baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (06/28/85)
> Human beings are individals. They form societies for mutual benefit, > i.e., to facilitate achievement of their individual goals. > > Mike Sykora Can you cite a single instance of a lasting human society (not a club or other special-interest organization) being formed by the rational agreement of otherwise atomic human beings? If not, on what basis are you making this assertion? There is disagreement among anthropologists about how human societies form and develop, but it would appear that man is an *instinctively* social animal. Do you have evidence to the contrary? Baba
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (07/02/85)
>/* theory / baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) / 12:02 pm Jun 28, 1985 */ >Can you cite a single instance of a lasting human society (not a club >or other special-interest organization) being formed by the rational >agreement of otherwise atomic human beings? I suppose that the beginnings of society were formed out of a common interest of men. But even if they weren't, it seems clear that at least in modern times society continues to evolve because men seek to better their condition thru mutual cooperation. >There is disagreement among anthropologists >about how human societies form and develop, but it would appear that man >is an *instinctively* social animal. Do you have evidence to the contrary? I don't see any disagreement here, necessarily. One of the benefits men obtain by forming society (perhaps the main one) is interaction with other human beings. Furthermore, it would appear that men form such organizations as corporate entities for mutual benefit, not out of gregariousness. As such entities play an important role in society, it seems that at least certain aspects of society came into existence and/or continue to evolve because of men's perception that such aspects (institutions, if you like) of society further their interests. Baba
lkk@teddy.UUCP (07/02/85)
In article <2380067@acf4.UUCP> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes: >>/* theory / baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) / 12:02 pm Jun 28, 1985 */ > >>Can you cite a single instance of a lasting human society (not a club >>or other special-interest organization) being formed by the rational >>agreement of otherwise atomic human beings? > >I suppose that the beginnings of society were formed out of a common >interest of men. But even if they weren't, it seems clear that at >least in modern times society continues to evolve because men seek to >better their condition thru mutual cooperation. Consider how many men (or women) actually make conscious decisions about the future of society. Most people are born into a society, and live by its rules as the default behavior. Societies seem to change in ways which can't be predicted by using only rational self-interest as a motivating force. -- Sport Death, Larry Kolodney (USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/03/85)
> > Human beings are individals. They form societies for mutual benefit, > > i.e., to facilitate achievement of their individual goals. > > > > Mike Sykora > > Can you cite a single instance of a lasting human society (not a club > or other special-interest organization) being formed by the rational > agreement of otherwise atomic human beings? If not, on what basis are > you making this assertion? There is disagreement among anthropologists > about how human societies form and develop, but it would appear that man > is an *instinctively* social animal. Do you have evidence to the contrary? > > Baba Plymouth Compact. The original government of Rhode Island. Those come right off the top of my head. I don't know a great deal about their social organization, but the runaway slave society of Brazil in the 1600s? 1700s? seems to qualify as well.
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (07/04/85)
>/* lkk@teddy.UUCP / 1:27 pm Jul 2, 1985 */ >Consider how many men (or women) actually make conscious decisions >about the future of society. Most people are born into a society, and >live by its rules as the default behavior. Societies seem to change >in ways which can't be predicted by using only rational self-interest as a >motivating force. What you need to consider is that society or aspects of society are products of "human action" but not always of human design as Hayek has pointed out. The net result of the aggregate of human activity whose goal it is to maximize individuals' self-interest can and does lead to organization. So you are probably right that these changes can't be predicted, because they are the aggregate result of many decisions made by many individuals, far too many for anyone or any reasonable sized group to keep track of. Mike Sykora
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (07/06/85)
> > > Human beings are individals. They form societies for mutual benefit, > > > i.e., to facilitate achievement of their individual goals. > > > > > > Mike Sykora > > > > Can you cite a single instance of a lasting human society (not a club > > or other special-interest organization) being formed by the rational > > agreement of otherwise atomic human beings? If not, on what basis are > > you making this assertion? There is disagreement among anthropologists > > about how human societies form and develop, but it would appear that man > > is an *instinctively* social animal. Do you have evidence to the contrary? > > > > Baba > > Plymouth Compact. The original government of Rhode Island. > > Those come right off the top of my head. > > Clayton Cramer You should dig deeper, then. The parties to the cited agreements were already socialized in English culture, with established and agreed-upon notions of individual and familial obligation, commerce, and common law. Baba
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/06/85)
In article <321@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >>> Human beings are individuals. They form societies for mutual benefit, >>> i.e., to facilitate achievement of their individual goals. >>> Mike Sykora >> Can you cite a single instance of a lasting human society (not a club >> or other special-interest organization) being formed by the rational >> agreement of otherwise atomic human beings? If not, on what basis are >> you making this assertion? There is disagreement among anthropologists >> about how human societies form and develop, but it would appear that man >> is an *instinctively* social animal. Do you have evidence to the contrary? >Plymouth Compact. The original government of Rhode Island. The Plymouth Compact is a good example. Here we have a bunch of people on a ship, going to live together in the same place. Is there really any basis for the claim that they did not think of themselves as a group before they chose to draw up laws? It seems much more likely that they made up laws precisely because they saw themselves as a group. Mike's original statement is an objective sociological hypothesis which he seems to believe in without proof, especially when you include the implication that they form groups for NO OTHER REASON than for the advancement of their self-interest. My belief (and although I cannot offer more that anecdotal evidence, plenty of that abounds) is that AN important reason why men form groups is that they perceive a shared problem, situation, or position in life. Consider the NRA, which exercises considerable political power. It does not exist merely to lobby; it also serves as a forum and a place of rthe dissemination of information and instruction. Pure self-agrandisment is not the only reason why groups form. Nor is it the reason why groups draw up rules. Indeed, the purpose of rules seems mostly to be to resist the naturally destructive force of self-interest. >I don't know a great deal about their social organization, but the runaway >slave society of Brazil in the 1600s? 1700s? seems to qualify as well. Such a collection of people would have an obvious reason to see themselves as a group. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (07/07/85)
> >Mike's original statement is an objective sociological hypothesis which he > >seems to believe in without proof, especially when you include the > >implication that they form groups for NO OTHER REASON than for the > >advancement of their self-interest. > > > >Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe > > I know I'm being picky, but would you mind reading my postings before > commenting on them? :-) It's just that it'll probably be easier to > understand you that way. > > Mike Sykora Well, here's your original statement, Mike: > Human beings are individals. They form societies for mutual benefit, > i.e., to facilitate achievement of their individual goals. It does indeed form an objective sociological hypothesis, and in response to requests for supporting evidence, the best you can come up with is a sarcastic suggestion that Charley read your postings. How can you expect anyone to take seriously your rhetoric about individual responsibility when you won't even take responsibility for your own statements in print? Baba
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/09/85)
> > > > Human beings are individals. They form societies for mutual benefit, > > > > i.e., to facilitate achievement of their individual goals. > > > > > > > > Mike Sykora > > > > > > Can you cite a single instance of a lasting human society (not a club > > > or other special-interest organization) being formed by the rational > > > agreement of otherwise atomic human beings? If not, on what basis are > > > you making this assertion? There is disagreement among anthropologists > > > about how human societies form and develop, but it would appear that man > > > is an *instinctively* social animal. Do you have evidence to the contrary? > > > > > > Baba > > > > Plymouth Compact. The original government of Rhode Island. > > > > Those come right off the top of my head. > > > > Clayton Cramer > > You should dig deeper, then. The parties to the cited agreements were > already socialized in English culture, with established and agreed-upon > notions of individual and familial obligation, commerce, and common law. > > Baba Already socialized, yes, but not legally compelled to continue in those patterns. In fact, they did not follow in those patterns. Both examples are notable for the manner in which the governments they formed were *different* from English society: Plymouth Colony, in that they did not create a nobility; Rhode Island, in that they were tolerant of dissenting religious opinions. In fact, these societies were formed from atomic individuals.
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/09/85)
In article <2380086@acf4.UUCP> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes: >>Mike's original statement is an objective sociological hypothesis which he >>seems to believe in without proof, especially when you include the >>implication that they form groups for NO OTHER REASON than for the >>advancement of their self-interest. >I know I'm being picky, but would you mind reading my postings before >commenting on them? :-) It's just that it'll probably be easier to >understand you that way. Well, here's what you said: >>> Human beings are individuals. They form societies for mutual benefit, >>> i.e., to facilitate achievement of their individual goals. >>> Mike Sykora Perhaps you would like to expand on this little nugget. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (07/09/85)
>/* baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) / 2:54 pm Jul 7, 1985 */ >It does indeed form an objective sociological hypothesis, and in response >to requests for supporting evidence, the best you can come up with is a >sarcastic suggestion that Charley read your postings. How can you expect >anyone to take seriously your rhetoric about individual responsibility when >you won't even take responsibility for your own statements in print? I believe I offered such evidence in 2 earlier responses to this article. Mike
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (07/10/85)
> >It does indeed form an objective sociological hypothesis, and in response > >to requests for supporting evidence, the best you can come up with is a > >sarcastic suggestion that Charley read your postings. How can you expect > >anyone to take seriously your rhetoric about individual responsibility when > >you won't even take responsibility for your own statements in print? > > I believe I offered such evidence in 2 earlier responses to this article. > > Mike If anyone actually saw either of these, could you please mail me copies? {ihnp4 decvax}!decwrl!\ >spar!baba ROM DOS {ucbvax sdcrdcf}!hplabs!/
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (07/12/85)
>/* mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) / 5:53 pm Jul 5, 1985 */ >Mike's original statement is an objective sociological hypothesis which he >seems to believe in without proof, especially when you include the >implication that they form groups for NO OTHER REASON than for the >advancement of their self-interest. > >Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe I know I'm being picky, but would you mind reading my postings before commenting on them? :-) It's just that it'll probably be easier to understand you that way. Mike Sykora