See, this is why I think you are interpreting through a very specific lens, and I am not convinced it applies.
"Landed gentry", for example, is a particularly British was of looking at things. Your source [1] says "Using a feudal metaphor that many Native Hawaiian scholars reject today, Richards described the problems with several layers of chiefs, all of whom could demand ho‘okupu." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism notes issues in extending concepts from feudalism to other cultures).
I know in ethnology there was a long history of viewing everything through a Western European structure, even when it disagreed with the data. It's taken ethnologists a long time to pull back some of those blinders. From what I understand, ethnologists are often annoyed at economists who keep using outdated ethnology. (For a traditional example, the idea that before money there was only barter, when no culture has ever been shown to be based on a barter economy.)
Why then should I not trust the Native Hawaiian scholars who presumably have a better understanding of the topic and say this was neither a tax nor feudal?
> Even paying tribute to the gods is a form of tax, because people are afraid that if they don't pay tribute
Yes, squint hard enough and anything can be tax.
If a husband and wife decide to merge incomes, with the wife deciding how the money will be spent, that could be seen as a 100% tax on the man's income.
(Yes, either one could decide to not continue this arrangement. The materials you points to also highlight that Hawaiians were not bound to the land, and could move should the chief not be to their liking.)
If a skilled slave is sent to do work on another estate, and the slavemaster profits from it, giving the slave only room and board, that could also be seen as a tax, yes?
But it doesn't seem like a useful way to describe either relationship.
Which is why the "Prostitution among animals" gives alternatives, like "The researchers speculate about the possible genetic fitness advantages and disadvantages of the practice, and aren't altogether sure that the female copulates mainly in order to obtain a stone" and "females within the meat-sharing community tend to copulate with males of their own meat-sharing community. Direct exchange of meat for sex has not been observed", with only a single example of the latter exchange among capuchin monkeys.
Or from my link, using the phrase "reciprocal altruism" instead of "monetary system"?
Is "reciprocal altruism" always the same as "monetary system"?
FWIW, I entered this thread to respond to
kspacewalk2s assertion about "money", at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38060762 , not "monetary system". According to kspacewalk2s, money is required to have trade and specialization for any culture beyond a few thousand people. I think you agree that Hawaiians did not have "money" before European contact, correct?
"Landed gentry", for example, is a particularly British was of looking at things. Your source [1] says "Using a feudal metaphor that many Native Hawaiian scholars reject today, Richards described the problems with several layers of chiefs, all of whom could demand ho‘okupu." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism notes issues in extending concepts from feudalism to other cultures).
I know in ethnology there was a long history of viewing everything through a Western European structure, even when it disagreed with the data. It's taken ethnologists a long time to pull back some of those blinders. From what I understand, ethnologists are often annoyed at economists who keep using outdated ethnology. (For a traditional example, the idea that before money there was only barter, when no culture has ever been shown to be based on a barter economy.)
Why then should I not trust the Native Hawaiian scholars who presumably have a better understanding of the topic and say this was neither a tax nor feudal?
> Even paying tribute to the gods is a form of tax, because people are afraid that if they don't pay tribute
Yes, squint hard enough and anything can be tax.
If a husband and wife decide to merge incomes, with the wife deciding how the money will be spent, that could be seen as a 100% tax on the man's income.
(Yes, either one could decide to not continue this arrangement. The materials you points to also highlight that Hawaiians were not bound to the land, and could move should the chief not be to their liking.)
If a skilled slave is sent to do work on another estate, and the slavemaster profits from it, giving the slave only room and board, that could also be seen as a tax, yes?
But it doesn't seem like a useful way to describe either relationship.
Which is why the "Prostitution among animals" gives alternatives, like "The researchers speculate about the possible genetic fitness advantages and disadvantages of the practice, and aren't altogether sure that the female copulates mainly in order to obtain a stone" and "females within the meat-sharing community tend to copulate with males of their own meat-sharing community. Direct exchange of meat for sex has not been observed", with only a single example of the latter exchange among capuchin monkeys.
Or from my link, using the phrase "reciprocal altruism" instead of "monetary system"?
Is "reciprocal altruism" always the same as "monetary system"?
FWIW, I entered this thread to respond to kspacewalk2s assertion about "money", at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38060762 , not "monetary system". According to kspacewalk2s, money is required to have trade and specialization for any culture beyond a few thousand people. I think you agree that Hawaiians did not have "money" before European contact, correct?