Jump to content

FalagarV2

Members
  • Content count

    38
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About FalagarV2

  • Rank
    Freerider

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Norway

Recent Profile Visitors

524 profile views
  1. FalagarV2

    How Soon Is Now?

    See, you've already waited too long.
  2. FalagarV2

    Why did Humans create States?

    Well, the definition of 'state' is basically a society with a relatively high degree of task differentiation and specialization (more useful for the early period than Weber's ideal-type of 'monopoly on legitimate violence'). Re state power: early states were highly ritualized institutions, and the king arguably one of the most ritualized figures (often doubling as high-priests), with strict regimes regulating his behavior down to how he was to get dressed. The concept of 'divine kingship' did not (necessarily) mean that kings had unlimited god-like powers, but that their powers were tied to the divine order and thus that their behavior affected crop yield, epidemics, etc. Thus they too had to be scrutinied. Kings still did excercise wide-ranging powers, elites of course benefited, and there were certainly draconian laws pertaining to commoners, but on the other hand the states were much weaker and unstable than their modern counterpart, so the actual assertion of power (as opposed to idealized self-presentation) was also much more precarious, and collapse could turn things on their heads. Bad years for instance often resulted in the delegitimation and overthrow of the king. We could equally look to the highly rigid family and clan-structures, regulating marriage, food production etc., in many other non-state societies. Historically, families have arguably been more 'totalitarian' in their regulation of individuals than states can ever hope to be.
  3. FalagarV2

    The Paradox of Tolerance

    I'm curious as to what you're basing this on. To be sure, violence of some kind was involved in all these instances, but there's a difference between violence being 'involved' and violence being instrumental. To my knowledge, the gay community never threatened to radicalize to any large degree. Nor was the decision to protect sexual minorities through legislation, around here at least, effected because of violence against gay people - which has been around for ages, and in which the state previously actively participated, - it was changing attitudes in certain sections of the population which led to protection being seen as desirable, and violence against gay people as illegitimate. That is not to say that the threat of violence has never been effective in producing positive institutional changes (and eventual changes in popular opinion). The introduction of democratic institutions and the success of the workers' movement certainly had violence and threat of violence as one powerful motivator - although they also in part responded to much older changes in the conception of the state. But we should not confuse the presence of violence with its instrument effect.
×