Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!qantel!dual!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Explorations of "social-interest": Origins of Human Society
Message-ID: <754@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 5-Jul-85 19:53:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.754
Posted: Fri Jul  5 19:53:49 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Jul-85 05:38:05 EDT
References: <373@spar.UUCP> <321@kontron.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 45

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