Reading violence and social orders. And I am getting so angry that I want to bur

Reading violence and social orders. And I am getting so angry that I want to burn the book.

To create an “impersonal order” one requires a military – since only impersonal militaries can compete, the military that survives produces impersonality. This means more successful militaries produce impersonality.

But since we also require extremely limited rents, to provide the incentives to members for an impersonal military, and against a profiteering military which would eradicate impersonality , the militia which supplies its own small arms, is the only means by which an impersonal order can evolve. A small professional warrior class dependent upon a militia provides the balance between the functional necessity of impersonality (meritocracy) and the incentive against re-personalizing for the purpose of rent seeking.

From the military one needs to produce judges. Societies that do not produce impersonal judges, are those that do not produce impersonal militaries.

This is why so few states developed impersonality. And by consequence equality under the law and limited corruption.

Now, a society that can evolve some set of affairs is different from one that can choose to intentionally implement a state of affairs.

If a group of individuals can hold military power sufficient to construct a body of law defending private property; train a staff of lawyers and judges and sheriffs (police) to operate the courts.

These individuals can be fully aware that they are constructing impersonality in their societies. And the heroic, status, and monetary incentives will provide all that is necessary as long as, like the army, their peers do as well.

Truth and transparence are martial virtues and only martial cultures develop them.

As far as I know, this is an iron law if social orders.