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.
Self-ownership does not allow for fraud or other aggression.
Well please explain to me, what happens when there is fraud or other aggression? Which WILL happen!
That depends on the society.
What happened under the (ancient) common law when such things occurred?
Hint: it didn't involve legislators or rulers.
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.
That's just it. My behavior is totally irrelevant. If you disagree with my position(s), then how I behave does not enter into the equation at all. You should argue my ideas on their own merits.
That's just it. My behavior is totally irrelevant. If you disagree with my position(s), then how I behave does not enter into the equation at all. You should argue my ideas on their own merits.
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.
How did the Saxons empanel a jury? Who enforced this?
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?
The 1215 charter required King John to proclaim certain liberties and accept that his will was not arbitrary—for example by explicitly accepting that no "freeman" (in the sense of non-serf) could be punished except through the law of the land [common law], a right that still exists under English law today.
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.
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, their presence 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.
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 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.
In the case you laid out, you clearly admitted to a form of rulers before I even called you out.
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.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.
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.
Well please explain to me, what happens when there is fraud or other aggression? Which WILL happen!
it is possible to have a responsible government based on a responsible constitution that recognizes and honors rights liberties, freedom.