While We Wait: Writer's Block & Other Lame Excuses

[Luckymoose]

When you have 1 customer (The US government), and can influence politicians to make that customer pay whatever you want... Common sense dictates yes. But this isn't your field of expertise, Luckymoose. Stick to social issues, where your expert opinion is to have thugs violently hitting dissenters over the head.

I wasn't aware that's how contracted production to bidding corporations worked. But then again, it isn't my area of expertise as you say. I guess all those years of hard work in university were for nothing.

 

[Amon Savag]

If you studied social history and don't recognize governments as the strongest antagoniser of social progress, then yes. Your years of hard work in university were indeed for nothing.

 

[Darksaber1]

So Amon, what if your defense contractors decide they would like to be in charge, and decide to use force to become warlords in your community? What if your simple peasant militia decides to do so?

 

[talonschild]

Presumably that's when the alleged tanks and anti-aircraft guns come into play.

 

[Amon Savag]

So Amon, what if your defense contractors decide they would like to be in charge, and decide to use force to become warlords in your community? What if your simple peasant militia decides to do so?

What if your government imposes martial law and decides arbitrarily execute all the people that have long noses?

 

[Luckymoose]

What if your government imposes martial law and decides arbitrarily execute all the people that have long noses?

Good thing I'm neither Jewish nor Italian.

 

[Darksaber1]

What if your government imposes martial law and decides arbitrarily execute all the people that have long noses?

Nothing much. Except that this is a loophole in your argument as to why such a system is better than the status quo that I would like enlightenment on.

What, in your superior system stops your small group of professional soldiers from taking over?

From you waking up in the morning to find out that a portion of your Brave Defenders learned about a plot by others, now dead or fled to seize control. They were stopped, but murdered several prominent people before they could be stopped. The Heroic Guardians of Freedom now require your cooperation in maintaining the safety of Libertarian Paradise while the rest of the traitors are rooted out?

From you waking up in the morning to find out that your Brave Defenders sold you out to an outside party, who offered them more money than you, and is letting them become military a military authority, for you have created and relied on mercenary defenders while not having the deepest pockets.

From you waking up in the morning when you are dragged out of bed into a street lit by burning buildings by the armed, trained professional hired killers that you have entrusted to protect you, who in a night of sudden violence have killed or dis-armed all who would oppose them, and if you try anything to stop them from keeping absolute power they will murder your friends and family?


Please, tell me how your mercenary guardians, who make no illusions of being anything but the thugs that you pay to guard you are any better than a group of civilians (IE, not generally naturally acclimated to the use of threat, force and violance) who at least general have nothing to gain from your death and generally at least pretend to follow the will of the people. At least a standard army in the modern western world is usually composed of normal people motivated by patriotism, who aren't waiting for an opportunity to murder their neighbours and friends, rather than by the promise of money and power.

 

[Thlayli]

Okay, here's the promised post.

Consider: Cyberpunk was about exaggerating the deficiencies of the existing (domestic) sociopolitical climate to the point where open rebellion against it was attractive, and criminals, terrorists, and other people society generally looks down upon could become fashionable and chic points of view. Its rallying cry was literally #firstworldproblems.

Steampunk eschews the -punk entirely, usually focusing on aristocracy, the upper class, or people who are presented as legitimately superior to those around them. It doesn't even feature the class warfare overtones of Cyberpunk and doesn't even usually explore the documented sociocultural problems of the historical (Victorian) era it takes place in. The poor are marginalized, preferably to the point of being entirely out of sight. It's rich white (male) problems encrusted in gears, in an era where there was even more rampant classism and exploitation than today. At least poor white people problems sort of vaguely competed with the horrors of empire (which are never touched upon) in depravity, but poor people are essentially never the focus.

"Now imagine a cyberpunk story where the main characters are all rich CEOs who spend their time wearing hats with motherboards stuck on, jerkin' off to how great it is to be wealthy plutocrats." A 1:1 translation of the stylings of Cyberpunk to Steampunk would have the protagonists being coal miners, chimney sweeps, textile workers, meat packers... and their revolutionary technology would probably be guns and bombs and Communist or Anarchist propaganda. (The lack of Communist ideology in Cyberpunk is at least directly attributable to its rise during the crescendo of the Cold War.)

Regardless, both Cyberpunk and Steampunk place the emphasis on white western society and see the solutions to the problems it presents within it itself. You can agree with Chinua Achebe that Joseph Conrad was "a bloody racist," but he at least had more or less working class people directly interacting with the products and repercussions of empire: he acknowledged there was an outside.

Girl Genius is actually sort of the Snow Crash of Steampunk because it relishes in all this and even resurrects historical orientalism and so on for "coolness," to the point that it becomes ridiculous self-parody. The difference is it isn't self-aware.

P.S. the #1 thing white men like is Tom Clancy so really yeah they probably should be told off for liking the things they like.

First off, I don't know how familiar you are with steampunk as a genre, but I don't think that accusing it of being chauvinist is gonna fly. Girl Genius has a lot of problems, but one of those problems is not a sufficient number of active, independent female protagonists. You can make a legitimate classist argument because of the exploitative ways in which Industrial Revolution technology was historically monopolized by the wealthy in a way that Digital Revolution technology wasn't, at least not to the same degree, but a gender or racial argument (and you seem to conflate the three without examining them on their individual merits) is not as strong. I'd also be careful not to conflate steampunk as a genre with the world (Victorian Britain) it was inspired by. Both Tolkien and Nazis were inspired by Nordic mythology but they took it in very different directions.

I think your experience with steampunk as a genre is highly colored by Girl Genius, but a lot of other books that fall into the steampunk genre (The Court of the Air, an entertaining but highly pulpy novel by Stephen Hunt), and the His Dark Materials trilogy, which few people would classify as steampunk but I would due to the presence of aristocratic British culture and a large number of floating inflatable craft, feature female protagonists from modest means. Both of those books are also extremely willing to engage with other cultures; the fact that most of those cultures happen to be white is, in my opinion more an accident of geography than a case of deliberate racism.

Hunt's book, in particular, reaches extreme narrative creativity with a steampunk robot culture based largely around Tibetan Buddhism, complete with a belief in robotic reincarnation which I really enjoyed as an expression of steampunk's willingness as a genre to occasionally reach outside of its roots.

Interestingly enough, on a side note, Philip Pullman (author of His Dark Materials) has written some excellent Victorian-era fiction which does engage with the rampant poverty, illiteracy, and other issues of the day. I am a particular fan of The Tin Princess which features a young Cockney girl who finds herself inheriting the throne of a small fictional German statelet due to mischance, and how her humble origins allow her to build bridges between the Austro-Hungarian and German negotiators over control of the nation's mineral wealth. It's a pseudo sequel to the Sally Lockhart trilogy, again Victorian with a female protagonist, which is equally well-written. Most of the tragic accidents of the plot are borne of poverty.

It is true that steampunk characters are largely white Europeans, but I don't think this poses a particular problem since ethnic literature written by a group for a group is an acceptable and common practice in human societies. Coming back to Achebe, nobody's going to cry racism on Things Fall Apart because the majority of characters are black and live in a black world. That's just the setting of the story. Something can be racial (One Hundred Years of Solitude, firmly grounded in Latin American culture, traditions, and taboos) without being racist. The difference is the presence of an active attack on another race.

I'm not exactly a steampunk genre expert, but I have read a few books. And maybe, if we're going to call all of the actually good works of cyberpunk (namely, the ones that are willing to look outside the protagonist for salvation) post-cyberpunk, in the fashion that Diamond Age forces our protagonist Nell to ultimately forge a new phyle in incorporating ideas and traditions outside of her original ethnoclade in order to form a new one that fits the circumstances, we can look for something similar in a hypothetical post-steampunk. (Though in all honestly, I'd prefer to replace Stephenson's label with neo or just good, Neuromancer is freaking unreadable.)

The fascinating thing about the Atlantean phyle is that it's a little bit of steampunk cast wholeheartedly into the world of cyberpunk, especially concerning those Victorian mores and sensibilities. And the Atlanteans aren't demonstrated to be completely wrong in what they do; they have a responsible rationale for social stability and order, and association in that world is largely voluntary. It is a classist society, but for people that enjoy that social structure and the morals that it imparts, it is a legitimate choice. I see steampunk through a similar lens.

But yeah, I am gonna have to call you on the carpet for your assertion that steampunk and associated genre fiction never engages with poor people's problems in a serious way. You just haven't read enough steampunk. And the fact that there are current highly visible efforts to engage steampunk with non-European cultures takes the other side of your contention (non-awareness of the Other) down a peg.

 

[Amon Savag]

Nothing much. Except that this is a loophole in your argument as to why such a system is better than the status quo that I would like enlightenment on.

What, in your superior system stops your small group of professional soldiers from taking over?

From you waking up in the morning to find out that a portion of your Brave Defenders learned about a plot by others, now dead or fled to seize control. They were stopped, but murdered several prominent people before they could be stopped. The Heroic Guardians of Freedom now require your cooperation in maintaining the safety of Libertarian Paradise while the rest of the traitors are rooted out?

From you waking up in the morning to find out that your Brave Defenders sold you out to an outside party, who offered them more money than you, and is letting them become military a military authority, for you have created and relied on mercenary defenders while not having the deepest pockets.

From you waking up in the morning when you are dragged out of bed into a street lit by burning buildings by the armed, trained professional hired killers that you have entrusted to protect you, who in a night of sudden violence have killed or dis-armed all who would oppose them, and if you try anything to stop them from keeping absolute power they will murder your friends and family?


Please, tell me how your mercenary guardians, who make no illusions of being anything but the thugs that you pay to guard you are any better than a group of civilians (IE, not generally naturally acclimated to the use of threat, force and violance) who at least general have nothing to gain from your death and generally at least pretend to follow the will of the people. At least a standard army in the modern western world is usually composed of normal people motivated by patriotism, who aren't waiting for an opportunity to murder their neighbours and friends, rather than by the promise of money and power.

What you point out are actually problems that you have seen with states, so I'm not sure how this is an attack on a system with no government.

The difference is that private security is actually held accountable, whereas the government cannot be. If the private security firm kills an innocent, he is held to the same standards as the innocent, should he kill someone else. If government agents kill innocents, he might be held accountable, and usually only after serious unrest occurs (Ferguson?).

Your argument against my system is that people are violent. My argument against your system (states) is that people are violent! If people are violent, why give them a monopoly on said violence and a license to point guns at everyone else without consequences!? If we had no states and you were trying to sell to me the idea of setting up states I would be attacking you with these very arguments you're proposing against me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaO6Km6zV00

Pretty good debate between you and I that I found.

 

[Darksaber1]

What you point out are actually problems that you have seen with states, so I'm not sure how this is an attack on a system with no government.

The difference is that private security is actually held accountable, whereas the government cannot be. If the private security firm kills an innocent, he is held to the same standards as the innocent, should he kill someone else. If government agents kill innocents, he might be held accountable, and usually only after serious unrest occurs (Ferguson?).

Your argument against my system is that people are violent. My argument against your system (states) is that people are violent! If people are violent, why give them a monopoly on said violence and a license to point guns at everyone else without consequences!? If we had no states and you were trying to sell to me the idea of setting up states I would be attacking you with these very arguments you're proposing against me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaO6Km6zV00

Pretty good debate between you and I that I found.

But if your private group enforces a military dictatorship is a single move, then who will them accountable? The reason that a private citizen cannot openly gun down someone in the street with no consequences is because others (namely, government police) will react badly. What stops them from gaining a monopoly on violence by getting lesser groups to join them, from buying them out or using shadowy techniques to get them destroyed to shut down? Who then will stop them from doing what they want then. You have already trusted this group of professionals to constantly train to fight, so that you don't have too. Will you be the equal in combat to this man, who spends most of his time and money training and equipping himself to fight, when you instead spend your time doing other work, and spending your money on other things?

 

[Amon Savag]

Not saying it's not possible, but you'd have to sell to the people you're going to govern that they need a government. Otherwise it wouldn't work. You'd have afghanistan-like resistance anywhere you tried.

But let's go further... Your argument is "Because thugs might take over some area after the abolition of the giant gang of our current government, we should just agree to be ruled over by these thugs indefinitely." Pretty solid philosophy to live by, I guess, but I would opt to live freely, even if it's only possible for a generation or two, or a year or two.

There were credible thinkers in the slavery days that thought if you abolished slavery that it would inevitably come back. I think if an area is sold (Let's say 60%) on the fact that there is no need for a government, then no government can legitimately take that area over. If 5% of a given geographical area is willing to kill government agents on sight, that area will be ungovernable.

In order to be a viable private security insurance agency, your profit rates would probably not allow for you to raise your own army as a private defense insurance agency. Raising an army the size that you'd need to take over an area in the first place would cost an enormous amount of money. It probably wouldn't go unnoticed, so other defense agencies would bring in some extra defensive hardware which would further increase the capital investment before any return. People that don't want to be in the danger zone would move out thus your profits during occupation goes down and the business venture loses end-value... THEN you occupy an area and the populace isn't passive, so you have to spend even more money trying to hold these people under you as slaves, as they refuse to pay their taxes and shoot your guys on sight.

None of this is profitable, and I'll probably be assassinated. I'll remain as a relatively successful private defense insurance agency, thank you.

 

[Darksaber1]

Really? Where there a lot of Afghanistan style insurrections in pre-war Fascist Germany? In Khmer Rouge Cambodia before the Vietnamese intervened? In Mao's China, Suharto's Indonesia, North Korea, Autocratic Argentina or the likes? Sure, there may have been something, but there was never a real threat to power for a long time. All your Noble Defenders would need to do is show you all the threats waiting if you step away from protection, and they will use the monopoly on force you handed them to keep them in line. Will you walk up to the soldier and demand that hey stop oppressing you when you are unarmed, untrained and alone? Will other unarmed, untrained people jump to your aid when they shoot you? How do you think governments formed in the olden times.


With your claim, then it should be impossible for autocracies form by any means, including by governments.
As for you claim that it would be unprofitable for your guradians to betray you... what? When they enslave you and force you to do their labour they it WILL be profitable. That's why warlords arise and form.


What I am ultimately getting at is that since your arguments seem to say that any source of power will lead to absolute autocracy (when the prevailing then for the last few centuries has been towards benevolent democracy in the western world), then I think I'll stick with the potential-autocracy that funds taxes from 35 million people to offer health care should I need it, helped to pay for my college education, protects me from violence or theft and offers an opportunity for basic income should I become unemployed, and have yet (to my knowledge or observation) to force threaten to imprison or murder me (or anyone I know) for not doing most of what I want (as in, that stuff about crime) or for voting for you I want.

 

[Sonereal]

Not saying it's not possible, but you'd have to sell to the people you're going to govern that they need a government. Otherwise it wouldn't work. You'd have afghanistan-like resistance anywhere you tried.

But in areas with "Afghanistan-like resistance", there isn't a lack of government. Authority figures rising up to fill a vacuum is just natural.

You don't need to sell the idea of government, however, if you have guns, and they do not. The fact there is a private security force in the first place implies that the security force is better at what it does than a militia, but it is hard to organize a militia without some kind of authority.

But let's go further... Your argument is "Because thugs might take over some area after the abolition of the giant gang of our current government, we should just agree to be ruled over by these thugs indefinitely." Pretty solid philosophy to live by, I guess, but I would opt to live freely, even if it's only possible for a generation or two, or a year or two.

Most people, however, would not opt for what you're "offering", which is why not many people are leaping at the opportunity to establish mini-Somalias in the heart of America. People, time and time again, are perfectly fine with sacrificing the mystical idea of freedom in favor of practicalities such as security. Most people aren't going to fight for something that would last "only a year or two" before men with big guns come storming back in, putting their families in danger and livelihoods at stake.

This is the biggest flaw with this idea. It is the idea that freedom is more important than literally everything else, and therefore we should just reject concepts such as citizenship.

In order to be viable, your profit rates would probably not allow for you to raise your own army as a private defense insurance agency. Raising an army the size that you'd need to take over an area in the first place would cost an enormous amount of money. It probably wouldn't go unnoticed, so other defense agencies would bring in some extra defensive hardware which would further increase the capital investment before any return. People that don't want to be in the danger zone would move out thus your profits during occupation goes down and the business venture loses end-value... THEN you occupy an area and the populace isn't passive, so you have to spend even more money trying to hold these people under you as slaves, as they refuse to pay their taxes and shoot your guys on sight.

You slammed another user in this thread about their education (or lack thereof), but you're not actually providing sources.

For starters, you claim "profit rates" would probably not allow you to raise your own army as a private defense insurance agency, but this idea assumes that a private security force is operating by the same rules as your local bakery.

For example, you say "raising an army the size that you'd need to take over an area in the first place would cost an enormous amount of money", but ignore the fact that similar groups operating on profit motives, such as your average warlord, have managed to do just that in various regions around the world throughout history. Clovis was, at first, little more than just a warlord. There is plenty of money to make going around and looting from communities that lack proper defenses to go against a dedicated military force.

"Other defensive agencies would bring in some extra defensive hardware". How do they get the money for this hardware? The people paying the defensive agency to protect them, clearly. If the defense agency points out that a neighboring community's "defense" agency is building up a large force, what choice does the community have but to foot the bill for more intricate defenses, more military personnel, and other supplies for their defense force. After all, the alternative is to not do so and risk the possibility of having their own community sacked and looted.

The allocation of resources to "defense" agencies can't end very differently from how warlords usually end up in real life. Either a perpetual state of building up, somebody wins, or everybody together demilitarizes. However, to convince everybody to demilitarize is very difficult when you have five, six communities. It only would take one community to cancel their end of the bargain and to gain an advantage.

You say "you have to spend even more money trying to hold these people under you as slaves", but again, this isn't how it works in the real world. It isn't hard to find one, two, twenty, fifty, hundreds of people who will put self-interest over nifty ideas such as "freedom" in order to get ahead. An invader comes in and makes everybody slaves? They're awful. An invader comes in and this new "government" thing they keep going on about would include you and a couple of your family members on a ruling council that makes decision for the community? Sounds better. You might even go out and convince some other people this can work out for everybody.

This is how these things work. An invader comes in, some people are worse off, even a lot of people, but the occupation is able to last because the invader is either willing to sit on the community they're occupying, or willing to find the ambitious members in the middle and lower classes, given them a book of ration coupons and vouchers, and tell them they're in charge of giving out this coupons and vouchers to people on their block.

And even when the invader goes away, the natural "order" of the way things were before won't suddenly come back. The guys in charge of handing out ration coups and books? They're probably in trouble, but from the mob leading the charge against collaborators, leaders will emerge. Respectable men and women people of the community will turn to and trust, and in order to make the community better able to defend against future invasions, there will always be calls to give said members more powers in order to carry out their mission in the name of defense.

It is almost as if people, long ago, looked at the idea of governance and rationally came to the conclusion that despite the bad, the benefits outweighed the costs. All of a sudden, I have to pay taxes, but I'm also able to walk down a street without having to pay money to several "private defense insurance companies" on my way downtown.

None of this is profitable, and I'll probably be assassinated. I'll remain as a relatively successful private defense insurance agency, thank you.

No you wouldn't, because your business model as you laid out is awful. Even the phrase "private defense insurance agency" is as phony as the idea of "defense ministers". Just because you're bad at your hypothetical job doesn't mean everybody else would be.

 

[Amon Savag]

Really? Where there a lot of Afghanistan style insurrections in pre-war Fascist Germany? In Khmer Rouge Cambodia before the Vietnamese intervened? In Mao's China, Suharto's Indonesia, North Korea, Autocratic Argentina or the likes? Sure, there may have been something, but there was never a real threat to power for a long time. All your Noble Defenders would need to do is show you all the threats waiting if you step away from protection, and they will use the monopoly on force you handed them to keep them in line. Will you walk up to the soldier and demand that hey stop oppressing you when you are unarmed, untrained and alone? Will other unarmed, untrained people jump to your aid when they shoot you? How do you think governments formed in the olden times.


With your claim, then it should be impossible for autocracies form by any means, including by governments.
As for you claim that it would be unprofitable for your guradians to betray you... what? When they enslave you and force you to do their labour they it WILL be profitable. That's why warlords arise and form.


What I am ultimately getting at is that since your arguments seem to say that any source of power will lead to absolute autocracy (when the prevailing then for the last few centuries has been towards benevolent democracy in the western world), then I think I'll stick with the potential-autocracy that funds taxes from 35 million people to offer health care should I need it, helped to pay for my college education, protects me from violence or theft and offers an opportunity for basic income should I become unemployed, and have yet (to my knowledge or observation) to force threaten to imprison or murder me (or anyone I know) for not doing most of what I want (as in, that stuff about crime) or for voting for you I want.

All of this that you typed is wrong. Your examples in the first paragraph are of peoples who went from one state to another. Not of people who had no state and were taken over.

Your second paragraph states that from my claim, autocracies cannot form? I said in the first sentence of my statement that this is a possibility. And it would be unprofitable to take over an armed free populace. Ask Russia or the US about occupying afghanistan. Net loss or net gain? Point proven.

To address your last point, you can do things cheaper, more efficiently, and morally without any violence from thugs. The money that is spent in taxes to fund all these services (And the excess that government demands you pay for that goes along with these services) can be spent in any other way (Probably insurance, but not necessarily) to meet these needs.... ORRR.... WAIT FOR IT.... YOU CAN SET UP A VOLUNTARY GOVERNMENT THAT DOES THIS STUFF!!! With the catch that the participants can OPT OUT, even within the geographical areas that the government was set up around. Failure to do this would infringe on peoples rights, and their insurance would kick in and people would have to start negotiating or things would get messy.

 

[Darksaber1]

A though occurred to me after I posted. In your Libertarian Utopia, who funds these defense forces? Does the community collected taxes for it, or do you pay independently. If you can't pay, will they help you? Or will they stand by as a couple of people with weapons walk up to you and declare that if you come peacefully, then you can get a mattress within reach of the chain that they will use to attach you to the place where you stick heads onto Barbie's as they go by on the conveyor belt. After all, your "police" aren't currently being paid to protect you.

And before you try to claim that "of course other would protect you", why? Have you ever gotten mugged? If so, how many valiant bystanders jumped in to help you, or even just took pictures of the guy on their phone to help you track him down? After wards, how many people that you told volunteered to help you locate him and get your stuff back?

It seems to me that Libertopia, you Live Free because you never know when you might forget to pay for security, and someone will with more power than you will decide that you have very pretty lips, or that you would be a natural at making bricks all day with minimal food, water or shelter.

And really? You said that any autocracy would deal with constant guerilla uprisings. And yet during the 1920s, one or two of the Chinese warlords were among the riches people on the planet. If the use of force in unprofitable, then why do warlords exist across Africa, and turn up frequently across the world. Heck, the use of force was the standard across the world throughout most of history.

And if you can do all this better without becoming an autocracy, then what possible gain would any country have for becoming one? Why, oh why would any country, group or person choose to do it? It seems to me this kind of subverts your whole reason to fear the government.

 

[Amon Savag]

I give up on you. You're not even reading what I'm posting.

 

[Tee Kay]

Well not everyone wants to endanger their health

 

[Arrow Gamer]

Amon Savag - Masterful debator.

 

[Darksaber1]

I give up on you. You're not even reading what I'm posting.

No, I am reading it. Perhaps I am misinterpreting it. Please, enlighten me on my greatest failings in understanding.

Lets start with the basics, as I understand it:
1. You feel that Autocracy is inefficient, both economically and morally. Therefor, why would so many people choose it? Why is there so much risk of governments taking that path? Some people may be mad, or stupid, but that many?

2. In your world, people would only subscribe to those services and arrangements that they choose. What stops people that are in this government from deciding that you are too foolish to understand what you are rejecting, and forcing you to accept what they perceive as help (or have coerced a deciding majority is help, even if they themselves (the leaders) are evil).


3. what stops people from exploiting people who reject these arrangements? Would you all live together, de facto forming such arrangements, or would you constantly live in fear of those who would target you with robbery, violence or enslavement?

4. Other than a few tribal populations in remote, undeveloped regions, ever one on the planet lives within a government, if you are very precise as to what constitutes "government". therefore, what stops your people from defaulting to governmental behaviour in the next generation or two as they as the acclimatize to the new norm?

Remember, these are MY interpretations of what you are saying, and my responses, so please correct me in detail.
Please, I would like to know.
If you don't feel like discussing this in detail, then stop bringing up your ideology constantly.

 

[Crezth]

As far as tanks go, who knows exactly how much a tank's material and labor costs are? Those figures you pointed out are highly inflated from kickbacks and other government waste, in a very regulated market. I imagine the true cost to be much less. Training for these sorts of weapons is a course away. Not sure why anyone would think there wouldn't be instructors in the use of high tech weapons lol.

You're right, without government, tanks would be a lot cheaper - and a lot suckier.

I wonder why it never occurs to libertarians (such as you) that the reason there are no stateless societies is because those that were got, you know, wiped out by the statist ones?