The Origin of the Government

[Arjen]

The archaeological record shows two developments that occurred at about the same time (the time-line cannot be differentiated by the record). These are the development of organized warfare, and that of major irrigation projects. The development of "civilization" (if not governmemt) appears to have occurred in river valleys surrounded by deserts -- the Nile, the Tigris-Euphraties- the Indus - the Yangtze -- central Mexico. As farming developed and the population grew, people were confined by the environment. The record shows the development of irrigation projects, which were large enough that they must have resulted from large-scale cooperative efforts, and must have been regulated by some sort of "government".

The limitation of desert, forcing to joint efforts with growing population is an interesting one. I had not considered the role tbe desert(s) play(s) in this.

I was looking to verify/falsify this thought by means of geological surveys, because I have read that the sahara, for example, was once a lush jungle. I could not find good sources on the state of the environment throughout the milennia though. Does anyone have a good source for that?

[Steve3007]

The notion, which I mentioned earlier, that governments were first needed when societies evolved as a result of the invention of agriculture is confirmed from about 4 minutes 28 seconds in the above authoritative video.

[Arjen]

Steve3007 Just mentioning someyhing isn't proving that. So, the movie doesn't either. Which is why I askep for maps.

It is fun though.

[Pattern-chaser]

I am just surprised that there are no better explanations that I could find. Perhaps people on this forum had better ideas.

Hi, Pearlrik, and welcome!

I may be being naive here, but doesn't "government" simply grow out of "tribal elders"? Isn't it just a bigger version of the way family, then tribes (and so on) govern themselves? Or, if we have a king instead of a council, isn't that just an extension of the father's role within a typical family?

Isn't it basically that simple?

[GE Morton]

If I search for the theory of 'the origin of the government', or the 'origin of the state', mostly only 4 theories come up.

1. The Force theory - "The state was born of force".
2. Evolutionary Theory- developed out of the early family.
3. The divine right theory- "Divine right to rule".
4. The Social Contract theory- the state arose out of a voluntary act of free people.

I looked into each one of them and am I the only one that is wholly unsatisfied with these theories?

Has there really been no philosopher that has come up with a better explanation?

And what do the people of this forum think of it? What is your idea of how the state/government arose?

Well, first you have to distinguish between government and other mechanisms for social control/regulation. Governments are formal, structured institutions charged with promulgating and enforcing written laws. Other primate societies, and human kinship-based tribal societies, had no governments, per se; they have chiefs, usually the eldest or alpha male in the group, or perhaps "councils of elders," to whom other members look to make decisions when some problem or challenge arises. There are no written laws; tribal members' behavior is regulated by customs and traditions universally understood and accepted in that group.

Governments as understood today arose with the advent of civilization. A civilization is a society characterized by cities (from "civitas," Latin for "city"), and a "city" is a community so large that most of its members do not know most of the others. Civilizations are societies of strangers. In those communities there are no kinship bonds embracing all members, and no customs and traditions universally understood and accepted by all members. So formal laws and formal machinery for enforcing them becomes necessary.

Also, don't confuse theories dealing with the origins of government with arguments aimed at justifying it. Your #'s 3 and 4 above belong in the latter category, not the former. The "origins" postulated in those arguments are hypothetical, not factual.

[pearlrik]

I am just surprised that there are no better explanations that I could find. Perhaps people on this forum had better ideas.

Hi, Pearlrik, and welcome!

I may be being naive here, but doesn't "government" simply grow out of "tribal elders"? Isn't it just a bigger version of the way family, then tribes (and so on) govern themselves? Or, if we have a king instead of a council, isn't that just an extension of the father's role within a typical family?

Isn't it basically that simple?

Yeah it is that simple, but if you want to describe it in detail, a step by step approach, it becomes very hard to do.

[Arjen]

pearlrik I think that you should read some of the titles that I mentioned initially. They show different perspectives on society, coöperation and governments. I think it may show you the dynamics of human interactions.

I think some others pointed out some interesting historical references, in case it is that moment that you want to examine.

[pearlrik]

@pearlrik I think that you should read some of the titles that I mentioned initially. They show different perspectives on society, coöperation and governments. I think it may show you the dynamics of human interactions.

I think some others pointed out some interesting historical references, in case it is that moment that you want to examine.

I will read them, thank you for recommending them.

[LuckyR]

If I search for the theory of 'the origin of the government', or the 'origin of the state', mostly only 4 theories come up.

1. The Force theory - "The state was born of force".
2. Evolutionary Theory- developed out of the early family.
3. The divine right theory- "Divine right to rule".
4. The Social Contract theory- the state arose out of a voluntary act of free people.

I looked into each one of them and am I the only one that is wholly unsatisfied with these theories?

Has there really been no philosopher that has come up with a better explanation?

And what do the people of this forum think of it? What is your idea of how the state/government arose?

In my experience, if you mean by "government" a hierarchical structure to set up "rules" or laws to regulate behavior, such a structure is inevitable given statistics and human psychology. Though one could try to shoehorn this reality into your #1. Specifically, consider the alternative, numerous individuals who either live separately or live together without a leader. The first ignores economies of scale, thus is doomed to extinction when resources are low. The latter goes against human psychology thusly: in any large group there will be at least a few individuals who either like to "boss" others around, or want more resources (don't want to share equally). It doesn't matter if the percentage of such individuals is 10%, 1% or 0.1% of the group. Even one such individual living among socialistic (small s) individuals will have a different agenda, they will be working to accumulate power and influence within a group of individuals who aren't interested in doing so. Thus they will have a significant advantage in influencing group dynamics. It is literal childsplay to manipulate such a group to give you the official title of leader, or elder or shaman or whathaveyou. Boom, you have a rudimentary government. In a generation or two it is a formal government.

[GE Morton]

In my experience, if you mean by "government" a hierarchical structure to set up "rules" or laws to regulate behavior, such a structure is inevitable given statistics and human psychology.

Oh, no. It only becomes inevitable with the rise of civilizations. Kinship-based tribal societies don't have governments, as that term is understood today. They have no codified laws, no formal enforcement machinery, and no bureaucracies. "Leaders" gain their status by demonstrating exceptional wisdom or skills; they declare and impose no laws and need not boss anyone around; when collective action is needed others follow them willingly.

. . . in any large group there will be at least a few individuals who either like to "boss" others around, or want more resources (don't want to share equally).

"Sharing equally" (to the extent it is practiced even in tribal societies) goes out the window with the rise of civilization. The interpersonal bonds --- typically kinship-based --- that unify tribal groups and establish an interest of each member in the welfare of other members do not exist and cannot form in civilized societies. The latter are "societies of strangers." Their members are individualized; they are not exemplars of a common tribal identity. Each of them is primarily concerned with his own welfare and that of certain others with whom he does have such bonds; he expects everyone else to fend for themselves and leave him in peace.

[Ecurb]

Oh, no. It only becomes inevitable with the rise of civilizations. Kinship-based tribal societies don't have governments, as that term is understood today. They have no codified laws, no formal enforcement machinery, and no bureaucracies. "Leaders" gain their status by demonstrating exceptional wisdom or skills; they declare and impose no laws and need not boss anyone around; when collective action is needed others follow them willingly.

Some kinship-based tribal societies have organizational principles that can't quite be called "governements". The Nuer (as described by Evans-Pritchard) were a populous group (hundreds of thousands) in NE Africa that orgnized themselve and settled disputes on the principle of "segmentary opposition". Everyone in the tribe stood in SOME kinship relation to everyone else. Disputes (and sanctions for crimes) were settled on the basis of kinship. If someone had a dispute with his first cousin, the nuclear family would demand recompense from the other nuclear family. A dispute with a member of a different clan would involve all of the members of one's clan demanding recompense from the other clan, etc., etc. as the kinship distance increased.

Nonetheless, nothing normally called "government" existed. It's also possible that as division of labor became more common, it became reasonable to think that it should involve governors, bureaucrats, police, etc. A vestige of segmentary opposition can be seen in Roman Law, where the plaintiff for a crime could only be the injured party. If someone murdered a widow with no children, there would be no trial, becasue there was no legitimate plaintiff. In modern law, the plaintiff in criminal cases is the State.

[h_k_s]

Oh, no. It only becomes inevitable with the rise of civilizations. Kinship-based tribal societies don't have governments, as that term is understood today. They have no codified laws, no formal enforcement machinery, and no bureaucracies. "Leaders" gain their status by demonstrating exceptional wisdom or skills; they declare and impose no laws and need not boss anyone around; when collective action is needed others follow them willingly.

Some kinship-based tribal societies have organizational principles that can't quite be called "governements". The Nuer (as described by Evans-Pritchard) were a populous group (hundreds of thousands) in NE Africa that orgnized themselve and settled disputes on the principle of "segmentary opposition". Everyone in the tribe stood in SOME kinship relation to everyone else. Disputes (and sanctions for crimes) were settled on the basis of kinship. If someone had a dispute with his first cousin, the nuclear family would demand recompense from the other nuclear family. A dispute with a member of a different clan would involve all of the members of one's clan demanding recompense from the other clan, etc., etc. as the kinship distance increased.

Nonetheless, nothing normally called "government" existed. It's also possible that as division of labor became more common, it became reasonable to think that it should involve governors, bureaucrats, police, etc. A vestige of segmentary opposition can be seen in Roman Law, where the plaintiff for a crime could only be the injured party. If someone murdered a widow with no children, there would be no trial, becasue there was no legitimate plaintiff. In modern law, the plaintiff in criminal cases is the State.

This patriarchal system from NE Africa seems feasible. Note that Egypt occupies NE Africa so I presume you mean sub-Saharan instead, which would be East Africa not NE.

Ultimately someone like Sargon in Akkad would have come along and conquered them all eventually.

[Ecurb]

Correct. The Nuer (I believe) lived in Sudan (which is northern East Africa), or what may now be South Sudan. They were Nilotic herdsman, and not inept at warfare.

[LuckyR]

In my experience, if you mean by "government" a hierarchical structure to set up "rules" or laws to regulate behavior, such a structure is inevitable given statistics and human psychology.

Oh, no. It only becomes inevitable with the rise of civilizations. Kinship-based tribal societies don't have governments, as that term is understood today. They have no codified laws, no formal enforcement machinery, and no bureaucracies. "Leaders" gain their status by demonstrating exceptional wisdom or skills; they declare and impose no laws and need not boss anyone around; when collective action is needed others follow them willingly.

. . . in any large group there will be at least a few individuals who either like to "boss" others around, or want more resources (don't want to share equally).

"Sharing equally" (to the extent it is practiced even in tribal societies) goes out the window with the rise of civilization. The interpersonal bonds --- typically kinship-based --- that unify tribal groups and establish an interest of each member in the welfare of other members do not exist and cannot form in civilized societies. The latter are "societies of strangers." Their members are individualized; they are not exemplars of a common tribal identity. Each of them is primarily concerned with his own welfare and that of certain others with whom he does have such bonds; he expects everyone else to fend for themselves and leave him in peace.

Don't be fooled by the fact that such "Leaders" don't "boss" folks and don't use rules or laws. The reason they don't have rules and laws (and their subsequent enforcement), is because they don't need them. As you acknowledged, their charges follow willingly, there's no need for rules/laws. But if the rabble balked at the direction of the "Leader", what then? My guess is either suddenly there is enforcement or the Leader is out or the Leader buckles (which is an example of poor "governance", not it's absence).

[Ecurb]

Ultimately someone like Sargon in Akkad would have come along and conquered them all eventually.

Probably, or someone like the British Empire.

By the way, Sargon reigned in about 2300 BCE. The complex irrigation projects and military development that suggest "government" were 3000 or more years earlier. Written history demonstrating "governments' in Mesopotamia began about 3000 BCE. Sargon is often credited with forming the first Empire, which is different from the first government.