State of Jefferson (how much, salary, transportation)

[.highnlite]

Originally Posted by leonard

Really? OK show where it isn't true.

If I were to make a list of what was right, my job would be easier, but, let us see what happens, NT stands for not true:

Aside from small family groups, actual "tribes" were primarily economic Capitalists with a social conscience.NT
ALL either hunted, gathered or later farmed.
What they had was theirs and they used it in the family and only shared with other tribal members if such were genuinely in need. NT
If someone did not work, he starved. NT
If he could, he had to. Simplistic, especially your reference to 'he'.
What a man gathered or killed was his and no one else' unless he chose to share. NT
Mind you, based on the histories we actually have not ideas of what it might have been like 10,000,000 years ago, where we have no true records. NT
This was the norm for centuries; NT
think American Indians, as examples.NT

Over time tribes grew and looked at a certain area as theirs. NT
There were exceptions like the Bushmen of Africa, but even they were Economic Capitalists with a Social conscience.NT

Next was Political Capitalism as leaders arose who controlled the group, NT
They did not share, they were given a share. NT
Think feudal England where a man worked a field and gave a major part to the "Lord". NT
Ditto Mid East, Greece, etc. NT
The capitalist ruler did not share he only took. NT
The people, who were also Capitalists to survive, were the ones who gave as they chose. NT
This would be political and economic Capitalism with a recognition of Social needs by some. NT

The first genuine Social "political" activities, at least in Europe, were instituted by the Church NT
as they gave alms, sheltered the poor, rendered medical aid and generally helped travelers and those in need. NT
However, again it was voluntary gifts to the Church that supported this. NT
Political Socialism is really rare and in virtually every case I am aware of it degenerated into tyranny. Since there were no cases, your conclusion is in error

In fact in some cases a Social conscience even allowed for abandoning the elderly when they could no longer contribute, to die. You are confusing survival with an economic system.

Think some American Indian tribes. NT
Kinda what happens with Socialized medicine, as it is rationed. Seriousl NT , no, that is just American Rightwing BS.

Brief overview but based on history, this is generally how it worked. NT

I will give you one, piece of homework. Anasazi, Chaco, research those

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by Leonard64

Aside from small family groups, actual "tribes" were primarily economic Capitalists with a social conscience. ALL either hunted, gathered or later farmed. What they had was theirs and they used it in the family and only shared with other tribal members if such were genuinely in need. If someone did not work, he starved. If he could, he had to. What a man gathered or killed was his and no one else' unless he chose to share. Mind you, based on the histories we actually have not ideas of what it might have been like 10,000,000 years ago, where we have no true records. This was the norm for centuries; think American Indians, as examples.

Over time tribes grew and looked at a certain area as theirs. There were exceptions like the Bushmen of Africa, but even they were Economic Capitalists with a Social conscience.

Next was Political Capitalism as leaders arose who controlled the group, They did not share, they were given a share. Think feudal England where a man worked a field and gave a major part to the "Lord". Ditto Mid East, Greece, etc. The capitalist ruler did not share he only took. The people, who were also Capitalists to survive, were the ones who gave as they chose. This would be political and economic Capitalism with a recognition of Social needs by some.

The first genuine Social "political" activities, at least in Europe, were instituted by the Church as they gave alms, sheltered the poor, rendered medical aid and generally helped travelers and those in need. However, again it was voluntary gifts to the Church that supported this. Political Socialism is really rare and in virtually every case I am aware of it degenerated into tyranny.

In fact in some cases a Social conscience even allowed for abandoning the elderly when they could no longer contribute, to die. Think some American Indian tribes. Kinda what happens with Socialized medicine, as it is rationed.

Brief overview but based on history, this is generally how it worked.

Uh Leonard, no.
Where on earth did you get ANY of this?
For starters, there are only three levels of social groups / cultures: 'bands', 'tribes', and 'states' ... hunting / gathering "culture" existed/exists in 'bands' and some 'tribes' ... what you have noted as a preference of mine is limited to bands -- and very small tribes ... cultural units of fewer than about 200 individuals ... and I pretty much also define the estrangement from natural design at the point where agriculture becomes intensive -- what you call actual "farming".

At these hunter-gatherer levels there is no personal property ownership with sense of rights and entitlements. There are possessions, such as bows and arrows and knives, which are minor and freely available to band and tribal sharing.

NO ONE starved. NO ONE. And ALL hunting and gathering product is shared.
Any hunter who refused to share his kill would have been either ostracized or killed himself. It was unthinkable. It didn't happen.

The Bushmen are a particular favorite of mine. They are an egalitarian society and had no economy in the sense we are discussing. About 50 years ago they were forced into farming by South Africa's modernization programs. But they pretty much still are without ownerships and economies, other than what is forced on them. They remain some of the world's loveliest souls, imo ... although they are, sadly and cruelly, challenged by the encroachment of modern "civilization" that can't hold a candle to their social and individual essence. They are being crushed, and more and more of them are falling, destroyed, under the pressure. A true sin.

Bushmen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Children have no social duties besides playing, and leisure is very important to Bushmen of all ages. Large amounts of time are spent in conversation, joking, music, and sacred dances. Women have a high status in the San society, are greatly respected, and may be leaders of their own family groups. They make important family and group decisions ...

Traditionally, the San were an egalitarian society. [13] Although they did have hereditary chiefs, the chiefs' authority was limited. The bushmen instead made decisions among themselves by consensus,[14] with women treated as relatively equal.[15] In addition, the San economy was a gift economy, based on giving each other gifts on a regular basis rather than on trading or purchasing goods and services.[16]


You then moved on into comparing feudal England and the Church and Political Capitalism. I don't know what ANY of that has to do with hunting-gathering bands or tribes. No relationship. Zero.


By the way, I am also straining to recall anything about native American tribes abandoning their elderly to die. It was practice for the elderly to decide on their own to walk off to die -- and that was allowed. But I don't know of any cultural examples of abandonment.

[.highnlite]

That was nice of you to explain that Null, I thought about it, but realized that his information was so doggoned inaccurate, that it had to be based on what he wanted societies to be, not what they actually were/are. Therefore, likely as not immune to presented data.

[Fontucky]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

At these hunter-gatherer levels there is no personal property ownership with sense of rights and entitlements. There are possessions, such as bows and arrows and knives, which are minor and freely available to band and tribal sharing.

NO ONE starved. NO ONE. And ALL hunting and gathering product is shared.
Any hunter who refused to share his kill would have been either ostracized or killed himself. It was unthinkable. It didn't happen.

Which is why banishment was often the kiss of death.

[TrueTimbers]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

If I were to make a list of what was right, my job would be easier, but, let us see what happens, NT stands for not true:



I will give you one, piece of homework. Anasazi, Chaco, research those

I grow Anasazi beans.... A utterly spectacular heirloom bean that can not be matched for flavor by any modern high breed.. Point being.......Indeed we as a society are going backwards, further away from the ideal not closer to it..

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by TrueTimbers

I grow Anasazi beans.... A utterly spectacular heirloom bean that can not be matched for flavor by any modern high breed.. Point being.......Indeed we as a society are going backwards, further away from the ideal not closer to it..

Nature installed in us a neo-cortex of a certain size for whatever reason ... it is part of our operating system ... its functions limit optimal social relationship capacity to approximately 150 individuals ... hence why the hunter-gatherer bands and tribes were always small --

Dunbar's number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

... UNTIL, the advent of focused agriculture: farming ... at which point: personal ownership, deeply hierarchical leadership and control, and profit-motive behaviors, and infrastructures began to appear with the larger and larger societies ... which societies provided the human livestock that feeds profitability for manipulative individual personalities. Not too far down that road, ideologies began their inexorable infections as tools to control the human livestock.

Don't f**k with Mother Nature.

[TrueTimbers]

Indeed, any and all attempts to F with mother nature will fail at some point... With that said, I believe there are social models that include agriculture that could work...

[.highnlite]

There were two negative consequences of the swing from hunter gathering to agriculture.
1. Nutritional levels actually went down, the early agriculturalists were smaller and less healthy than the hunter gatherers.
2. Agriculture allowed for a leisure class and the need to control the rain, this led to priests, and organized religion.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by TrueTimbers

Indeed, any and all attempts to F with mother nature will fail at some point... With that said, I believe there are social models that include agriculture that could work...

Yeah, sorta good enough ... but most importantly now: we have no choice ... that train left the station long ago. I am one of the world's leading advocates for the realization of the positive lesson of Dunbar's Number. This scientific finding has incredible implications as to how humanity can accept its reality and compensate for its forays outside of nature's essential boundaries.

As my father, the social scientist, used to say when people questioned his work in human relations: "I never suggested we should all love one another -- it's simply a practical advantage to learn to co-exist."

Shades of Rodney King, no?

[Fontucky]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

Shades of Rodney King, no?

Better coexisting examples are out there.