From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Tue Jul 24 2001 - 08:02:42 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> Mike Lorrey wrote
>
> > Lee Corbin wrote:
> >> We can probably safely state, however, that for human beings
> >> capitalism is "natural" if
> >>
> >> 1. there is a sufficient tradition of liberty in a culture
> >> 2. the ruling government or state is not overly powerful
> >> 3. no existing religion has absolute control, unless it's
> >> fairly mild and isn't antithetical to profit
> >>
> >> I think that I see why you wish to describe capitalism as
> >> "natural"
> >
> > This is correct, because the above conditions exist when man is 'in a
> > state of nature'.
>
> To me, a state of nature occurs only before the advent of agriculture,
> and the other technologies developed about 10,000 years ago. In this
> state, humankind is thought to have lived in small bands of hunter-
> gatherers. I don't think that people under this condition have a
> tradition of liberty, either. They're usually used to doing what
> the head man, or couple of men, say. The kind of "tradition of
> liberty" that I had in mind was what the early colonists of the U.S.
> had, and what the colonists to all other English speaking countries
> carried with them to new shores.
Actually, hunter-gatherer groups ranged in size from family units up to
extended clans, until large predators like sabre tigers, cave lions and
cave bears were eliminated. While pecking orders did play a role in
selecting leaders, leaders didn't dictate people lives, and unpopular
leaders could be ousted. In such societies, few individuals could live
without the technology in their lives, especially their weapons and
clothing, and actually only a small percentage of protein came from
large organized hunts. Most comes from individuals or pairs hunting
alone.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:09:05 MST