Comments on: Farmers and Bandits

By: Lucklucky

Lucklucky — Wed, 15 May 2013 05:40:41 +0000

Always the dominant narrative is that the growth is linked to politics, or in current times money (Keynesians, Monetarists), erasing the technology status from the picture. It is understandable engineers aren’t in media. Media is part of the political-journalist complex, so they talk about things they can get power from. But most of the time growth is linked to the technology status available that makes it easier or more difficult to grow.

By: Alrenous

Alrenous — Thu, 09 May 2013 15:53:31 +0000

While it’s always possible to gather enough bandits to overwhelm any particular village, it is also usually possible to arm the village well enough that it isn’t worthwhile. If every village is so armed, what happens to the bandits? If instead the state disarms the peasants…

There’s also the question of where the bandits came from in the first place. Villagers don’t just get up one day and think, ‘hey, banditry would be pretty cool.’ A primary source is deserters, post-war mercenaries, and remnants of defeated armies. Another is destroyed or looted villages. I believe the third is escaped criminals and people like ‘poachers’ who had their livelihoods suddenly outlawed.

By: James A. Donald

James A. Donald — Mon, 06 May 2013 08:46:30 +0000

The proposition that the China represents what you get when the state is weak or absent is ludicrous.

That China’s countryside was overrun with bandits is no more an advertisement for the benefits of a strong state than the condition of Detroit is an advertisement for the benefits of a strong state.

The state is apt to give higher priority to disarming its subjects, than defending them. Detroit and Chinese banditry is what you get.