"There is no "penalty", but payment. If the criminal party refuses to pay willingly, then there is war, and it will have to pay by force. But this war is only justified up to taking proper revenge, and taking back "too much" might raise an endless vendetta war. Hence everyone's interest in finding a peaceful agreement.
Both parties, as well as surrounding families, are interested in peace, and will thus seek a prompt agreement before court. The criminal, who is especially wary of possible revenge, and his whole family, who fears about an innocent being the victim of the revenge, will usually be the first one to seek refuge nearby a respected wise man and summon a court. Similarly, the offended party would seek a court agreement so to not to waste time and effort seeking a vengeance that could lead to a wasteful war." The above explains to paraphrase Hayek, "Why I am not a Libertarian (or Anarcho-Liberatarian)." We all can see societies operate on the above principles, the Yanomami in the Amazon, various tribes in Papua-New Guinea, Lebanon circa 1975-1990, the Balkans, and Somalia 1992 to present. The line "and taking back 'too much' might raise an endless vendetta war. Hence everyone's interest in finding a peaceful agreement." is OBVIOUSLY untrue. In all these societies VENDETTA and war are the result of one side taking "private" justice. Plus, the line "Both parties, as well as surrounding families, are interested in peace, and will thus seek a prompt agreement before court." is also obviously untrue.... The parties and their families ARE NOT INTERESTED IN PEACE, they are interested in survival, familial obligations, and power, hence WAR is often the preferable outcome rather than a court. Anarcho-Capitalism is flawed in that it assumes a degree of rationality and benefit maximization that humans do not truly exhibit. A monopoly justice system, tied to democracy is superior to either "private justice" or system of justice based on authoritarian principles. -----Original Message----- From: Francois-Rene Rideau [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 7:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: monopoly justice vs free market justice On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 11:11:27PM -0000, mitchinson wrote: > i don't know very much about it but recall from school that saxon and viking > societies used to have blood money payments for crimes. similarly i believe > that a payment to the victims family can be sufficient within the islamic > code providing that family agrees the sum. > > a self regulating solution? i believe there were also other penalties if > terms could not be agreed. There is no "penalty", but payment. If the criminal party refuses to pay willingly, then there is war, and it will have to pay by force. But this war is only justified up to taking proper revenge, and taking back "too much" might raise an endless vendetta war. Hence everyone's interest in finding a peaceful agreement. Both parties, as well as surrounding families, are interested in peace, and will thus seek a prompt agreement before court. The criminal, who is especially wary of possible revenge, and his whole family, who fears about an innocent being the victim of the revenge, will usually be the first one to seek refuge nearby a respected wise man and summon a court. Similarly, the offended party would seek a court agreement so to not to waste time and effort seeking a vengeance that could lead to a wasteful war. A party that would refuse to summon a court, or refuse to comply with court decisions would be a rogue, in whom no one would trust anymore, that would not find any protection by anyone anymore, not any work, etc. Such rogues would be at war with the whole society, and would not survive long. Si vis pacem para bellum. -- If you want peace, prepare war. That's exactly how free societies fight roguery. Not surprisingly, the same kind of things happened in lots of free society throughout the world and throughout times, a surviving example being Somaliland. [ Fran�ois-Ren� �VB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] [ TUNES project for a Free Reflective Computing System | http://tunes.org ] The more one knows, the more one knows that one knows not. Science extends the field of our (meta)ignorance even more than the field of our knowledge. -- Far�
