What about "counter-monied" fraternalism or interest groups, which can
represent the other sideof the issue. Can you describe a point where
the free assembly of groups becomes harmful to the state's defence of
individual rights?
--------------------Wiki-poopoo
The first is a social system where human society is divided into
small, roughly independent subgroups, called tribes. Tribal societies
lacked any organizational level beyond that of the local tribe, with
each tribe consisting only of a very small, local population. The
internal social structure of a tribe can vary greatly from case to
case, but, due to the small size of tribes, it is always a relatively
simple structure, with few (if any) significant social distinctions
between individuals. Some tribes are particularly egalitarian, and
most tribes have only a vague notion of private property; many have
none at all. A shared sense of identity and kinship encourages the
development of kin selection. Tribalism has also been sometimes been
called "primitive communism" but this is rather misleading since
allegiance to a communist state is not based on kin-selective
altruism. One thing that is certain is that tribalism is the very
first social system that human beings ever lived in, and it has lasted
much longer than any other kind of society to date.
The other concept to which the word "tribalism" frequently refers is
the possession of a strong cultural or ethnic identity that separates
oneself as a member of one group from the members of another. This
phenomenon is related to the concept of tribal society in that it is a
precondition for members of a tribe to possess a strong feeling of
identity for a true tribal society to form. The distinction between
these two definitions for tribalism is an important one because, while
tribal society no longer strictly exists in the western world,
tribalism, by this second definition, is arguably undiminished. People
have postulated that the human brain is hard-wired towards tribalism
due to its evolutionary advantages...
...Tribalism and evolution
Tribalism has a very adaptive effect in human evolution. Humans are
social animals, and ill-equipped to live on their own. Tribalism and
ethnocentrism help to keep individuals committed to the group, even
when personal relations may fray. This keeps individuals from
wandering off. Thus, ethnocentric individuals would have a higher
survival rate -- or at least, with their higher commitment to the
group, more opportunities to breed. A more significant vector may be
that groups with a strong sense of unity and identity can benefit from
kin selection behaviour such as common property and shared resources.
The tendency of members to unite against an outside tribe and the
ability to act violently and prejudicially against that outside tribe
likely boosted the chances of survival in genocidal conflicts.
Logically, a distinct divide between ones own group and other groups
fosters the ability of the individual to interact with members of
those groups in a manner that is equally distinct: one being
altruistic (in the case of a group of unrelated members) or kin-
selective (in the case of a group of more or less related members),
the other being violent.
While it may be tempting to believe that racial conflict, ethnic
cleansing, and genocide are the result of increased social pressures
from relatively recent societal paradigms such as nations and empires,
our understanding of early human history suggests otherwise. Acts of
genocide are described in the Judeo-Christian Old Testament (Deut7:2),
which is one of the earliest historical works, and clearly involving a
state-level society. Genocide is also often used to explain the
disappearance of Neanderthals in Europe shortly after the arrival of
early humans in prehistorical times, though this has been largely
discredited (see Neandertal interaction with Cro-Magnons). It is
logical to assume that a predisposition to tribalism and specifically
to genocide aided early humans in their expansion into Europe, though
no evidence of such activity exists. Such tendencies continue to serve
their evolutionary purposes even in modern times in places such as
Rwanda. While very few would view such conflicts as positive, it
cannot strictly be said that tribalism has become maladaptive. While
most would regard this as unjust, the final outcome of the Rwandan
Genocide, is that there are fewer Tutsis with which the Hutus must
compete for resources.
According to a study by Robin Dunbar at the University of Liverpool,
primate brain size is determined by social group size. Dunbar's
conclusion was that the human brain can only really understand a
maximum of 150 individuals as fully developed, complex people (see
Dunbar's number). Malcolm Gladwell expanded on this conclusion
sociologically in his book, The Tipping Point. According to these
studies, then, "tribalism" is in some sense an inescapable fact of
human neurology, simply because the human brain is not adapted to
working with large populations. Beyond 150, the human brain must
resort to some combination of hierarchical schemes, stereotypes, and
other simplified models in order to understand so many people.
Nevertheless, complex societies (and corporations) rely upon the
tribal instincts of their members for their organization and survival.
For example, a representative democracy relies on the ability of a
"tribe" of representatives to organize and deal with the problems of
an entire nation. The instincts that these representatives are using
to deal with national problems have been highly developed in the long
course of human evolution on a small tribal scale, and this is the
source of both their usefulness and their disutility. Indeed, much of
the political tension in modern societies is the conflict between the
desire to organize a nation-state using the tribal values of
egalitarianism and unity and the simple fact that large societies are
unavoidably impersonal and sometimes not amenable to small-society
rules.
In complex societies, this tribalistic impulse can also be channeled
into more frivolous avenues, manifesting itself in sports rivalries
and other such "fan" affiliations...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribalism
In sociology, a group is usually defined as a collection of humans or
animals, who share certain characteristics, interact with one another,
accept expectations and obligations as members of the group, and share
a common identity. Using this definition, society can appear as a
large group.
While an aggregate comprises merely a number of individuals, a group
in sociology exhibits cohesiveness to a larger degree. Characteristics
that members in the group may share include interests, values, ethnic/
linguistic background, and kinship ties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_%%28sociology%%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_process
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_behaviour
Fraternity is a word for brotherhood, and by extension deep friendship
or camaraderie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternity_%%28disambiguation%%29
Cody Malave's definition of brotherhood: Loyalty. If one's in trouble
you do not turn your head and turn the other way. You stand by them,
support them. You have their back and they have yours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brotherhood
An interest group (also called an advocacy group, lobbying group,
pressure group (UK), or special interest) is a group, however loosely
or tightly organized, doing advocacy: those determined to encourage or
prevent changes in public policy without trying to be
elected. ...Sometimes "interest groups" are used to refer to groups
within society, especially those who are believed to have similar
political opinions on an issue or group of issues (e.g. seniors, the
poor, etc.) who are not necessarily part of an organized group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interest_group
FEDERALIST PAPER NO. 10
Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union,
none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to
break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular
governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character
and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous
vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan
which, without violating the principles to which he is attached,
provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and
confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been
the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere
perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from
which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious
declamations.
...By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting
to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated
by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the
rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests
of the community.
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm
