In The Absence Of Governments

[Mr Hyde]

Has there ever been a time where governments have been absent in human history?

[Dark Muse]

I thought you did not believe in history, so how can you even ask this question, without by default making yourself a hypocrite?


There is no such thing as history or anything else, for that matter beyond our subjective efforts to define it.

[Mr Hyde]

I thought you did not believe in history, so how can you even ask this question, without by default making yourself a hypocrite?

A bit off topic, don't you think? And by the way what I said does make sense if you take it into account philosophical subjectivism.

[Dark Muse]

I was just wondering how you can dicuss what happend in history if you in fact do not beleive in history

[Mr Hyde]

I was just wondering how you can dicuss what happend in history if you in fact do not beleive in history

Just because one does not believe in somthing does not mean that they can't admit that it exists by other people's account.

Now, can we please get to the original topic of this thread?

[JBI]

yes, in brief periods where war completely ravages a country, and utter anarchy is released on the people.

[Mr Hyde]

yes, in brief periods where war completely ravages a country, and utter anarchy is released on the people.

What do you think about the very beginnings of human history where all that existed was un-organized families scattered about through rough landscapes trying to survive?

Could we possibly describe the sporadic chaos of their lives and how they lived as being governmental?

Also: What do you think about the movie: The post-man?

[Drkshadow03]

I thought you did not believe in history, so how can you even ask this question, without by default making yourself a hypocrite?

Dark Muse, if I had to guess I think he means that history is a cultural construct, not that the literal events we call history never happened.

You have to select certain events to the detriment of others, you frame it the way you wish, we try to put what might seem like chaotic random events into a narrative that makes sense to us and can define it as a specific event.

---------------------------------------

As to the original question, the real answer is it's impossible to know. Archaelogical evidence only goes so far as do written documents. Everything before that is guesswork. Also, the evidence we do have only reveals so much.

Most likely, though, humans have always banded together in small groups to hunt and they probably at least made communal decisions based on genuine survival needs. But I doubt they had very complex governments. So it all really depends what you mean by government.

[JBI]

What do you think about the very beginnings of human history where all that existed was un-organized families scattered about through rough landscapes trying to survive?

Could we possibly describe the sporadic chaos of their lives and how they lived as being governmental?

Also: What do you think about the movie: The post-man?

They had governments - what the strongest said was law. Similar to the way a wolf-pack seems to operate, with the alpha-male being the head honcho, until he is unseated by a new alpha-male.

[Mr Hyde]

Dark Muse, if I had to guess I think he means that history is a cultural construct, not that the literal events we call history never happened.

You have to select certain events to the detriment of others, you frame it the way you wish, we try to put what might seem like chaotic random events into a narrative that makes sense to us and can define it as a specific event.

---------------------------------------

As to the original question, the real answer is it's impossible to know. Archaelogical evidence only goes so far as do written documents. Everything before that is guesswork. Also, the evidence we do have only reveals so much.

Most likely, though, humans have always banded together in small groups to hunt and they probably at least made communal decisions based on genuine survival needs. But I doubt they had very complex governments. So it all really depends what you mean by government.


I believe leadership and government are two seperate realms.

To me the word government is synonymous with the word monopoly.


They had governments - what the strongest said was law. Similar to the way a wolf-pack seems to operate, with the alpha-male being the head honcho, until he is unseated by a new alpha-male.

Of course they had leadership but can that be properly categorized as being a government as we know it today?

[Drkshadow03]

I believe leadership and government are two seperate realms.

To me the word government is synonymous with the word monopoly.

Can you define what you mean by leadership and what you mean by government? Also, can unpack your second statement a bit more. Why do you think government is synonymous with the word monopoly? What do you mean by that exactly?

[curlyqlink]

Early Iceland. It's a place and time abundantly chronicled in the Sagas-- Njal's Saga is a good example.

Of course, it all depends on how you define "government". There are families, or clans, and there is a social structure. But there is no king, no legislature, no courts, no army or police force. There are generally understood rights and obligations, but no way to enforce them. When individuals or families come into conflict (and they do, often, in the Sagas) then it is up to them to settle their differences.

The Norse who settled Iceland moved into an uninhabited wilderness, and (at first at least) there was plenty of land for everyone to spread out into. The sagas are fascinating chronicles/tales of a kind of anarchic freedom. It was no bed of roses. And yet these people, raiders and "barbarians" unrestrained by law, had no love for the unending blood feuds that made their lives so "exciting". There is a strong sense of the tragic in these stories.

[Lady Marian]

Do you mean government of men over men, or government of the universe?

[TheKmank]

No there hasn't, it's in human nature to look to a body to govern it, be it a persons or concept.

[Niamh]

As was said above, clans and tribes dont always have a government, but by being aware of their laws, rights etc and issuing justice as a tride they are therefore their own government as they govern themselves.
I cant really think of any examples of where there was no government, and I was up until a few years ago an Archaeologist and have spent years with my nose stuck in history books.
Even durning the Paleolithic and mesolithic, there surely must have been some one leading the nomadic hunter gatherer tribes, from settlement to settlement.
I'll have to look into it.

[Mr Hyde]

Early Iceland. It's a place and time abundantly chronicled in the Sagas-- Njal's Saga is a good example.

There are families, or clans, and there is a social structure. But there is no king, no legislature, no courts, no army or police force.

That's pretty much what I'm looking for and talking about.


There are generally understood rights and obligations, but no way to enforce them.

:thumbs_up Exactly where I'm going with this thread.




When individuals or families come into conflict (and they do, often, in the Sagas) then it is up to them to settle their differences.

Natural chaos.


Do you mean government of men over men, or government of the universe?

Government of men over men.

[mangueken]

Actually there are still native American tribes in Brazil and Peru that have no government type organization that you are talking about. I'm more familiar with the Brazilian anthropologists than their Spanish colleagues. But Darcy Ribeiro wrote a book, As Américas e a civilização – processo de formação e causas do desenvolvimento cultural desigual dos povos americanos, (The Americas and Civilization - the process of formation and the causes of the uneven cultural development of the american peoples).
Another good source for information you might be interested in would be from Julius Caesar's writings on the invasion of England. When the Romans invaded they found that country inhabited by various tribes devoid of governments and "culture" (at least in Roman eyes), they thought that the peoples of English were so underdeveloped as to not even make good slaves.
It seems that governments come into being with societies that are more organized on a social - economic level.