Primate Theory of the State

Thomas Hobbes argued that humanity can escape the state of nature, in which lives are nasty, poor, brutish and short, only by surrendering some natural liberty to the common power of Leviathan. "The only way to erect such a common power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners, and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort as that by their own industry and by the fruits of the earth they may nourish themselves and live contentedly, is to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men," declared Hobbes.

Or in the case of macaques, to "one assembly of monkeys." Researchers at the Santa Fe Institute removed 3 of 4 dominant males from a troupe of 84 macaques and chaos ensued. The New Scientist reports,

Without monkey cops, group cohesion rapidly disintegrated. Feudal cliques formed and social networks broke down. Communal activities such as playing, grooming and sitting together all decreased. Meanwhile, the amount of violence escalated, with no one to broker the peace. "Individuals had significantly more play and grooming partners in the presence of policing," say the researchers.

Question: Why do monkey cops permit "play and grooming" to flourish, while human cops are so often called upon to stamp out comparable human activiities (sex, drugs, rock-and-roll)?

Comments

[thoreau]

Question: Why do monkey cops permit “play and grooming” to flourish, while human cops are so often called upon to stamp out comparable human activiities (sex, drugs, rock-and-roll)?

The LP should nominate a macaque for President in 2008.

[David]

I’d vote for a dominant macaque. He’d almost certainly be more charismatic than Michael Badnarik.

[Zubon]

So you remove the top 5% from a group and it does not immediately adapt? Say, if the top 15,000,000 Americans disappeared one day without warning, you might expect to see less play and grooming in the short-term, combined with some aberrant behavior? Astounding.

[Cap'n Obvious]

Question: Why do monkey cops permit “play and grooming” to flourish, while human cops are so often called upon to stamp out comparable human activiities (sex, drugs, rock-and-roll)?

Answer: Because Monkeys aren’t assholes. What other explanation could there be?

[Ron Bailey]

Zubon: By “top” do you mean government,i.e. Leviathan? I think that’s Hobbes’, the Santa Fe Institute researchers’ and my point. BTW, it turns out, according to the Cato Institute, that 15 million people work for state and local governments and add perhaps 2.5 million more for the Feds.

[wellfellow]

Zubon,

Then you could call it Kong Shrugged.

[joshua corning]

this reminds me of last weeks battle star galactica in which they president and the military allowed the black market to remain in tact so long as they knew who the major players were and that the black marketeers agreed to certian provisions (no prostitution of minors and medical drugs could not be withheld)

The cop thing seems to me to be less about the cops and more about law makers. Cops do allow illegal behavior to an extent becouse they are close to the behavior (often using the illigality of certian behavior to stop other illigal behavior that is harder to prove in court) While law makers view it as more of a black and white dynamic. ie drugs are assotiated with violence not becouse they actually are but becouse cops will use drug laws to put violent offenders in jail. Law makers get the perseption that the link is real so they stregthen drug laws. Cops don’t protest becouse the more tools they have the more power they have to to thier jobs.

[Ed]

…group cohesion rapidly disintegrated. Feudal cliques formed and social networks broke down…the amount of violence escalated, with no one to broker the peace.

Huh. The same thing happened at my office when I went on vacation.

[Anonymo the Anonymous]

Amazon.com book summary:
Kong Shrugged by Zbm Dnar

At last, Zbm Dnar’s masterpiece is available to her millions of loyal readers in trade paperback.

With this acclaimed work and its immortal query, “Who is Coco Galt?”, Zbm Dnar found the perfect artistic form to express her vision of existence. Kong Shrugged made Dnar not only one of the most popular novelists of the century, but one of its most influential thinkers.

Kong Shrugged is the astounding story of a man who said that he would stop the governments of the world–and did. As increasing numbers of top-level bureaucrats disappear, people begin to test the limits of life without nannies. What happens when the intestinal blockage of a nation removes itself? Tremendous in scope, breathtaking in its suspense, Kong Shrugged stretches the boundaries further than any book you have ever read. It is a mystery, not about the murder of a domesticated monkey’s body, but about the murder–and rebirth–of domesticated monkeys’ spirits.

[Sid K.]

“Play and grooming” among monkeys is not comparable to sex between humans. Sex between monkeys is comparable to sex between humans.

[Rich Ard]

If this means that taking away the cops correlates to a drop in feces-throwing, then I say we go for it.

[quasibill]

I’m not sure that anything useful (as far as being applicable to humans) can be drawn from this study.

For example, as an AnCap, I see this study as showing that monopolies of force are unstable even in nature, as they changed a situation where there was a balance of powers into one where there was essentially a monopoly. Of course, that’s what you’d expect me to take from it.

I’m sure that statists of all stripes will draw an entirely different conclusion, as is evident by the wording of the conclusions of the researchers (speaking in terms of “lack” of police instead of realizing that there still was one).

Who’s right? I have my opinion and I’m sure they have theirs…

[kmw]

Question: Why do monkey cops permit “play and grooming” to flourish, while human cops are so often called upon to stamp out comparable human activiities (sex, drugs, rock-and-roll)?

Not to mention serve arrest warrants with a SWAT team.

Alpha monkeys just get to make the rules because they’re the physically strongest. We’re technically unique in that the cops are supposedly employed by we, the taxpayers. That creates an environment where, if too many people are arrested, the cops can’t get paid. So the poorest elements of society, the ones mostly likely to have crime problems anyway, get most of the asskicking.

The difference is night and day. Once, I drove my brother-in-law’s 1973 duster (just for kicks) through white trash central, and was immediately pulled over for some drummed up reason. I’ve never been pulled over in any of my new Chryslers driving down the same street.

So in primate land, physical size is the best advantage. In humanville, money is the key.

[amazingdrx]

You have to be dumber than a monkey to want to be a cop?

[R C Dean]

I see this study as showing that monopolies of force are unstable even in nature, as they changed a situation where there was a balance of powers into one where there was essentially a monopoly.

What monopoly was created when the five dominant males were removed?

[mediageek]

“”Play and grooming” among monkeys is not comparable to sex between humans. Sex between monkeys is comparable to sex between humans.”

Evidently not, judging by Bonobos who have sex as a way to resolve disputes.

[Zubon]

By “top,” I was thinking of alpha male monkeys as having broader influence than our government, so that could be from hierarchies of all types. I would in no way associate the average government worker with “alpha male” status; for simplicity, one could consider the effects of the disappearance of the top ten million government officials and the top ten thousand from every Fortune 500 company. The money=power simile is not inapt.

I would suggest that the results as presented say more about sudden power vaccuums than governmental arrangements. If all the police disappeared overnight, I would have larger worries than petting and grooming in the short term. The unexplained disappearance of all elected officials, who constitute far less than 5% of our society, would certainly cause some panic. Actually, removing any 5% of society is going to cause some serious disruption, until we find equilibrium.

Take out the alpha males and wait a while. The beta males will fight to replace them. While this is happening, there will be factionalization and social disruption. This is to be expected.

I have not read much primatology since 1999, but I do recall significant issues when people attempt to project human traits onto other primates (“broker the peace”); does this particular writer want to portray nobles savages or nature red in tooth and claw?

I also recall that there is a fight going on for House Majority leader status right now. Play with that analogy as you will.

[mediageek]

“What monopoly was created when the five dominant males were removed?”

The monopoly of implied force for not “playing nice” if the monkey-to-cop comparison is supposed to actually hold any water.

[Eric the .5b]

I’d think removing the dominant monkeys (who have a role analogous to a government) would be also removing that monopoly of force.

[wellfellow]

There’s got to be some way to connect this to Stalin’s Gorilla Forces.

[Timothy]

I’d vote for a dominant macaque. He’d almost certainly be more charismatic than Michael Badnarik.

Nor would it have the obnoxious obsession with the gold standard.

[Francisco Torres]

Maybe the inference from the study is not correct. Alpha males (the “top” strata that the study mentions) are related to most part of the troupe, meaning that they deliver the same kind of psychological coherence that a father (or a mother) delivers to a human family. Imagine what would happen if the patriarch (or matriarch) of a human family was suddendly taken away? Probably a similar chaos. The difference between cops and fathers or mothers is that we all live with a father or mother, 24/7, up to a certain point, whereas we usually avoid cops if we can help it.

So, if cops were suddendly removed, I do not think we would necessarily see the same effect as the macaques, since most cops are quite irrelevant anyway. The same goes for government – we tend to avoid as much as possible any contact with government officials, and most people would very likely go about their usual business even if government was taken away by scientists.

[Jbold1]

Who among you are “law abiding” simply from the fear of being beaten by cops, or government officials?

Humans are not monkeys – so this story only tells us something about monkey socialization, and nothing about human civilization.

[Not David]

Jbold1, which laws?

And Anonymo, thanks for making my RSS-surfing worthwhile this evening.

[Larry A]

Question: Why do monkey cops permit “play and grooming” to flourish, while human cops are so often called upon to stamp out comparable human activiities (sex, drugs, rock-and-roll)?

Because monkey cops enforce rules they make based on what in their experience works, while human cops enforce rules politicians make based on what is The Right Thing To Do.