Comments on: Hunter-Gatherer Philosophy II: The Libertarianism Question

By: Amy Beth

Amy Beth — Thu, 15 May 2014 18:13:02 +0000

I get annoyed when people wrongly assume that libertarianism must mean individualism – they are not mutually exclusive. The key is volunteerism and free association. A libertarian society still has "tribes" through families, churches, neighborhoods, professional organizations, etc. but these tribes are voluntarily chosen by the participants, not forced upon anyone by the state. This is the key difference between libertarian ideals and progressive ideals. Progressives want to create a better world by telling everyone how they should live and spend their money. Libertarians want to create a better world by allowing people to choose those things for themselves. This does not mean you have a bunch of individuals running around tribeless.

By: Papa Harding

Papa Harding — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 15:49:09 +0000

I agree that Libertarian and HG view are very differing. Unfortunately for the HG there are no ( very few) areas where one can freely range. Population is the other issue….there are too many humans. We have extended way past our holding capacity and have circumvented many of nature's population checks and balances. I will disagree that HGs don't go to war (other than personal/social). Creatures in nature still go to war over natural resources. From ants to chimps, warfare can be observed when one group intrudes into another's territory taking resources. Granted…'territory' is not static and typically moves with the group. I can't imagine human tribes were any different.

By: B Angelica Marquez

B Angelica Marquez — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 03:59:26 +0000

In reply to Matt Johnston. This is great!

By: Matt Johnston

Matt Johnston — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 20:29:43 +0000

Wow. With the election coming up I have found myself arguing the same points with my Ron Paul supporting friends.
In the wild, the truly wild of our ancestors complete with large predators, the individual standing alone, no matter how rugged he thinks he is, is lunch. Humans are weak and slow and the only defense is the group. Lions don't attack a group of animals. They single one out and split him off from the herd before they make a kill.
I once read an account of a young Native American man of about 13 doing a vision quest in which he spent several days and nights alone fasting in a small circle of stones away from his village. He said he was terrified because it was the first time in his life he had ever been alone. Family, tribe, clan, are everything. What ever one accomplished in life is measured by the good it does for the group.
Rugged Individualism and Libertarianism are based on American myths invented for selling dime novels in the nineteenth century.
As someone who has practiced wilderness survival skills, the odds of surviving in the wild increase exponentially with the addition of a second and third able bodied person.
We are social animals. The sooner we accept that fact, the better off we will be.

By: Jane

Jane — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 11:23:22 +0000

The more people that have considered them the better, if this were an argument. I ask the what if's to emotively conjure possibilities outside your little egalitarian box. So all expression of ideas should be confined to solid reasoning and backed up by the quoting of other people's interpretations? Or at least when poetical hypothosising doesn't suit your world view.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 19:20:08 +0000

In reply to J. Stanton. I also find Vaneigem's commentary on "roles" (in RoEL) to be insightful.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 19:08:02 +0000

In reply to jane. Yes, agricultural society can tell us how humans behave in zoos. See: Human Ethology

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 19:03:12 +0000

In reply to jane. You ask these "what ifs" as if you're the first person in the world to ever consider them. It seems that you hope the rhetorical style somehow constitutes an argument. All of these have been covered in the literature. Again, I'll refer you to Boehm, Scott, Gray, Woodburn, and the entire field of evolutionary biology -- particularly the literature on group selection.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 18:54:33 +0000

In reply to jane. I repeatedly cite Boehm because I don't want to rewrite his book in every sentence. That's the whole point of citation. I also cited Gray, Scott, and Woodburn -- who all basically say the same thing about HG egalitarianism. I can't do all of your homework for you. You don't get to question my use of the references unless you've read them. Sorry, but that's just cheap and lazy.

By: jane

jane — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 12:18:43 +0000

Yes, but what if they value a person more than another person? What if one in their group is biologically superior in every way, one the others see in a more deserving light than their companions, and even themselves? What if they want to preserve that life, to further that genetic line, (for the benefit of the species, they know not), more than they do a genetically inferior person? What if the best, most productive, highest quality group came about as a result of that intellectually superior person making decisions, leading, and consuming the best resources. What if pure equality for its own sake made for an uninspiring, meaningless life where worship of exact division of value, without regard for worth of the receiver, was the best you could look forward to. Where resources and labour were not pooled into something greater – to go without some, that it might produce a higher state of housing, food, culture, art for at least a few, or else not physically be able to exist. What if inequality was the ideal?