impractical but also almost impossible.
Guest darkskyabove Posted June 12, 2013 Posted June 12, 2013 Careful not to confuse pacifism or adherence with NAP for victimization. There are people who refrain from the initiation of force who are more than competent to defend themselves.
NotDarkYet Posted June 12, 2013 Posted June 12, 2013 Optimal "risk assessment" is a hallmark of a totally free society. If anything the free society would have the best defences against such mauraders. And even if it wasn't, it still wouldn't justify a state, since giving a group of people violent power over you is the OPPOSITE of safety.
jpahmad Posted June 12, 2013 Author Posted June 12, 2013 O.k., I understand that there is less personal risk doing things the civil way, i.e, getting a job, trading, selling your labour/services, etc.. but I'm talking about international relations and am also assuming that not all societies in the effective geographical area are free. ( I suppose that if there was real freedom, there would be no nations) In my hypothetical situation of the plains Indian tribes, those who are members of the aggresive war-like societies, because they are tribal and brainwashed with superstition, will raid without question, wil be able to be moved to violence more easily than a free society. And therefore, just like all raiders in the past, like the Huns or the Mongols, just annihilate anyone in their path. I mean, in order to defend yourself against this kind of force, you have to be able to be quickly mobilized, you have to have a routine down, a plan of action, which would mean that there would have to be some kind of military protocol. All this pre-supposes military training or a military structure. And of course, this pre-supposes nationalism. In a free society, there are no "others." There is no "us and them." There are just voluntary transactions between individuals. It just seems to me, that this mentality (volunteerism and NAP), although ideal, would only flourish if all societies became spontaniously free at the same time, not just one among many. Again, it seems that the viscious brain-washed, superstitios and power hungry non-free societies would run over the more passive ones.
NotDarkYet Posted June 12, 2013 Posted June 12, 2013 (volunteerism and NAP), although ideal, would only flourish if all societies became spontaniously free at the same time, not just one among many. I don't follow. Are you saying that the only thing keeping governments today from attacking every other country is the fact that those countries have a centralized state? I'm pretty sure there are tons of countries that couldn't effectively fight back an invasion, or stop an attack.
jpahmad Posted June 12, 2013 Author Posted June 12, 2013 Oh yeah, that's what I'm saying. If there was no resistance, from either the country itself, or the larger international community, any given country would just go right on in and take over, either by way of military or by using political/economic power. The U.S. would be the first in line to do so. The only difference is that some places can resist more than others. Put it this way. If there was a whole bunch of land, with natural resourses to be used, and nobody is going to put up a fuss about it, then why not just go and take it? This is essentially what the Native Americans did to each other. Except there was usually a fuss about, and someone lost, people got tortured and killed, women raped, and kids turned into slaves. I mean, isn't that what the the Spanish, French, English and Portugese did to the Native Americans as well. We all know that story. This is all bad, don't get me wrong. But, it has been, and still is the reality of the world we live in. (Until we change it ofcourse) And yes, only those countries with a centralized state could defend themselves from such onslaughts. Think Nazis vs The Allied Forces. Think Vietnam defending themselves against the U.S., and doing it succesfully. By the way, I'm not justifying the state in any way, I'm just examining history.
jpahmad Posted June 12, 2013 Author Posted June 12, 2013 O.k., I found the podcast that discusses this issue. It's #145 "Do we need a standing army?" Something about DROs and nukes. I suppose this is the way a free society would deter aggresive invasions. But not necessarity applicable to pre-modern warfare. Such as that between hunter-gatherer tribes on the great plains.
Recommended Posts