> It seems to me that you're presenting a compatible assertion as a contradiction.
How is the domination of a large agricultural class by a much smaller military class (who were prepared to perpetuate that domination by violence, and did so) compatible with the assertion that before the advent of the nation-state, governments left people alone "so they could pursue their well-being in a bottom-up fashion via social interactions in their local area"? Unless, that is, you exclude that military class from the definition of "government" (which I don't think you can, as they provided governmental functions, in particular justice, law enforcement, and defence), or the agricultural class from the definition of "people".
> The notion of humans forming communities predates the advent of monarchy. Both you and the author are trying to create "just so" stories around authoritarianism as a motivating factor for human culture.
But we're not talking about communities and human culture in general; we're talking about the specific concept of the nation-state. And as far as I'm aware, there's little evidence of their creation by a group of people as a whole banding together for common defence (as suggested by the article), and plenty of their creation (gradually, over time) as a means of extending and entrenching the power of the people at the top: the promulgation of symbols and myths that support the idea of a single national identity, the quashing of rival power centres, and the uniformisation of laws and bureaucracy at the expense of local privileges.
But if you have evidence to the contrary, I'm happy to be corrected.
> How is the domination of a large agricultural class by a much smaller military class (who were prepared to perpetuate that domination by violence, and did so) compatible with the assertion that before the advent of the nation-state, governments left people alone "so they could pursue their well-being in a bottom-up fashion via social interactions in their local area"?
Because such classes did not develop in every area where humans passed through this keyhole?
> we're talking about the specific concept of the nation-state.
I think the author is using this term in a very broad and perhaps imprecise context compared to you, who appear to be locking it down to a very specific geographical and chronological region.
> Because such classes did not develop in every area where humans passed through this keyhole?
But they did in many areas, and the article specifically states "that's how the world was" (not "that's how some parts of the world were").
> I think the author is using this term in a very broad and perhaps imprecise context compared to you, who appear to be locking it down to a very specific geographical and chronological region.
To be fair, that's what the term was invented for. It's not supposed to be just a fancy alternative to "state", "country" or "polity".
> To be fair, that's what the term was invented for. It's not supposed to be just a fancy alternative to "state", "country" or "polity".
And "literally" isn't supposed to mean figuratively but here we are in a living (but not actually), evolving (but not literally) language trying to understand one another.
> But they did in many areas, and the article specifically states "that's how the world was" (not "that's how some parts of the world were").
It seems to me like if you're being a stickler about these terms but then handwaving the dissent we saw in China, the Pacific Islands, various European rebellions, Celtic tribes, and Norse communities? Well, then perhaps you are not fully respecting the term either.
The author's central point that organized societies existed before technology to make them top-down legible to rulers existed–that seems uncontroversial.
Are you really here to be rigid about terms and quibble, or are you here to discuss things like stigmergic organization, fractal aspects of behavior and how human algorithms and hierarchies mesh with that?
> It seems to me like if you're being a stickler about these terms but then handwaving the dissent we saw in China, the Pacific Islands, various European rebellions, Celtic tribes, and Norse communities?
I specifically mentioned peasant revolts in general, and Wat Tyler's in particular, in the post you originally replied to. And though I guess armed rebels are technically "pursu[ing] their well-being in a bottom-up fashion via social interactions in their local area", I admit I didn't think that's what the author had in mind.
> The author's central point that organized societies existed before technology to make them top-down legible to rulers existed–that seems uncontroversial.
(1) Is that really the author's central point? I totally didn't get that. (2) Where did I say that organized societies didn't exist before such technology?
> Are you really here to be rigid about terms and quibble, or are you here to discuss things like stigmergic organization, fractal aspects of behavior and how human algorithms and hierarchies mesh with that?
I'm here to argue that ahistorical assertions are neither helpful nor convincing.
How is the domination of a large agricultural class by a much smaller military class (who were prepared to perpetuate that domination by violence, and did so) compatible with the assertion that before the advent of the nation-state, governments left people alone "so they could pursue their well-being in a bottom-up fashion via social interactions in their local area"? Unless, that is, you exclude that military class from the definition of "government" (which I don't think you can, as they provided governmental functions, in particular justice, law enforcement, and defence), or the agricultural class from the definition of "people".
> The notion of humans forming communities predates the advent of monarchy. Both you and the author are trying to create "just so" stories around authoritarianism as a motivating factor for human culture.
But we're not talking about communities and human culture in general; we're talking about the specific concept of the nation-state. And as far as I'm aware, there's little evidence of their creation by a group of people as a whole banding together for common defence (as suggested by the article), and plenty of their creation (gradually, over time) as a means of extending and entrenching the power of the people at the top: the promulgation of symbols and myths that support the idea of a single national identity, the quashing of rival power centres, and the uniformisation of laws and bureaucracy at the expense of local privileges.
But if you have evidence to the contrary, I'm happy to be corrected.