The Ik, A Libertarian Tribe of Uganda

[Storebought]

This account is slightly long, but it must be read in its entirety to be believed:



Firstly, it appears that it is not only complex states that can undergo regression and dissolution. In the mid 1960's, the anthropologist Colin Turnbull documented the case of the Ik (pronounced eek), whose society seemed to have disintegrated to the extent that not even the institution of the family continued to function. His account of the eighteen months or so that he spent among them must have a strong case to rank as the most depressing chronicle in the entire history of ethnography.

He describes the Ik as being the most unfriendly, uncharitable, inhospitable and generally mean people as one could expect to meet. They live in the mountainous northeast corner of Uganda, bordering on Kenya to the east and Sudan to the north. The problem is that the Ik are starving. Traditionally, they were hunter-gatherers roaming long distances following the seasonal availability of food. However, when the national borders of this region were established, they found part of their territory closed to them. Then their richest hunting ground was turned into Kidepo National Park and poaching within it was strongly discouraged. The Ugandan government encouraged them to become farmers, but the uncertain rainfall of the region and the Ik's general lack of aptitude ensured that their fields provided a worthwhile return on their effort at best one year in three.

The Ik had responded to this desperate famine with an emphasis on self-preservation. Those who could find food ate it promptly before there was any question of having to share it with others. The strong made no effort to help the weak. On the contrary they would steal the food from them, if they could. Those who could not care for themselves were seen as a burden and a hazard to the survival of others. Even husbands and wives foraged alone and ate their solitary meals out in the countryside. Mothers disowned their children after the age of three. The latter formed into bands, as protection against the adults, and learned food collecting techniques from each other and from the baboons, as much as from their parents. Although the Ik had villages built stick walls and fences, there was no sense of community. Each house had its own separate corridor to the outside, and all were booby-trapped against visitors, while there were no signs of cooking or other domestic activity.

When Turnbull tried to intervene in a small way by provisioning some of the older and weaker Ik, he was condemned for wasting food on people who would die anyway. When one young boy died, his father attempted to conceal the death and bury the boy within the compound. Otherwise he was afraid that he would have to hold a proper funeral and that meant a feast which he could not afford. Among the Ik, there simply was not room for such luxuries as family, sentiment and love. One young girl, Adupa, seemed not to have learnt the basic principles of survival and would bring food to her parents. They however only laughed at her when she asked them for food in return. In the end, when her incessant demands became intolerable, they shut her in a compound to starve to death. After a few days, they threw her body out into the bush like so much garbage.

When Turnbull tried to help one man who had been fatally injured in a fight by giving him a cup of hot sweet tea, the man's sister stole the mug from his hands and ran away laughing with her trophy On another depressing occasion, Turnbull observed as the young son of a man who had just died tried to tear the lip plug from him as others fought over the body for the man's meagre possessions.

He suggests that Ik society had degenerated to the point that its individual members had lost their basic human sense of mutuality. They no longer had a society. However, evidence from the Ik language and from their own accounts of the past indicated that it had not always been like this. They had once had a real community, with the typical hunter-gatherer institutions of sharing and reciprocity. Yet they had gone backwards, far backwards to the kind of war of all against all that Hobbes (surely wrongly) imagined to be the primordial situation of the human race before it developed social living.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

But hey, I'm sure they were following the Constitution!

[jokerman]

Sounds like libertarianism to me, a horrible system indeed.

[Bono]

However, when the national borders of this region were established, they found part of their territory closed to them. Then their richest hunting ground was turned into Kidepo National Park and poaching within it was strongly discouraged. The Ugandan government encouraged them to become farmers, but the uncertain rainfall of the region and the Ik's general lack of aptitude ensured that their fields provided a worthwhile return on their effort at best one year in three.

This is the key.
Yep, really libertarianism's fault.
Counter example: Pennsylvania's anarchist experiment.

[Everett]

However, when the national borders of this region were established, they found part of their territory closed to them. Then their richest hunting ground was turned into Kidepo National Park and poaching within it was strongly discouraged. The Ugandan government encouraged them to become farmers, but the uncertain rainfall of the region and the Ik's general lack of aptitude ensured that their fields provided a worthwhile return on their effort at best one year in three.

This is the key.
Yep, really libertarianism's fault.
Counter example: Pennsylvania's anarchist experiment.

Indeed. The government removed their hunting grounds. How are they supposed to survive, by begging for handouts or something?

[Emsworth]

It appears to me that this problem has nothing at all to do with libertarianism. The loss of "their richest hunting ground" and a sudden change in lifestyle (from hunting to agriculture) would naturally be a considerably traumatic experience for this tribe. Furthermore, I have read that the Ik tribe was regularly raided by other tribes. To attribute the difficulties faced by this tribe to libertarianism is to reach the height of fallacious reasoning.

[John Dibble]

To attribute the difficulties faced by this tribe to libertarianism is to reach the height of fallacious reasoning.

[Storebought]

It appears to me that this problem has nothing at all to do with libertarianism. The loss of "their richest hunting ground" and a sudden change in lifestyle (from hunting to agriculture) would naturally be a considerably traumatic experience for this tribe. Furthermore, I have read that the Ik tribe was regularly raided by other tribes. To attribute the difficulties faced by this tribe to libertarianism is to reach the height of fallacious reasoning.

I guess you haven't learned how to read my posts in the spirit of "half-jest". You will learn in time.

Of course: You think I'm so new that I think the lifestyles of an African tribe described, even by its own neighbors, as primitive would represent the full realization of American libertarianism?

I had two intentions with this post:

1. To illustrate the absolute misery that these people suffered as the result of, at the very least, social(ist) engineering run amok -- a hunter-gathering tribe compelled to farm? Honestly -- and the incapacity of a member of a human race to adapt better to a (sh**tty) new paradigm.

Yes, you may starve, but stealing food from the hands of your own child is depraved.

2. To highlight my own concerns about Libertarianism, necessarily highlighted in bold font, that have yet to be satisfied by reading any of the commentary from libertarians on the AF. Even American conservatism allows a greater sense of community (through family and church, not state) than libertarians are willing to admit.

[Bono]

It appears to me that this problem has nothing at all to do with libertarianism. The loss of "their richest hunting ground" and a sudden change in lifestyle (from hunting to agriculture) would naturally be a considerably traumatic experience for this tribe. Furthermore, I have read that the Ik tribe was regularly raided by other tribes. To attribute the difficulties faced by this tribe to libertarianism is to reach the height of fallacious reasoning.

I guess you haven't learned how to read my posts in the spirit of "half-jest". You will learn in time.

Of course: You think I'm so new that I think the lifestyles of an African tribe described, even by its own neighbors, as primitive would represent the full realization of American libertarianism?

I had two intentions with this post:

1. To illustrate the absolute misery that these people suffered as the result of, at the very least, social(ist) engineering run amok -- a hunter-gathering tribe compelled to farm? Honestly -- and the incapacity of a member of a human race to adapt better to a (sh**tty) new paradigm.

Yes, you may starve, but stealing food from the hands of your own child is depraved.

2. To highlight my own concerns about Libertarianism, necessarily highlighted in bold font, that have yet to be satisfied by reading any of the commentary from libertarians on the AF. Even American conservatism allows a greater sense of community (through family and church, not state) than libertarians are willing to admit.

http://www.mises.org/story/1865
About Pennsylvania's anarchist experiment. You can't argue this people didn't have a sense of community.

[Emsworth]

Of course: You think I'm so new that I think the lifestyles of an African tribe described, even by its own neighbors, as primitive would represent the full realization of American libertarianism?

Sorry for not making it clear; my response was not directed to you, but primarily to Cosmo Kramer and Htmldon. After all, the former did respond, "Sounds like libertarianism to me, a horrible system indeed."

[Storebought]

It appears to me that this problem has nothing at all to do with libertarianism. The loss of "their richest hunting ground" and a sudden change in lifestyle (from hunting to agriculture) would naturally be a considerably traumatic experience for this tribe. Furthermore, I have read that the Ik tribe was regularly raided by other tribes. To attribute the difficulties faced by this tribe to libertarianism is to reach the height of fallacious reasoning.

I guess you haven't learned how to read my posts in the spirit of "half-jest". You will learn in time.

Of course: You think I'm so new that I think the lifestyles of an African tribe described, even by its own neighbors, as primitive would represent the full realization of American libertarianism?

I had two intentions with this post:

1. To illustrate the absolute misery that these people suffered as the result of, at the very least, social(ist) engineering run amok -- a hunter-gathering tribe compelled to farm? Honestly -- and the incapacity of a member of a human race to adapt better to a (sh**tty) new paradigm.

Yes, you may starve, but stealing food from the hands of your own child is depraved.

2. To highlight my own concerns about Libertarianism, necessarily highlighted in bold font, that have yet to be satisfied by reading any of the commentary from libertarians on the AF. Even American conservatism allows a greater sense of community (through family and church, not state) than libertarians are willing to admit.

http://www.mises.org/story/1865
About Pennsylvania's anarchist experiment. You can't argue this people didn't have a sense of community.

You could argue the same for Robert Owen's "New Harmony" colony in Indiana, or Proudhon's colony in France. They both failed miserably -- a totalitarian state can at least last a generation or two (or the lifespan of the absolute dictator).

Anarchism lasted, in the case of the Quakers in PA, scant nine years. And even then, from the article, the anarchy arose because of miscommunication between Penn and his governing council; it was never the intential way to structure that society.

From the article:

On the question of free speech for criticizing government, laws were, unfortunately, passed prohibiting the writing or uttering of anything malicious, of anything stirring up dislike of the governor, or of anything tending to subvert the government.

Some anarchy...

[Bono]

It appears to me that this problem has nothing at all to do with libertarianism. The loss of "their richest hunting ground" and a sudden change in lifestyle (from hunting to agriculture) would naturally be a considerably traumatic experience for this tribe. Furthermore, I have read that the Ik tribe was regularly raided by other tribes. To attribute the difficulties faced by this tribe to libertarianism is to reach the height of fallacious reasoning.

I guess you haven't learned how to read my posts in the spirit of "half-jest". You will learn in time.

Of course: You think I'm so new that I think the lifestyles of an African tribe described, even by its own neighbors, as primitive would represent the full realization of American libertarianism?

I had two intentions with this post:

1. To illustrate the absolute misery that these people suffered as the result of, at the very least, social(ist) engineering run amok -- a hunter-gathering tribe compelled to farm? Honestly -- and the incapacity of a member of a human race to adapt better to a (sh**tty) new paradigm.

Yes, you may starve, but stealing food from the hands of your own child is depraved.

2. To highlight my own concerns about Libertarianism, necessarily highlighted in bold font, that have yet to be satisfied by reading any of the commentary from libertarians on the AF. Even American conservatism allows a greater sense of community (through family and church, not state) than libertarians are willing to admit.

http://www.mises.org/story/1865
About Pennsylvania's anarchist experiment. You can't argue this people didn't have a sense of community.

You could argue the same for Robert Owen's "New Harmony" colony in Indiana, or Proudhon's colony in France. They both failed miserably -- a totalitarian state can at least last a generation or two (or the lifespan of the absolute dictator).

Anarchism lasted, in the case of the Quakers in PA, scant nine years. And even then, from the article, the anarchy arose because of miscommunication between Penn and his governing council; it was never the intential way to structure that society.

From the article:

On the question of free speech for criticizing government, laws were, unfortunately, passed prohibiting the writing or uttering of anything malicious, of anything stirring up dislike of the governor, or of anything tending to subvert the government.

Some anarchy...

Yu're not exactly pointing out something that last a lot.
Fine,, though, iceland had 300 years of nearly anarchy(there was one government employee). Is that enough? Ireland was pretty much in anarchy before the brits took over too.

[jokerman]

Of course: You think I'm so new that I think the lifestyles of an African tribe described, even by its own neighbors, as primitive would represent the full realization of American libertarianism?

Sorry for not making it clear; my response was not directed to you, but primarily to Cosmo Kramer and Htmldon. After all, the former did respond, "Sounds like libertarianism to me, a horrible system indeed."

In America it would not be much different, except the corporate class would still enjoy a modern standard of living.  Both systems run by the creed: every man for himself.

[Emsworth]

Both systems run by the creed: every man for himself.

That is a perfectly legitimate and just creed. No man should be a slave; each person should be entitled to the product of his own labor, without being coerced into providing for the benefit of others.

[John Dibble]

2. To highlight my own concerns about Libertarianism, necessarily highlighted in bold font, that have yet to be satisfied by reading any of the commentary from libertarians on the AF. Even American conservatism allows a greater sense of community (through family and church, not state) than libertarians are willing to admit.

Having reread the passage, I still don't see how those concerns have to do with libertarianism - the government is what put these people into this desperate situation. The government is what took away what their culture had relied upon for so long without giving them anything back. If anything, this argument seems to prove us libertarians were right all along. And quite frankly, I'm having a hard time seeing what if anything those bolded points have to do with libertarianism in the first place.

Nothing in libertarianism stops people from caring about their families, going to church, sharing with others, or having a sense of community - not a damn thing! Heck, I love my family and I've got good relationships with my neighbors, and I'd say most if not all the libertarians on this board do as well.

[Inverted Things]

This is merely the latest tribal casualty in the ongoing assimilation of people into 'civilized' culture. Their downfall, as others have pointed out, was not due to libertarianism.

It was instead due to the fact that the Ugandan government was convinced that it knew best (they probably don't), and decided that the tribe wasn't allowed to continue with the lifestyle that had served them well for thousands of years.

[The Constitarian]

However, when the national borders of this region were established, they found part of their territory closed to them. Then their richest hunting ground was turned into Kidepo National Park and poaching within it was strongly discouraged. The Ugandan government encouraged them to become farmers, but the uncertain rainfall of the region and the Ik's general lack of aptitude ensured that their fields provided a worthwhile return on their effort at best one year in three.

This is the key.
Yep, really libertarianism's fault.
Counter example: Pennsylvania's anarchist experiment.

Indeed. The government removed their hunting grounds. How are they supposed to survive, by begging for handouts or something?

A libertarian would have continued to hunt and shot anyone who tried to intervene.

[jokerman]

Both systems run by the creed: every man for himself.

That is a perfectly legitimate and just creed. No man should be a slave; each person should be entitled to the product of his own labor, without being coerced into providing for the benefit of others.

Humans learned thousands of years ago to work as a team, as part of a community; and that it is to the mutual benefit of everyone to cooperate together.  That is an important concept.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Humans learned thousands of years ago to work as a team, as part of a community; and that it is to the mutual benefit of everyone to cooperate together.  That is an important concept.

^^^^^^^^^

[John Dibble]

Both systems run by the creed: every man for himself.

That is a perfectly legitimate and just creed. No man should be a slave; each person should be entitled to the product of his own labor, without being coerced into providing for the benefit of others.

Humans learned thousands of years ago to work as a team, as part of a community; and that it is to the mutual benefit of everyone to cooperate together.  That is an important concept.

I don't work for my employer for my employer's sake - I do so for my own, but my employer still benefits. Just because you work with others doesn't mean you are doing it for their sake.

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages." - Adam Smith

[Gabu]

Both systems run by the creed: every man for himself.

That is a perfectly legitimate and just creed. No man should be a slave; each person should be entitled to the product of his own labor, without being coerced into providing for the benefit of others.

Humans learned thousands of years ago to work as a team, as part of a community; and that it is to the mutual benefit of everyone to cooperate together.  That is an important concept.

I don't work for my employer for my employer's sake - I do so for my own, but my employer still benefits. Just because you work with others doesn't mean you are doing it for their sake.

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages." - Adam Smith

That said, their point is still true that it is more often than not in everyone's self-interest to work at least somewhat towards the collective interest, because in many situations, not cooperating results in everyone getting less than they would have gotten had they all cooperated.  The notion of working towards one's self-interest is not by any means mutually exclusive with the notion of working towards the collective interest; rather, the two notions tend more often than not to be closer to equivalent than mutually exclusive.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

That said, their point is still true that it is more often than not in everyone's self-interest to work at least somewhat towards the collective interest, because in many situations, not cooperating results in everyone getting less than they would have gotten had they all cooperated.  The notion of working towards one's self-interest is not by any means mutually exclusive with the notion of working towards the collective interest; rather, the two notions tend more often than not to be closer to equivalent than mutually exclusive.

Exactly.  One is most productive when they are not only working for a living but working for a cause/purpose they believe in - when they truly enjoy what they are doing.  It benefits employers for employees to be fulfilled and to have the best work environment and pay possible.

[John Dibble]

That said, their point is still true that it is more often than not in everyone's self-interest to work at least somewhat towards the collective interest, because in many situations, not cooperating results in everyone getting less than they would have gotten had they all cooperated.  The notion of working towards one's self-interest is not by any means mutually exclusive with the notion of working towards the collective interest; rather, the two notions tend more often than not to be closer to equivalent than mutually exclusive.

The problem is though, that in the case of this tribe in question, it's not really more or less helpful either way. The food supply isn't stable enough that sharing is gauranteed to get you a sufficient amount, but neither is gobbling up whatever you can get your hands on first. Since almost their entire economy was based on hunting, and since that essential foundation of their economy has been taken away without them having been given a viable second option - either individually or collectively - you can not expect them to start working together. People will normally work together only when there is a clear, long term benefit to doing so. As of now the people of the Ik seem to get more benefits by not working together - if people can barely feed themselves, you can't honestly expect them to be generous to others. Self-preservation is the instinct of pretty much any life-form and these people are acting only as can be expected given their situation. Give them back their hunting grounds or somehow make farming viable and you'll see them working together soon enough, but even then they will be doing so because of the fact that it benefits them as individuals to do so.

[Bono]

Both systems run by the creed: every man for himself.

That is a perfectly legitimate and just creed. No man should be a slave; each person should be entitled to the product of his own labor, without being coerced into providing for the benefit of others.

Humans learned thousands of years ago to work as a team, as part of a community; and that it is to the mutual benefit of everyone to cooperate together.  That is an important concept.

I don't work for my employer for my employer's sake - I do so for my own, but my employer still benefits. Just because you work with others doesn't mean you are doing it for their sake.

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages." - Adam Smith

That said, their point is still true that it is more often than not in everyone's self-interest to work at least somewhat towards the collective interest, because in many situations, not cooperating results in everyone getting less than they would have gotten had they all cooperated.  The notion of working towards one's self-interest is not by any means mutually exclusive with the notion of working towards the collective interest; rather, the two notions tend more often than not to be closer to equivalent than mutually exclusive.

Gabu,
If people benefit from cooperation, they will cooperate and they don't need to government to do it for them.
Libertarianism, except when taken as a religion by Randroids, is not an anti- or pro- cooperation ideology, it is simply an anti-government ideology.

[Gabu]

The problem is though, that in the case of this tribe in question, it's not really more or less helpful either way. The food supply isn't stable enough that sharing is gauranteed to get you a sufficient amount, but neither is gobbling up whatever you can get your hands on first. Since almost their entire economy was based on hunting, and since that essential foundation of their economy has been taken away without them having been given a viable second option - either individually or collectively - you can not expect them to start working together. People will normally work together only when there is a clear, long term benefit to doing so. As of now the people of the Ik seem to get more benefits by not working together - if people can barely feed themselves, you can't honestly expect them to be generous to others. Self-preservation is the instinct of pretty much any life-form and these people are acting only as can be expected given their situation. Give them back their hunting grounds or somehow make farming viable and you'll see them working together soon enough, but even then they will be doing so because of the fact that it benefits them as individuals to do so.

Well, yes, I was not making my comment specifically with regards to the case of the Ik.  They're pretty much totally screwed unless either Uganda gives them their hunting grounds back or they learn how to farm.  I was just making a general statement, although the Ik's current actions are certainly not helping anything with regards to coming to a solution to the matter.

Gabu,
If people benefit from cooperation, they will cooperate and they don't need to government to do it for them.
Libertarianism, except when taken as a religion by Randroids, is not an anti- or pro- cooperation ideology, it is simply an anti-government ideology.

What part of my post had anything to do with government?  I was simply making that statement in the abstract, not as if I was trying to make some anti-libertarian point from it.

I would dispute your statement that the people will cooperate if it benefits them, however.  Even when acting completely rationally (which is not always the case by far), if we get into a case such as the Prisoner's Dilemma where the Nash Equilibria do not result in the optimal outcome, the people involved may still fail to cooperate even when it's in their best interest.  The problem arises most often when one can get more if everyone but that one single person cooperates - if everyone recognizes this fact and if they all try to exploit it, they will all cancel each other out and leave absolutely everyone high and dry, even if, taken in a complete vacuum, each individual action made perfect logical sense.

In this sort of case, unless everyone involved completely trusts everyone else, it can be very, very easy for everything to fall apart and go to hell when one person decides to be a jerk; situations in which everyone cooperates are few and far between and very unstable.  I would personally argue that, in this specific case, it could very well be beneficial for some overseer to enforce the cooperation, given that it could very well be nigh impossible to get out of the rut of non-cooperation any other way if there are a lot of people involved, and especially if these people rarely, if ever, come into direct contact with each other.

The statement that people will do anything if it benefits them in any given circumstance is a very dangerous thing to assert as an absolute statement.  The free market only works as well as the people in it, and people will only do what is in their best interest if they can identify it as being in their best interest.  If people only did what was in their best interest, scam artists would quickly go out of business and the world would become free of any wrongdoing.  There are many cases where even rational, logical people may not identify the best course of action purely because they fail to identify enough pertinent variables to which attention should be paid or because they fail to see the big picture: to miss the forest for the trees, as is the case in the Prisoner's Dilemma.

I'm not saying that we should abolish the free market in lieu of a giant governmental entity that makes everyone's decisions for us or something like that, only that we should simply identify this shortcoming in the free market and accept the fact that it exists instead of acting as if the free market is some magical entity that can solve all of the problems in the universe.