Society Without Government: A 20th century example

Not very far from where I live are the Pakhtun tribesmen—the principal tribes being the Mohmands, Waziris, Masudis, and Afridis. They live an organized and peaceful life in the absence of formal government. These tribes are geographically sandwiched between countries having formal governments, countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan.The home of the Pakhtun tribesmen is on the crossroads of Central Asia, and mighty invaders and fortune seekers have marched through this territory to the rich plains of Hindustan in search of gold and treasures. The territory occupied by the Pakhtun is a narrow strip of land, approximately 35,000 square miles. In this area live ten million Pakhtun. In earlier days, none of the invaders dared to attempt to subjugate these people. On the contrary, they paid tribute before crossing the tribal belt. Alexander of Macedonia paid. So did Mahmud of Ghazni, Babur the Mughal, and many others. The British conquered the whole of the Hindustan sub-continent, but left the Pakhtuns alone.

Why did these military adventurers and fortune seekers ignore the land of the Pakhtuns, especially since it is rich in mineral wealth, including fabulous emeralds, rubies, and sapphires? The answer is readily seen. The Pakhtuns believe that political institutions and formal governments are a hoax. They believe that a government's main objective is to gain control over the lives of others for economic exploitation. Hence, any military adventurer would have endless trouble if he attempted to rule over a people who simply refuse to submit to political authority.

Compare the life of an average Pakhtun with the life of a fellow human being living under formal government. For convenience, we shall name the Pakhtun living in the tribal area Azad Khan; the other we shall call Ghulam Khan.

Azad Khan (if he so desires) can drink liquor or distill it without any permit or license. He can also smoke marijuana or eat opium; he can cultivate and stockpile these items without obtaining a license from anybody. He can grow any crop; he can set up any business without challenge. He can keep gold; he can maintain a gun without any license. He need fear no policeman, for there are none. He needn't fear jail, for there are no prisons. He can talk about anything. He can write anything. There is no censorship. He doesn't have to bribe any bureaucrat for favors. He controls himself and is responsible for his own actions; he will reap as he sows. If he makes a mistake in business, only he suffers. Others are not required to pay for his folly or miscalculation. He is not subservient to government regulations, ordinances, or statutes, framed by ambitious politicians and bureaucrats. Nobody dares confiscate his property or land. He doesn't have to worry about taxes. There isn't a single tax in his home land. He can do anything he likes except injure another; nor can he obtain a monopoly or enjoy special privileges. These evils arise only under formal governments. Indeed, Azad Khan walks like a lion over the earth, with his shoulders thrown back, unburdened by governmental restrictions and tyranny.

In contrast, Ghulam Khan, living under formal government, is physically, morally, and intellectually a poor specimen. He is born by permission and lives by toleration. He is a coward generally. He is terrorized by the police and prisons. He can't engage in business or organize an industry without a license. He doesn't have the right to pay his labor what he thinks is just, nor can he decide how many hours an employee must work. Bureaucrats make all these decisions.

He can't write what he believes to be true. He has no freedom of speech. His letters are censored. Intelligence operatives follow his every move should they suspect him of being a threat to the engine of tyranny, the government. He isn't allowed to make his financial position secure by saving gold. He must be satisfied with paper money, and its purchasing power diminishes with inflation. He is crushed under a growing burden of taxes; the more those in political power waste it, the more he is required to replenish the state exchequer.

Every year new legislation, ordinances, and statutes are framed, depending on the whims and moods of those in political power. If a politician declares war, Ghulam Khan is required to pay for all the hostilities whether he likes it or not. But he is never consulted before such costly and destructive projects are launched.

Ghulam Khan is even required to pay for his own enslavement. This he does by paying more and more taxes for maintaining a tyrannical police force and army. He dare not keep a gun for his own defense without a license. If he kills another individual, he is imprisoned and treated as a murderer. But if the army, whose equipment Ghulam Khan has financed, kills millions of human beings, each soldier is considered heroic.

Every year Ghulam Khan is required to pay more and more for the protection of his life and property, yet each year he finds life becoming less secure and his property is increasingly threatened by governmental intrusions. Should Ghulam Khan die tomorrow, he would even be taxed after his death—there is an exaction on property called "death duty." Ghulam Khan's life from birth to death is a nightmare.

In case of murder, the tribal institution of badal (retribution) automatically comes into play, and this acts as a marvelous check on crime. If anyone does murder, he does so for very strong reasons. There is one murder in the tribal belt for every 100 in areas having formal governments. Hindus, Moslems, and Sikhs, for instance, have always lived in peace in tribal society, while they are the deadliest of enemies, butchering one another, under formal governments.

It is generally believed that once a murder occurs in the tribal belt, this would be followed by feuds and vendettas. Endless retaliation occurs among the Pakhtuns living under formal governments, but never among the tribal Pakhtuns. For instance, if Ajab Khan murders Bahadur Khan, then Bahadur's nearest relative avenges his (Bahadur's) murder. Once retributory action has been taken (which, of course, has no formal sanction), both parties are required thereafter to forego a feud or vendetta, failing which they would be asked to pay a heavy penalty to the qaumi khazana or tribal fund; but no Pakhtun would be compelled to make that payment. Anyone who refuses to pay simply forfeits the good will of the tribe and would find that other tribesmen would not come to his defense if he were attacked. If he faced a danger, the tribe would not interfere for they would assume that he had voluntarily refused to pay for what protection he could afford. If payment is made, it is made in cash or in produce. The size of the payment is adjudged as adequate in relation to the means of the individual involved. Those who have no property need not pay at all. No one is ever imprisoned for nonpayment as there are no jails in the tribal belt.

That means a tribal strongman is the government.

It’s the way it’s been in tribes for as long as men have existed.

This thing called democracy with voters selecting their leaders is a fairly new invention and quite rare.

2 posted on 04/22/2023 9:44:40 PM PDT by aquila48 (Do not let them make you "care" ! Guilting you is how thery control you. )

I once belonged to a non-hierarchical group.

There were all the typical power-plays and leadership, bit since they weren’t offical, noone could do anything about them.

Check out prehistoric man inaction. Pick on any African nation.

Or look at South Africa as it regressed to bushman tribalism.

Now that I think of it you need not look so far.
Detroit, Chicongo, Philadelphia

They live an organized and peaceful life in the absence of formal government.

No, the tribes are almost constantly at war with one another.

Such has been noted by historians and modern writers since at least Kipling and Churchill.

Moral prescriptions are many and enforced by the Muslim clerics.

The wisdom of the Founding Fathers was to limit government, and a modern echo of this may be found in the decision making study by Ostrom in the 2009 Nobel for Economics. Local trumps central, and small trumps big, with biggest and smallest both being poor choices. Who rages against limiting government? Those who would use it for their own ends. The government itself, and yet we have now multiple 20th century examples of big government collapsing via corruption and ineptitude.

That is how the muslims got control of North Africa, the strong man says, if you don’t go to the mosque twice a day, you and the family don’t eat.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.