I didn’t mean a stateless society wouldn’t be able to make devastating weapon’s, I’m saying it’s unlikely to do so. A state is monopoly on violence. That means that the decision to comit violent acts (war) isn’t made directly by those performing the violence but by the state. The difference between an individual and a group is that most reasons for killing someone can’t be scaled. Someone killed your mother? I could see you killing them. I can’t see a group 50.000 people killing 50.000 mother’s and then waging war against 50.000 people without mothers. This becomes more unlikely the larger the scale and the smaller the scale the easier a society could prevent such escalation
And what if the stateless society over there has the natural resources we need?
And I mean, you’ve basically just described feudalism. If you kill my mom and I kill yours back. And then your brother kills 2 mom’s from your village back, you end up eventually killing 50,000 moms
Then we’d trade for them because war economically is almost always a loss. Also, it what sense do we need the recourses? Will we starve without them? How many people would be willing to start a war they have to fight in if they can live fine without the potential of dying?
Why the fuck would you kill my mom and not me? I also don’t think everyone would kill someone if a family member gets killed, I said I could see someone killing another person because of it. And at the beginning of such a cycle wouldn’t a stateless (or any other) society that exists long term stop such a process. Do you think that e.g. in precolonial North America there were massive wars whenever someone mother got killed?
But they were able to manage it without a state? If you want to dive deeper into the topic I’d read The Dawn of Everything, but a state is not necessary to control violence
I know it isn’t. That doesn’t mean you’re not still on some bullshit though yourself. I believe in a stateless future, but I also believe we’re all joking if we think we have it figured out problems sorted from all our philosophy books
This is not a philosophy book. It’s a anthropology book. It deals (among other things) with how stateless societies have worked previously. Being able to control violence is in my opinion one of the bare minimum things that have to be organized for a stateless society to exist at all
I didn’t mean a stateless society wouldn’t be able to make devastating weapon’s, I’m saying it’s unlikely to do so. A state is monopoly on violence. That means that the decision to comit violent acts (war) isn’t made directly by those performing the violence but by the state. The difference between an individual and a group is that most reasons for killing someone can’t be scaled. Someone killed your mother? I could see you killing them. I can’t see a group 50.000 people killing 50.000 mother’s and then waging war against 50.000 people without mothers. This becomes more unlikely the larger the scale and the smaller the scale the easier a society could prevent such escalation
And what if the stateless society over there has the natural resources we need?
And I mean, you’ve basically just described feudalism. If you kill my mom and I kill yours back. And then your brother kills 2 mom’s from your village back, you end up eventually killing 50,000 moms
Then we’d trade for them because war economically is almost always a loss. Also, it what sense do we need the recourses? Will we starve without them? How many people would be willing to start a war they have to fight in if they can live fine without the potential of dying?
Why the fuck would you kill my mom and not me? I also don’t think everyone would kill someone if a family member gets killed, I said I could see someone killing another person because of it. And at the beginning of such a cycle wouldn’t a stateless (or any other) society that exists long term stop such a process. Do you think that e.g. in precolonial North America there were massive wars whenever someone mother got killed?
I mean yeah, but the main thing they developed to deal specifically with those issues was the state my guy
But they were able to manage it without a state? If you want to dive deeper into the topic I’d read The Dawn of Everything, but a state is not necessary to control violence
I know it isn’t. That doesn’t mean you’re not still on some bullshit though yourself. I believe in a stateless future, but I also believe we’re all joking if we think we have it figured out problems sorted from all our philosophy books
This is not a philosophy book. It’s a anthropology book. It deals (among other things) with how stateless societies have worked previously. Being able to control violence is in my opinion one of the bare minimum things that have to be organized for a stateless society to exist at all