Political Crossfire Forums

[Fido]

yojimbo22 wrote: heh, I can sympathise with your view, I myself very much like the honour systems that were evident in more ancient societies (myself I am particularly interested in ancient China and medieval Japan, but the western ones are also fascinating).

And our current legal systems do have some pretty idiotic laws.

However, could one not argue that our current legal systems, based on cannon law, talk of honouring society rather than the individual? After all, when someone dishonours another, even though it is true to say that the person deserves revenge, can't it be said that the act also dishonoured society's opinions and laws? and hence society should also be allowed to judge the individual?

interestingly, I do not believe this is in contradition with your view - society can judge in any way it pleases, choosing either justice or peace. It is just the case that our society chooses peace first.

The reverse could be possible, in fact, I would say that the idea of the duel that existed in Europe in the 19th century was one such case... I am not sure whether it was enshrined in the law that certain disputees were to be solved this way, but even if that were not the case, it would have still been a law created by society, because if it wasn't, then society would not have tolerated it and laws would have been made against the act.

It is hard for me to specualte which system is better, but it seems to me that in honour systems, although it worked, it caused society to split into classes because honour became a relative idea - offending the King's honour, or a Noble man's honour would have had very different consequences from that of offending a peasant's honour. This is probably the reason why I prefer our current legal systems, with all of its imprefections, as it does not create a strict class system (this is an opinion, not backed up by facts, but from the few societies I have studied, this seems reasonable... feel free to educate me if you know better :-D ...)

Anyway, this is all I can come up with for now, getting late... hopefully it makes at least some sense...

Another long post that I cannot exactly break up into individual quotes.
Let me try to make a point first from your last post, and it had to do with laws against child abuse. This is well and good, but if all other law is putting such a burden upon family as to make it ineffective in parenting for any number of reasons then it is too little. If law is leading to a situation where even big people feel powerless then little people are often going to feel it more. We know of primitive societies where honor is the economy, and where children are still heavily exploited; but where they are earning their keep even as virtual slaves they are still a part of some ones family, and if some one were to injure that child or kill that child it would steal honor from the whole family. Retrieving that family honor is the act of revenge. I think laws working against a symptom of the breakdown of the family and community will always be too little too late. It takes more than two parents to raise a child. The previous situation, and one that has come with us into modern times in some parts of the world actually worked. I am not suggesting primitive societies were better in every detail, but I doubt you would ever find anything like the crime problem we face in those societies. Unless you consider that the whole of any group might seem as criminal to any other Group.
So back on track.
I am talking about older times than the feudal ones you mention, in fact, upper or middle barbarian. Yet, Islam as a religion has managed to support an honor society, and group responsibility. And here the difference may be clearly seen between Western Law and Eastern. Western law treats the individual as a free agent, and treats individuals as equals supposedly. When tribal laws in Europe were first written down, a Kings peace was given a greater value than the peace of a commoner, but since they were written by clerics it is possible that they had their fingers on the scale. Since you mentioned feudalism, which as an economic system extended every where in the old world an the East. Law has changed the nature of human relations by changing the nature of our relations through property. Let me give you an example you may know. Peasants in China had What were called Bottom rights in property, and the lord or land lord had top rights; but just as in Europe neither could be said to own the land. It was not Alienable. From my understanding, we get our notion of common law by the fact that so much of property was held in common. Lords were Law Wards, justices of the peace in their own fief, but when law came to hold absolute sway, and peasants were reduced from their original status as co equal holders of the land to slaves -then a simple trick of law could change feudal property to private property with the support of the state. From this period of time, of enclosing the commons come our first concern with poverty. People were poor on the land, but with rights and resources. Of the land they were without rights, resources, and hope. But, here is the thing. Very often people were force to sell out, but what they were selling was only made salable by an act of law, and this selling disinherited children who had rights that like their parent's rights were not theirs to sell. They were common property, and community property; but in no sense private property. That is one reason why the Native Americans balked at selling the earth. Their hold was as tenuous upon the land as their dead grand parent's grip had been; but no one owned it, because all possessed it.
Law, even while giving individuals rights took rights from children. They could legally be made to slave as Abraham Lincoln was to his father, to use or hire out.
If we look at women we can see that the influence of the church which was not the law, but the force which molded law into its modern form- improved their situation in many respects. I think Nietzsche, who was wrong about many things pointed the finger justly at the church for the degraded condition of European populations. If you look at it, Germanic tribes were world conquerors, but under the influence of the church they were almost all reduced to the level of serfs in a short time. As you seem to mention, the lords had honor, and honor enough to fight over it, but for the rest it became a secondary consideration at best.
me tired, worked hard,same tomorrow,bye.

[sparsely]

CrossEyedMary wrote: Demonic Spoon wrote: Ultimate, 100% freedom is ideal.

That is, you have the freedom to do whatever you want as long as it does not infringe on others' freedoms.
But even that's not 100% freedom. If I can't do what I want because it will infringe on others' freedoms, that's not 100% freedom. With that being said, I agree completely. :-D

well, you still can do it.
You're not prevented from it.
But be aware that when you do, you will be held responsible for it by society.
That is, in a society that cares about one another.

[swkelley]

I agree that freedom is to be who you want to be without doing to others that you would have done to you. Pretty simple but the cost of freedom is getting expensive, don't you think?
I don't think we have the freedoms we use to because any action I take in this world will infringe on the freedom of someone else.

[yojimbo22]

"I am not suggesting primitive societies were better in every detail, but I doubt you would ever find anything like the crime problem we face in those societies."

True, I would probably agree with you here, though I would argue that punishments for breaking laws in society have generally been getting less severe, especially from the 19th century onwards, so this is what I believe is the reason for more crime today - less discouragement. This does not mean I think stricter punishments should be introduced, because now there has appeared the argument of rehabilitation v punishment, which (although I cannot back it up) probably did not play until modern times, as punishment was seen as the only method to stop criminal acts.


On your paragraph describing the transition between common property and private property, I now see your point, and I can't argue against history, but to me, it is just that: history. The problem with your argument, for me, is that it is accurate to say that in the past, the law allowed for the selling of children. However, that is not the case today, in fact it is strictly forbidden to do so.

Trying to discredit the current legal system by saying that in the past it was immoral doesn't work... Simply because International Law allowed for the aquisition of land through conquest in the 19th century doesn't mean that the law automatically becomes invalid today because it didn't suit today's norms back then... This argument is only useful if you believe that legan norms should stay constant over time and that change should not occur.



A thought that just popped into my head is random, but somewhat interesting.

There are three aspects that any law tries to satisfy - one is to prevent similar acts from occurring in the future, the second is to punish the act that occurred and the third is, possibly, to seek revenge for the victims of the crime.

I think the honour system, as you state it, would have been better at the first because any retribution would have been so much more certain and instantly possible. But in the sense that each act deserves its own, specific punishment and as our current legal systems makes this principle a priority, it is better at punishing people.

The third principle would better be satisfied by the honour system, but I think this would only be the case because more serious punishments would be allowed... although something like the death penalty in the US does allow a certain amount of personal revenge, even if not at the hand of the victim.

The question is then which of these three is most important to someone...
I find prevention as being the most important aspect of law, and punishment as secondary... having never experienced any wish for revenge against anyone, I don't find any need for it

Continuing with revenge, the problem I have with any system based on it is that, like with all humanity, the logical "tit for tat" argument is not something we care much about. A perfect example of this would be the Cold War because neither the US or USSR decided to stop building up arsenals after each had their round...

Also, the person seeking revenge would not always attempt to be proportionate... Israel today could be an example of that today...

This is mainly why honour systems based on revenge are not something that I think can work fairly...

[Fido]

yojimbo22 wrote: "I am not suggesting primitive societies were better in every detail, but I doubt you would ever find anything like the crime problem we face in those societies."

True, I would probably agree with you here, though I would argue that punishments for breaking laws in society have generally been getting less severe, especially from the 19th century onwards, so this is what I believe is the reason for more crime today - less discouragement. This does not mean I think stricter punishments should be introduced, because now there has appeared the argument of rehabilitation v punishment, which (although I cannot back it up) probably did not play until modern times, as punishment was seen as the only method to stop criminal acts.


------------It is hard to imagine some punishments as less severe when they are punishments for that which should not at all be a crime. We have people out early for crimes of violence when the greatest part of people in penitentiary are for drug use or traffic, and for property crimes. I am not in favor of either, but if one compares the potential danger of these crimes compared to even vehicular homicide -then long term punishment is not in order. But property must be protected even at the expense of personal safety. Why? Has a man's property in this land of plenty the same relationship with survival as it did 500 years ago or more? This society might well make anyone whole who is the victim of property crime, but instead devotes an enormous treasure to the conviction and punishment of property crime. Is this not just a impingement upon the freedoms of all, but on the budgets of all; when if property were made to defend itself as it clearly does with private police, and justify its own existence with positive proof of its social value -as it does not now do then -peace and justice would result. If property were respected as the extension of the owner, and property had no separate rights to be balanced against personal right, and no one could respectably own more than he could defend or pay fairly for defense of -then human rights would stand a chance. Fido


On your paragraph describing the transition between common property and private property, I now see your point, and I can't argue against history, but to me, it is just that: history. The problem with your argument, for me, is that it is accurate to say that in the past, the law allowed for the selling of children. However, that is not the case today, in fact it is strictly forbidden to do so.


-------Do not believe that the economy does not permit the selling of children's rights, and of a bargaining of these against property. White slavery, and slavery of children is a world wide problem. Compared to other forms of exploitation sexual exploitation is no different, no better, and no worse than. But the main point is that in regard to history- relationships through property, and the nature of property along with hereditary rights in property is a quality that has changed over time in part through the action of law. If those relationships through property do not serve the needs of the people of this nation or world there is a clear precedence for change. If there is a lesson in this case from history, it is that humans lose rights as property gains rights, and that the situation is not fixed no matter how much those on the winning side want to believe it is. The rediscover of the Justinian code introduced a new sense of property into the thoughts of middle-age jurists, and churchmen. Yet a study of Roman history is riff with the failures of private property to defend the state or to ensure Justice. We have picked up the remnant economy of a failed state and have played that economy to the breaking point. Why do as a nation that which we would not do as individuals, which is to persist in failure? Fido

Trying to discredit the current legal system by saying that in the past it was immoral doesn't work... Simply because International Law allowed for the aquisition of land through conquest in the 19th century doesn't mean that the law automatically becomes invalid today because it didn't suit today's norms back then... This argument is only useful if you believe that legan norms should stay constant over time and that change should not occur.

--------My complaint against the legal system is that it is immoral now. It takes power from people without giving peace. The source of morality is community and law works against community and destroys the policing ability of people. I do not believe law or any other institution should remain constant. Constance is the problem. People relate formally through institutions and more or less informally without formal rules or institutions. The real constant, and the only important constant is the living people relating in institutions. It is pointless to preserve institutions because they served the purposes of people long dead. Like wise, to work for posterity when posterity doesn't care, or suffers not a part of the living is daft. If I were to suggest a constant guide to all law it would be the one it has in reality: Justice. The dead don't need justice and the unborn do not need it. To do justice to the living does justice to the dead and the unborn. Fido

A thought that just popped into my head is random, but somewhat interesting.

There are three aspects that any law tries to satisfy - one is to prevent similar acts from occurring in the future, the second is to punish the act that occurred and the third is, possibly, to seek revenge for the victims of the crime.

I think the honour system, as you state it, would have been better at the first because any retribution would have been so much more certain and instantly possible. But in the sense that each act deserves its own, specific punishment and as our current legal systems makes this principle a priority, it is better at punishing people.


-------In an honor system there is no defense against a man who catches within a reasonable time that man who injured him. Beyond a certain time honor was an accepted quantity who value was yet to be determined in Moots, or Dooms- community courts that brought offending and offended parties together to work a deal. In this sense, with a payment of goods even a man's life in the case of a capital crime might be spared. What is not obvious in this situation is that every punishment like every crime is individual, and tailored to the people involved and the conditions. Law has made justice and punishment an individual affair, without group responsibility. But in treating the individual it has sought an equality of treatment that is the denial of individuality and of variability of circumstances. Increased individuality has not resulted from laws. Rather we punish individuality, and outlaws have become our heroes.It is wrong to assume that tribal peoples had less law. Law was rather an idea than an institution. They had less crime because both community control and community responsibility worked to control behavior. Law has made itself a master of people at the expense of community, which must idly watch as its members are prosecuted.. Fido


The third principle would better be satisfied by the honour system, but I think this would only be the case because more serious punishments would be allowed... although something like the death penalty in the US does allow a certain amount of personal revenge, even if not at the hand of the victim.

The question is then which of these three is most important to someone...
I find prevention as being the most important aspect of law, and punishment as secondary... having never experienced any wish for revenge against anyone, I don't find any need for it

Continuing with revenge, the problem I have with any system based on it is that, like with all humanity, the logical "tit for tat" argument is not something we care much about. A perfect example of this would be the Cold War because neither the US or USSR decided to stop building up arsenals after each had their round...

Also, the person seeking revenge would not always attempt to be proportionate... Israel today could be an example of that today...

This is mainly why honour systems based on revenge are not something that I think can work fairly...

I doubt revenge did much more than drive other methods of reaching justice, which was primarily Democratic. Revenge, dependent upon group authority and group responsibility was never exactly just, nor proportionate. But is made it essential for communities to control their own with the same diligence that they watched others. As in the social contract idea, people gave up their right to immediate violence and revenge to have justice through law. Only lawyers are empowered by law. But I believe that if that sword were always drawn, and if Law did not deliver justice then the community would the possibility is that law would make justice the object of law rather that being only an exercise of arbitrary power and coercion. Law makes lawlessness.

I know I am not answering all your questions, but trust me, I'll be glad to talk about this until I do. I recommend a book called : Law and Revolution, whcih gives a good brief of Tribal law in Europe before the end of the first millenium. Thanks.
fido

[yojimbo22]

thanks to you too, and I'll get that book, sounds interesting :-D

Ilya

[Fido]

yojimbo22 wrote: thanks to you too, and I'll get that book, sounds interesting :-D

Ilya

I would have you consider some other good reading: Indians of the Western Great Lakes, Marriage and kinship in Early Arabia, and The Gift, I believe by Marcel Mauss. The first has examples of feud justice and the rules of the game, the second has examples of feud justice, but also since a marriage is the reciprocal of the exchange of violence in the the feud. The giving of gifts, like wives is also a reciprocal relationship to the feud, carrying for primitive peoples a transfer of honor in opposition to the loss of honor that occurs with a theft. And it was our original commerce. Forgive my lack of Authors. I have so many books in so many cubbies that I cannot always lay my hands on them when I want. Fido

[demt]

how many times democracy is merely the stepping stone with witch to build a better system of govt
instead of read a good book get in on the act of promoting

equalpay
job rotation(clever)
3 day week

gad its as simple as were good with ques

any way theres more on the blog pg demt http://www.twta5t.co.uk


n sum music n vids n all


DEMT the home of reason

[infoterror]

WorldCitizenMovement wrote: How much freedom is enough?

I'm not sure we need all that much "freedom." More like we need space. Freedom implies political action and weird lifestyles. Most of those end up being destructive and non-procreative anyway.

[Fido]

infoterror wrote: WorldCitizenMovement wrote: How much freedom is enough?

I'm not sure we need all that much "freedom." More like we need space. Freedom implies political action and weird lifestyles. Most of those end up being destructive and non-procreative anyway.

This is probably one of those baits I end up swallowing hook, line, pole, and boat over.

Some people want to destroy themselves. Some people seek weirdness amid the stifling sameness of a meaningless individualism. My bet is that slavery results in more self destructive behavior than does freedom. With freedom comes wealth and hope. With slavery comes the need to prove ones reality and life even with the destruction of life and reality. Pro creation comes with having freedom to share. Abortion is proof that misery does not love company, but rather seeks love alone, or meaning.
If we wonder why some seek wealth and yet no wealth is enough it is because wealth alone is not freedom. Where wealth is founded on slavery all people rich or poor are slaves. We have that freedom we allow and no more. No arbitrary limits may justly be placed on freedom. If my freedom must accommodate yours it should be with recognition that circumstances rather than persons, personalities, or privilege is the cause of the limit upon freedom. Equality and Justice are the legs freedom gets around on. If these are cut off, freedom is found begging.