Master, Merchant, Monk

I just was reading a post on Seth Roberts' blog, where he was talking about Jane Jacobs's hypothesis that there have been 2 fundamental ways people have lived roughly forever: The trader and the taker. While his post is fascinating (problem with medicine is that the doctor is being treated too much like a trader, not enough like a [good] police officer), that's not quite where I wanted to go.

Rather...I think his (jane's) categorization is too narrow. At least as long as I can track (and trust) history, there have been not 2, but 4 6 7 systems of survival.

Please note, I am not following libertarian, or left libertarian thought here. I am playing with an idea because that's fun.

Certainly the master/lord/ruler/taker as identified by Jane is one approach to survival. Protect the citizenry from bad things happening. Tax them in return, without their consent. In good cases, this gives us the archetype of the (fantastic) british policeman, or the Midieval Noblesse Oblige. In bad cases, you get a less good result. FWIW, this approach is idealized by the conservative, perhaps beyond where it ought to be.

Certainly the merchant/trader as identified by Ms. Jacobs is another approach to survival. Get other people to give you stuff because the stuff you have is more valuable to them than what they have. Comparative advantage. Etc. In bad cases, you get Rockefeller/Carnegie, who crush unions with physical violence, and intimidate competitors. In good cases, you get iphones and such. FWIW, this approach is idealized by the libertarian, perhaps beyond where it ought to be.

Ms. Jacobs (and Mr. Roberts) though, seem to miss at least 3 other approaches all of which are approaches to life that have been around at least as long as the other 2.

The post started when I thought of Monks. Specifically, men (later women) of letters. Philosophers (Socrates), Churchmen (Aquinas), Scientists (Newton), and in my opinion Doctors, Psychologists, and Professors. These people truck in ideas. To a significant extent, the idea and the abstract structure are the means by which they live. Others come to them for their expertise/advice/help, but mostly in realms that are too abstract for the average person to identify the validity of the expert's advice. FWIW, this approach seems to be idealized by the progressive, perhaps beyond where it ought to be.

Mendicants (Beggars) have been around since the dawn of agriculture, and it would be remiss to ignore them in a categorization of methods of living. Some people, since the dawn of time, have begged for food/money, rather than trading or taking. This has also largely worked since the dawn of time. I don't know what to do with the category, or how to use it in thinking, but it's there.

Mothers have been around since the dawn of live birth. Without moving overmuch in a sexist direction, let us acknowledge the archetype of nurturing mother and disciplining father. This method of interacting with (part) of the world is characterized by gift. The mother gives to the child/dependent because it needs/wants it. No other reason. To not do so would violate a fundamental principle in the nature of the mother. I am inclined to suggest that this tendency is heavy in the progressive.

Malefactors are perhaps the worlds 3rd oldest profession. This should also be kept in mind.

Perhaps there is some useful thinking to be done around the question of how these 6 (I ran out of M's or I'd have kept going) interact with one another.

<EDIT timestamp="8:19 AM CST -- 10 August, 2009">
HAH! I found another one that's important:

Masses. The greater group of people who go about living their lives, subject to whatever pressures can be put upon them by masters, merchants, mendicants, mothers, and malefactors, while needing at least some help from the monks in difficult matters.
</EDIT>