Nevermind, vidyohs – just forget about it. It really is impossible to have a real conversation with you, isn't it?

Vidyohs1 – “Daniel said this: 2. to which you replied: “Do you think? I don't know personally.”

Vidyohs 2 – No damnit Daniel did not say that!

Vidyohs 1 – Then Daniel said this: “I'm just trying to push back on this idea that we can know for sure that we traded first, and that only over time “the state” creeped in.”

vidyohs 2 – Again Daniel did not say that.

vidyohs 1 – Yes he did I saw it above.

vidyohs 2 – no you blind shit, he did not write those things.

vidyohs 1 – (rubbing eyes) but but I am looking right at them under his post name.

vidyohs 2 – you're not seeing what you think you're seeing.

vidyohs 1 – Ohhhhhhh, I understand. Daniel can't stake out a position and stick to it, so he writes things so disingenuous that he can claim later any position he wants, is that it?

vidyohs 2 – No. I told you he didn't write those things.
————

You see Disingenuous Kuehn, I don't have to make up or impute anything to you; and what I did above what not contest any of your particular statements about which came first, trade or state, if you could read you'd know I was pointing out that it is ignorance, lack of imagination, and inability to really think that makes you doubt that trade preceded the state by hundreds of thousands of years, possibly even millions.

How could not you understand that scenarios I gave you above with Og and Mog, and primate behavior in exchanging services are infinitely more probable in reality and time line than any kind of organization that could be interpreted as a state?

It is your doubt about the intelligence and creativity of the human race including ancestors, and your devotion to the state as the true source of motivation and creativity, that I point out.

From the time you appeared here in the Cafe it has seemed that you think humanity is nothing without the state; and I oppose that presentation because I know that the state is nothing without humanity.

DK, have you ever contemplated the simple truth that when government destroys the people, government destroys itself? Yet, when the people destroy government, any government, they simply create a new one.

Get over your idea that government must of necessity be involved in every detail, every idea, every theory, every action, every philosophy, and the wellspring from which all creativity and innovation flows.

I know, I know, you've never directly said that, but DK, I am a man who spent years dissecting communications of all natures and was damn good at my job; your communications, in the way you say them, the consistency with which you underlay your themes, your viewpoints, you always display that bedrock belief you hold that without a state man is nothing. You are no different than muirduck in this, you always display more faith in government than in your fellow man. You can deny this all you want, but your writing is simply not skilled or clever enough to cover it up.

You seem to a reasonably nice guy, but you're consistently disingenuous in your posts and I for one and for what it is worth do not trust that. Typically I see an agenda and manipulation in disingenuous words. You're a well programed little data source but I'd not be encouraged to go to you for original thinking.

I hold no personal or particular animosity towards you, no more than I do anyone who I see consistently support the thief more often than the victim.

I said I don't know what comes first – not that I was sure the state came first. So don't put those words in my mouth like you often try to do.

I said that even if the state did come first, it doesn't mean you need the state to trade. So don't put those words in my mouth like you often try to do.

I said that humans are very intelligent – which is exactly why they've been trading for so long. So don't put those words in my mouth.

I'm tired of arguing a faux case that you've imputed to me. I'll give you the same advice I did when methinks tried one like that:

you should just comment under two names: vidyohs1 and vidyohs2. Vidyohs1 can write down whatever dumb position you impute to me but that I never actually say, and vidyohs2 can correct and argue with vidyohs1. I don't need to be a part of it if you continue to distort what I'm saying.

I really have learned to detest the run to the mulberry bush and the resulting circles one has to engage in with you, martin, and muirduck. But, this once and then it is off to bed.

Let's do some chronology, OK?

1. vikingvista said this: “but logic produces the only answer–trade necessarily preceded the state. Trade is ultimately a one-on-one interaction, and in all culture and all times, the value of trade has been preeminent.”

2. to which you replied: “Do you think? I don't know personally.”

3. which led me to ask this: “You subscribe to the theory that Og did not trade with Mog until someone, a group bully perhaps, made him do it?”

After number three I then gave you an example of how trade may have been invented. I gave you an example of possession of tradable goods. I gave you an example of motivation for trade. I gave you an example of a probable trade resulting from the factors of possession of goods and motivation. Thus giving an imaginary scenario true, but one very likely extremely close to the reality. And I pointed out that it most certainly happened long before any kind of coercive state was created, long before any benevolent state was created, and in all probability was not the actual first trade, in that I can imagine the very first trades coming long before even the flint chip was invented. I would surmise from my own studies and observations that trade, along with capitalism, was invented about the time our ancestors began to show limited ability to reason. I can see trades happening before caves, before rudimentary shelters. I can see where Og sharing his kill got him some time with Mog's daughter, possibly even bought her.

You seem to think our ancestors were a bunch of dirt scratching dummies that couldn't look, see, and reason, when all the evidence is that that is exactly what set us apart from the other primates.

Trade is natural to many animals, humans being the most developed, and in humans became very sophisticated, amd was development that happened, or was invented concurrently if not simultaneously where ever humans were found.

Just think, Jr., if Homo Erectus had the ability for rapid communications as do we, how long would you imagine it would have taken the human race to go from flint chips to the bow, from cupped hands to skilled pottery? A million years or so? I don't think so.

The fact of the matter is that our ancestors were very bright and certainly, as archaeology shows, were trading hundreds of thousands of years ago. Ivory from Walrus tusk found in the form of figurines far far from any body of water where Walrus lived. Copper items far far from any source of copper. Those are just two examples.

4. then you said this:
“I'm just trying to push back on this idea that we can know for sure that we traded first, and that only over time “the state” creeped in.”

Which is really very silly, considering a very well developed archaeological research has been and is being done all over the world.

Furthermore, I believe we can agree that trade constitutes an exchange of goods or services, right?

With that in mind I can tell you that if you go observe primates, from the smallest monkey to the Gorilla, in zoos or in the wild, you will see them frequently trading services. It is rudimentary, but it is trade.

I groom you, brush your fur out, pick the nits, and clean you up; when finished, we swap and you groom me. It has to be an agreeable trade because there is no evidence of coercion compelling one to groom the other, or the swap to be made. (I can imagine the remote possibility that I simply missed the coercion because it happened some years or month ago and I just wasn't there….but somehow, I doubt this.)

Now how far back in human history does that behavior extend?

Your beloved state is not even a distant second in this contest, it isn't even on the map until long after trade had acquired a great degree of sophistication and became widespread.

That is it, one trip around the bush is enough for me.

OK – if it was just a statement about protests of anti-free trade groups, that's fine. It sounded like you were saying I was in that group or saying those things. Well if that's all you're saying then we're in agreement.

I'm not searching for a “state of nature”. I don't even know what you mean by this statement. My point was that, against the protests of the anti-free trade group, government did not make all trade possible. We would still be here without massive government intervention. We would still trade. This line of thinking, that government is absolutely crucial to any sort of trade, is often a precursor in the argument for confiscatory taxation, or the theft of civil liberties. After all, without the government, none of those things would be possible anyway, so they're not taking away some right of yours, merely scaling back the “privilege” of living under that wonderful government.

By what possible rule of logic does it imply that vidyohs – please enlighten me. You should know that correlation does not imply causation – and if correlation doesn't imply causation, then certainly chronology doesn't imply it. I implied no such thing – you inferred it.

“Do you subscribe to the theory that trade had to be compelled?”

Of course I don't – do you?

“You say you don't yet, you imply you do. Which is it?”

I know this can be tough – but just read me again and remember: I don't imply, you infer/chronology is not causation. Remember those two little gems of wisdom, and you'll do OK vidyohs.

Your description of trade – of either marbles or porn – is exactly my understanding of trade. I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand.

Yep, you're well trained and programed but limited in imagination and therefore true ability to perform intellectual functions.

But by-the-by on that.

This:
“What I said was that “the state”, in the sense of a coercive governing group, probably existed before trade existed.”

Implies exactly what I asked, which is that you seem to have some idea that trade couldn't happen and did not happen until some sort of state existed; and that dear boy implies coercion to make trade happen. Do you subscribe to the theory that trade had to be compelled?

You say you don't yet, you imply you do. Which is it?

And, in anthropology as well as archaeology there is evidence in known campsites around the world of artifacts that could only have been found there because of trade, and the dates precede anything that could possibly have been a state, even in the micro vision of a family group dominated by an all controlling father or male.

You need to expand your comprehension of the word trade. Trade is what happens when two individuals swap things, like little boys on a playground swapping marbles, oh that's right, you're too young to have known marbles…ok bad example. It is like too modern little boys swapping nude pictures, downloaded from the internet, of Madonna and Brittany on the playground. And, if you think Og and Mog waited for a state to swap goods, you are sadly limited in your understanding of the word trade.

Yes – if you want to think of the “social contract” as a sort of trade, then by definition trade precedes the state.

I'm just trying to push back on this idea that we can know for sure that we traded first, and that only over time “the state” creeped in. I'm sure in some parts of the world you had individuals trading long before they were organized. In others it went differently. My whole point is that “the state” is more than just a residual corrosion of free exchange – it's an organizational pattern that we see in pre-humans and in modern primates and other animals completely independent of the act of exchange.

And I guess in that sense I'd push back on your social contract approach too, James. The state often isn't exchange or brute force – sometimes it's just evolved instinct.

The search for a “state of nature” is futile, and it's also a bad argument for the benefits of trade. The benefits of trade are unquestionable – but we don't conclude that by purporting to know that “people traded before they governed”. How could we possibly know something like that, and what possible reason would we have for assuming one way or another? My whole point is that I don't know – in fact I used those three magic words twice in my original post.

What about nomads? History is rife with people that belonged to no traditional “state” or hierarchical structure (aside from the man as the head of the family, or similar). Nomads were the most traditional of traders because, as nomads, they often couldn't produce what others could. They needed no state to realize the benefit of trade.

Additionally, you seem to be overlooking the overall function of a “tribe” or government or guilds or whatever. These are, at at the most basic level, trades. To be a member, I trade some of my freedom for the protection of the group. Or I trade some entry price to enjoy the fruits of membership in the guild. Nobody ever formed a successful organization entirely through force. For this reason alone, trade necessarily preceded government.