>In the early ages of the world, according to the scripture chronology there were no kings; the consequence of which was, there were no wars; it is the pride of kings which throws mankind into confusion. Holland, without a king hath enjoyed more peace for this last century than any of the monarchical governments in Europe. Antiquity favours the same remark; for the quiet and rural lives of the first Patriarchs have a snappy something in them, which vanishes when we come to the history of Jewish royalty.
>Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the custom. It was the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set on foot for the promotion of idolatry. The Heathens paid divine honours to their deceased kings, and the Christian World hath improved on the plan by doing the same to their living ones. How impious is the title of sacred Majesty applied to a worm, who in the midst of his splendor is crumbling into dust!
-Thomas Paine, 1776
Is this true?
>what are tribal raids
War is not even solely a human sport. Ants engage in it, as do some higher primates.
Also, while there are clashing wills and no force to prevent them from making conflict, violence WILL happen. You are implying that only kings are capable of desire. (in the state of anarchy of early human tribes)
>there can be no war without monarchy
Yeah, look at how democracy completely removed war. It's not as if revanchism, xenophobia and geopolitics are real things.
>Holland, without a king hath enjoyed more peace for this last century than any of the monarchical governments in Europe
Dutchie here, The Dutch Republic Supplied any and all nations of europe with arms. We were so big in armsdealing that if we were going to fight in a war, we would probably face weapons that had been in our hands once.
We did not fight many wars after 1707. Chiefly because we started to go broke, the economy was slowly collapsing. We did fight some wars though.
>Care to elaborate?
He fails to explain how the most militaristic and the most militarily successful state of the ancient world - Rome - was a republic, how Greek democracies were fighting each other all the time and how democratic Athenian assembly voted for total genocides of their former allies couple of times. Punic wars, the most devastating wars in ancient western Mediterranean, were fought between two republics. And he's just wrong about whole ancient Israel thing.
belgium, the uk, the netherlands, norway, sweden, spain, canada, australia, new zealand lichtenstein, monaco, san marino
congo, liberia, syria, iraq, afghanistan, somalia, mexico
Thomas Paine was one of the most influential political thinkers in the history of humanity and his ideas contributed to the creation of the greatest nation and system of government ever conceived. Show some respect you fucking idiot.
>Most greek city states were not democrasies though
>and most democrasies banded together.
No? It was more about common interests than political ideology. And Greek democracies weren't any more peaceful than oligarchies, monarchs or tyrants.
Its not only kings, nor only democracies as the reactionaries would like you to think. Its all kinds of governments, because they can socialize the cost of war, finance it out from the pockets of the governed.
War is above all expensive. It wont happen if the governor has to pay it all by himself.
sure. 17th century was the Dutch Golden Age and it so happened that the family of Orange-Nassau built up a pretty strong dinasty. They were practically kings, and became such as the king of England in 1689.
Without society, the state of war is eternal (each pursues his own desire, and those clash around desirable possessions). With society, there is war with other societies because of geopolitical reasons, with each society trying to ensure itself security and prosperity. There can be war even if the society doesn't have a leader-figure (a hypothetical "perfect" direct democracy), because people sometimes desire war (revanchism in pre-ww2 Germany, the people of the US public being overwhelmingly supporting of the interventions in the Middle East etc.)
Without the state there would be nothing preventing the "separate" societies from integrating into one through cultural and economical globalization, like its already happening.
Its thanks to globalization that the thought of an inter-European WAR, something extremely popular over the course of history, is now a ridiculous proposition. As simple as it may sound, each European individual is more likely to have positive emotional connections to individuals of other European countries, and to their culture as a whole. This makes it that much difficult to convince him to go to war against such countries.
>without the state one would be created, possibly larger than current states
Brilliant observation. Also, that state would probably develop as it did through history (groups => tribes => states)
Its cool that you think so, but I wasn't equating society and state.
If anything, globalization should probably weaken the state as a whole, with the increasing demand for foreign goods and the blurred lines of nationality and borders. The only thing that could counter this is deliberate action (as opposed to the spontaneous actions brought by globalization)
>Without the state there would be nothing preventing the "separate" societies from integrating into one through cultural and economical globalization, like its already happening.
Except that's being forced by the states
What the fuck are you on about?
Right now there are people all over the world thinking about moving to Canada, or importing iron ore from Australia, what about listening to K-Pop or Norwegian black folk metal? This is all globalization and the state is playing no part.
The state can act against globalization by protectionist measures, closed borders and internet censorship. In some cases it can act for it, with free trade treaties and even massive refugee initiatives. But by and large, globalization has been a ground-up initiative, it is likely that what you interpret as states promoting globalization is actually states stopping their active opposition to it.
he is right
People back then didn't really have a concept of what hunter-gatherers, or even apes, were like:
>"The violence began on January 7, 1974 when a party of six males from the southern Kasakela tribe brutally attacked and murdered Godi, a young, well-liked male member of the northern Kahama tribe. Over the next four years, all six males from the Kahama tribe would be killed by the Kasakela. Female Kahama tribe members suffered similar fates – one was murdered, two went missing and were never found, and three were kidnapped, beaten, and raped by the Kasakela. The war was over a sliver of jungle turf – and the combatants were monkeys. "
The first outbreak of violence occurred on January 7, 1974, when a party of six adult Kasakela males attacked and killed "Godi", a young Kahama male, who had been feeding in a tree. This was the first time that any of the chimpanzees had been seen to deliberately kill a fellow chimp.
Over the next four years, all six of the adult male members of the Kahama were killed by the Kasakela males.Of the females from Kahama, one was killed, two went missing, and three were beaten and kidnapped by the Kasakela males. The Kasakela then succeeded in taking over the Kahama's former territory.
These territorial gains were not permanent, however; with the Kahama gone, the Kasakela's territory now butted up directly against the territory of another chimpanzee community, called the Kalande. Cowed by the superior strength and numbers of the Kalande, as well as a few violent skirmishes along their border, the Kasakela quickly gave up much of their new territory.
The outbreak of the war came as a disturbing shock to Goodall, who had previously considered chimpanzees to be, although similar to human beings, "rather 'nicer'" in their behavior. Coupled with the observation in 1975 of cannibalistic infanticide by a high-ranking female in the community, the violence of the Gombe war first revealed to Goodall the "dark side" of chimpanzee behavior.
She was profoundly disturbed by this revelation; in her memoir Through a Window: My Thirty Years with the Chimpanzees of Gombe, she wrote:
For several years I struggled to come to terms with this new knowledge. Often when I woke in the night, horrific pictures sprang unbidden to my mind—Satan [one of the apes], cupping his hand below Sniff's chin to drink the blood that welled from a great wound on his face; old Rodolf, usually so benign, standing upright to hurl a four-pound rock at Godi's prostrate body; Jomeo tearing a strip of skin from Dé's thigh; Figan, charging and hitting, again and again, the stricken, quivering body of Goliath, one of his childhood heroes. ...
The USA illegally entered Mexican territory and provoked an attack. Polk's ambition was naked and apparent even at the time. It was a manufactured cassus belli and a clear cut false-flag operation.
texas goes up to the rio grande, it's official, no backsies
chieftains were like minikings
Thomas Paine meant dictators of all sorts. Common Sense by Thomas Paine actually gives a very good coverage of the basics of politics.
But in that case, "chieftains" are older than the human race, and even apes. So, does he mean that there were no wars when our ancestors were some kind of arboreal rodent?
I mean, the guy is getting is ancient history from the Bible. Not paleontology, anthropology, or biology.
Also, how does he justify American revolutionaries promptly going genocide mode on Native Americans? Native Americans have chieftains so THEY caused the war?
The American "revolution" was merely an independence war in an overseas colony
It gave little indication that a major european country could get rid of its king
The US "revolution" did indeed indirectly cause the French Revolution by creating a deficit in French monarchy's budget
After the French killed their king, they resisted for 23 years against enemy monarchies and even conquered Europe in the process, thus spreading their values all over the most relevant continent of the world.
It's what killed feudalism forever.
Sure the monarchy was resitored in the end, but only a few decades later, some other revolutions erupted all over the continent
He tried to argue that human rights was derived via humanity being created equal in the image of God and he attacked Burke's argument that the only rights you have as a human is the one granted to you by the polity in which you live in.
Typically in human rights theory, Burke's view of a post-metaphysical theory of Human Rights is generally agreed to be correct and flows into Arendt's theory that the only true human right is the right to have political rights. Paine's view that everyone was somehow protected by being God's creatures, stuck in the metaphysical, did not hold up anymore, especially in light of the holocaust.
But even apes wage wars. So, even some basic hierarchy and extended family structure can cause wars. Your brother gets in a dispute and gets killed, then you kill the killer and things just keep escalating until two clans are smashing each other's newborns against rocks. Not to mention territorial problems in case of droughts and famines, where an extended family would obviously prefer to take all the food supply to its own members rather than let some strangers eat.
Assuming similar conflicts are widespread throughout different clans, and the percentage of deaths-per-population-total is equal or higher than modern wars, then it amounts to the same thing. And there is archaeological support for that.
I mean look here:
Five hunter-gatherer tribes mentioned in the study. Violence is the cause of death for 30-55% of the adult males, depending on the tribe.
Or here for extensive archaeological support:
I have no issue with Paine, since he had no good data for reference in the 1700s. But there is no excuse to defend these notions of peaceful primitive people nowadays. This behavior goes back to before we split up with chimps.
What did Paine think of the French Revolution? Considering he was in France when it happened and was nearly guillotined by the revolutionaries I'd be curious if he was critical of it and why.
Maybe you should.
Monarchies were put in place by people who wanted an end to religious wars, tribal feuds and foreign incursions that threatened their lives and generally speaking, life under the modern democratic order has been more volatile.
Why Americans like this proto-communist pseudo-intellectual so much?
He has a good point. What we're noticing now in history is a unique period with little to no major conflicts. A lot of this can be attributed to democratization and the emergence of capitalism and trade, it's now more profitable to trade for the goods you need than to conquer someone over said goods.
>A lot of this can be attributed to democratization and the emergence of capitalism and trade, it's now more profitable to trade for the goods you need than to conquer someone over said goods.
The notion that democracy equals peace or free trade is fallacious because the governments with the most limits on free trade tend to be republics and democracies have proven themselves to be anything but totally peaceful as more people have probably been killed in the last 300 years in the name of democracy or ideologies that claim to be democratic than in the name of any monarchical order with no pretensions of being a democratic system, even if we take the exaggerated death tolls of medieval chronicles for granted.
It's more accurate to say that wide and diverse trade facilitates peace and trade is facilitated by less government involvement of any kind, be it democratic or not in otherwise private business affairs.
Heck, in the middle east, the governments with the most free trade are the monarchies.
The problem is that then the definition of "democracy" becomes more and more subjective and so it becomes a meaningless thing where even the most "undemocratic" state by modern standards can suddenly call itself democratic and the most democratic state becomes a tyranny.