J_dazzle23
Regular Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2013
- Messages
- 643
Most of these are due to war. Imo that is a far cry than domestic deaths.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
~ 250 million non-military personnel were killed by governments last century
- Thread starter state hater
- Start date
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Well please explain to me, what happens when there is fraud or other aggression? Which WILL happen!
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
That depends on the society.
What happened under the (ancient) common law when such things occurred?
Hint: it didn't involve legislators or rulers.
Last edited:
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Please explain more with examples?
Even gorillas have alphas, so do wolves, every place there are rules there are rulers. And as far as I know mob rule has never worked.
Last edited:
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Well, the Saxons would have empaneled a jury, and likely whacked the guilty party with a hefty amercement for fraud. Whether he would be fined or killed for murder would likely depend on the specific time, place, jury, etc.
Mob rule is, indeed, the sort of "worst case" scenario here. The thing to recognize is that government doesn't actually do much to mitigate that. For instance, even in the US a jury can occasionally be corrupted by "mob mentality". (Example: the "Scottsoboro Boys" case.)
On a bigger scale, when you consider the demagoguery of, say, Hitler, and watch some of the Nazi party rallies from that era, government itself can be little more than "mob rule".
"Mob rule" is a product of groupthink and tribalism, together the two most dangerous instincts humans possess (although tribalism at least had value – from an evolutionary perspective). I don't believe there is any system by which these things can be eliminated outright, expect perhaps by a totalitarian state run by an AI. So, the ideal is whichever society results in less "mob rule" and its terrible consequences.
Personally, I tend to think that, without government, the worst thing "mob rule" results in is the occasional unjust jury, perhaps a pogrom or two (although perhaps not, given that these are usually inspired by demagoguery, which is itself incentivized by the availability of power created by the existence and acceptance of a powerful state). With government, the worst thing "mob rule" results in is the Holocaust or the USSR.
Me, I pick anarchism.
Last edited:
Primus
Regular Member
Guess you've never heard....
Its not WHAT you say its HOW you say it....
And that is the God's honest truth.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
That depends on an audience invested enough to pay strict adherence to the conventions of debate.
But how can you hope to have such an audience when you yourself refuse to show the decorum, avoidance of ad hominems and other fallacies, etc. which are part and parcel of rational debate?
Basically, you're trying to have your cake and eat it, too. Be respectful, courteous, rational, and carefully avoid the use of fallacies. Then you will be in a position to cry foul when your opponents refuse to follow suit.
Otherwise it's just children screaming at each other that they're both right, if only the other would stop throwing insults long enough to see it.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
How did the Saxons empanel a jury? Who enforced this?
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Juries were empaneled by lot, drawing upon the community.
Enforcement was accomplished through outlawry. A person who refused to show up for trial, or a person who refused to pay amercement was declared an outlaw. In fact, generally folks wouldn't be directly sentenced to death. If the crime was sufficiently heinous, they would be directly declared outlaws by the jury. Once declared an outlaw, the individual was beyond protection of the law, and could be defrauded, stolen from, and even killed on a whim by passersby (or the family of the aggrieved if they felt like starting a feud).
These laws and their enforcement mechanism were the product of social agreement, not the dictums of rulers.
Last edited:
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
In the Dark Ages during the fifth and sixth centuries, communities of peoples in Britain inhabited homelands with ill-defined borders. Such communities were organised and led by chieftains or kings.
https://www.royal.gov.uk/Historyoft...nsofEngland/TheAnglo-Saxonkings/Overview.aspx
Are these the Saxons you speak of, or is it another society of Saxons?
https://www.royal.gov.uk/Historyoft...nsofEngland/TheAnglo-Saxonkings/Overview.aspx
Are these the Saxons you speak of, or is it another society of Saxons?
Last edited:
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
I hope you weren't thinking you'd caught me with my pants down or something.
Consider the Magna Carta.
The primary purpose was, in effect, to once again force the king to resort to a jury before he could enforce any of his edicts. This way, the jury was ensured the ultimate "veto" power – the ability to refuse to recognize or enforce edicts of the king which were in conflict with the common law.
Kings and Chieftains were not granted unilateral authority (at least until the Norman invasion). They operated on a (mostly) voluntary basis, securing loyalty (and money) in exchange for assuring mutual protection, providing organization and military leadership under a figurehead who (hopefully) could, in effect, "unite the clans" in times of invasion.
"Kings and Chieftains" were, in fact, the basis of the system of military defense, but not the basis of the system of legal justice, nor a source of "legislation". And – although this is a bit alien for someone living under modern government – there really isn't any intrinsic connection between these two systems.
The day-to-day criminal and civil law was the common law, and edicts by the local king had only the weight which was assigned to them by juries, as juries were the only bodies legally empowered to actually deprive freemen of their property or status.
Now, I'm sure some kings were abusive of their de facto military strength (especially after an invasion), but as it happens I don't actually advocate the "Chieftain" model for military defense. I believe the militia system is far more workable, especially since the invention of the firearm.
There's no reason you couldn't combine a militia system of defense with a common law system of justice. There is no inherent connection between the common law system of justice and the "Chieftain" model for military defense.
Last edited:
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
I hope you weren't thinking you'd caught me with my pants down or something.
Consider the Magna Carta.
Kings and Chieftains were not granted unilateral authority (at least until the Norman invasion). They operated on a (mostly) voluntary basis, securing loyalty (and money) in exchange for assuring mutual protection, providing organization and military leadership under a figurehead who (hopefully) could, in effect, "unite the clans" in times of invasion. "Kings and Chieftains" were, in fact, the basis of the system of military defense, not the system of legal justice. And – although this is a bit alien for someone living under modern government – there really isn't much of an intrinsic connection between these two systems.
The day-to-day criminal and civil law was the common law, and edicts by the local king had only the weight which was assigned to them by juries, as juries were the only bodies legally empowered to actually deprive freemen of their property or status.
Now, I'm sure some kings were abusive of their de facto military strength (especially after an invasion), but as it happens I don't actually advocate the "Chieftain" model for military defense. I believe the militia system is far more workable, especially since the invention of the firearm.
There's no reason you couldn't combine a militia system of defense with a common law system of justice. There is no inherent connection between the common law system of justice and the "Chieftain" model for military defense.
Was there kings and chieftains? Our government is not much different except that it has become bloated. The voter, and constitutional conventions among other means are the juries. Yes I believe I caught you with your pants down.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
It seems you either didn't read, or didn't grok, what I wrote.
As I argued quite thoroughly, these kings had essentially zero ability to "rule", because they were unable to enforce their edicts. So, the existence of a king does not imply the existence of -archy (although neither does it necessarily imply anarchy). King simply did not mean what you seem to think it meant. "Chieftain" is a better word, semantically if not etymologically. Again, they met a market demand for the provision and organization of mutual military defense, but they did not rule as a matter of course.
The juries of today have little to do with the juries of then, thanks to excessive voir dire (notice that's a French – i.e. Norman – term) and the refusal to accept jurors who are aware of their (common law) right of jury nullification.
We might have anarchism (self-rule) under the US government IF juries were not subject to voir dire (beyond the most egregious instances of conflict of interest), were empaneled at random, and were fully informed and aware of their right to nullify.
Last edited:
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
To put this simply there is no rule without rulers, it will be either mob rule, government rule, or rule monarch or other system. There will be some at the top, and some at the bottom. I dare you to show me one society without any rules or some form of social contract to be responsible for those rules. It just does not exist, it is pie in the sky. Sorry...
In the case you laid out, you clearly admitted to a form of rulers before I even called you out. I know you want hard to believe in this, but it just is not possible and NEVER will happen. But it is possible to have a responsible government based on a responsible constitution that recognizes and honors rights liberties, freedom. It also would not be ruled by the mob, or ruled by one leader, and decisions on rule of law would solely be controlled by the constitution.
Last edited:
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
No, I didn't. I clearly explained how they were not rulers, and then I clearly re-explained it since you failed to pay attention.
If you're going to resort to this crap (which is borderline lying) again, I'm not going to continue to engage you.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
But they ARE RULERS, that is called group rule, smaller groups(juries) enforcing rules. As long as there are rules and those rules are enforced there are rulers.
That is why they are called rulers, ya know as in rules. Again I know you really want to believe in anarchy but it is pie in the sky.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
OK, I've never argued against "rules". I'm certain you know this. "Rules" do not have to come from "rulers". In the context of common law, "rules" are guidelines describing the spontaneous social order, essentially things you should do to avoid running afoul of a jury. The proof that they do not come from external "rulers" is the fact that you (should you be accused) are allowed to defend yourself, which provides you with an opportunity to be part of the process by which the rule is decided, and thus (in part) "rule yourself".
Now you're just playing word games. Anarchism is consistently argued to mean "without rulers, but not necessarily without rules". By rulers we mean folks who put themselves above others and pass laws, dictums, edicts etc. which they claim are binding on others.
Juries enforce "rules", yes. But these rules are spontaneous, not declared by an explicit "ruler". Often they aren't even precisely defined until in response to a mutually-recognized act of aggression. This is self-rule, and it's been distinguished from by rule by autocrats and the like for centuries at least.
I'm not sure what you think you're gaining by pretending that there is absolutely no difference between self-rule and rule-by-edict, but the whole point of anarchism is that there is a difference, and that this difference is of fundamental import. When you gloat over your victory against "ruleless" society, that's an empty victory over a straw man, not anarchist philosophy.
Last edited:
state hater
Banned
state hater
Banned
When has that ever happened?