[eesmith]

When you say "taxes", I worry that your are imposing your view on the system.

Your [1] starts "The concept of private property was unknown to ancient Hawaiians" and says:

> Many Native Hawaiian scholars today make a distinction between the annual exchange before and after written tax law. Ho‘okupu, the term used for the exchange before written tax law, is similar to ‘auhau, the term used after written tax law was instituted. Both refer to the requirement to provide labor or a portion of an individual’s labor production to a governmental agent, but as noted earlier, ho’okupu literally means “to cause to grow.”

> Some Native Hawaiian scholars believe that ho‘o kupu and tax are antithetical ideas, because, they argue, ho‘okupu was generated by the person who gives, while taxes were demanded from the person or group that receives.

Your [3] points out "Actually because the chief upon whose lands they lived owned all the land and resources in an ahupua'a, in a sense the tenants were only giving these resources to the rightful owner, in a useful form and upon demand, on a gift-tax basis."

If you own everything, how do you tax it?

If you own no private property, what does it mean to tax it?

Animals exchange goods - does that make it a monetary system? Eg, "Reciprocal Trading of Different Commodities in Norway Rats" at https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(18)30003... .

Why does Wikipedia list non-monetary cultures?

[0xbadcafebee]

Every article I found on the history of the practice stated they were taxes. They were called "tributes" at the time, but the practice of landed gentry getting payment in exchange for protecting (or not hurting) you is a form of tax, regardless of whether you're doing it willingly or not. Even paying tribute to the gods is a form of tax, because people are afraid that if they don't pay tribute, the gods will be angered and destroy their crops. Tax is really just materials the powerful use to rule or control.

Property ownership is not inherent to taxation, there are many forms of tax.

There's no reason animals can't have a monetary system. We are animals after all, even if some people like to pretend we're not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_among_animals

[eesmith]

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?