In your previous series on the state as an evolutionary organism, the earliest forms of the state included tribes and the freedom to leave. That freedom was the first thing to leave as we shifted to a more advanced form of the state. So do you view this development as a retrogression? Or is it a coincidence that both the earliest forms of the state and the ideal form of the state possess this characteristic of freedom to exit?
That's a great question. I don't see it as a retrogression. I see it as an adaptation.
Early states didn't reduce the freedom to exit simply because rulers wanted more control. They evolved under conditions where land was immobile, moving was extraordinarily costly, and large-scale cooperation depended on keeping people attached to particular territories. The environment came first; the institutions adapted to it.
What is changing today is not human nature, but the environment. Capital, talent, firms, knowledge, and increasingly even work itself have become far more mobile. As those conditions change, states are beginning to face evolutionary pressures very different from the ones that originally shaped them.
So I don't think history is returning to the tribe. Rather, evolution is encountering a new environment where exit once again becomes an adaptive feature. The earliest forms of political organization and some possible future forms may both allow greater freedom to exit, but for entirely different reasons.
In your previous series on the state as an evolutionary organism, the earliest forms of the state included tribes and the freedom to leave. That freedom was the first thing to leave as we shifted to a more advanced form of the state. So do you view this development as a retrogression? Or is it a coincidence that both the earliest forms of the state and the ideal form of the state possess this characteristic of freedom to exit?
That's a great question. I don't see it as a retrogression. I see it as an adaptation.
Early states didn't reduce the freedom to exit simply because rulers wanted more control. They evolved under conditions where land was immobile, moving was extraordinarily costly, and large-scale cooperation depended on keeping people attached to particular territories. The environment came first; the institutions adapted to it.
What is changing today is not human nature, but the environment. Capital, talent, firms, knowledge, and increasingly even work itself have become far more mobile. As those conditions change, states are beginning to face evolutionary pressures very different from the ones that originally shaped them.
So I don't think history is returning to the tribe. Rather, evolution is encountering a new environment where exit once again becomes an adaptive feature. The earliest forms of political organization and some possible future forms may both allow greater freedom to exit, but for entirely different reasons.
Evolution repeats its grammar, not its sentences.