This was printed in the Voluntaryist this last issue.
http://markshep.com/nonviolence/GT_Court.html
The true practice of law is to unite parties riven asunder.
?Gandhi
Book cover: Gandhi TodayThe girl sat cross-legged on the ground, a long scarf pulled over her head to hide her face. She was sixteen years old, as was the boy sitting beside her.
She wanted a divorce.
After three years of marriage (the girl said), the boy and his father were mistreating her, making her eat outside the house, and roughing her up. She had had enough.
The man hearing her case was short and stocky, with loose tan clothing and a white kerchief over his hair. He sat at a small wooden table with papers spread on it, in the shade of a large tree at one edge of a raised-earth platform. Before him and to the sides of him on the platform, sitting on the ground and facing him, were about 200 adivasis?tribal people of an aboriginal race found in many parts of India.
The man gently pointed out to the girl that the boy wanted her to return home to him. ?Will you go back and try again if he says he won?t act that way anymore??
The girl held firm.
The man pressed her, still gently: ?What are your conditions? We can fine him, punish him, anything.? But the girl remained unmoved.
Finally the man agreed that the marriage should end.
?Is there a problem in returning a dowry?? he asked. There was no dowry in this case, he was told.
?Any children?? No. ?Inside?? No.
The girl owned a few things that she had left at the boy?s house, and the boy owned a few things the girl had taken away with her. The value was about equal, so the man declared it an even trade.
The man wrote out the decision, and the boy and the girl thumbprinted it. The adivasi villagers gave it official approval with a shout of ?Mahatma Gandhi ki jai!? (?Victory to Mahatma Gandhi!?) Someone started through the crowd, passing out jaggery?chunks of unrefined sugar, the traditional adivasi token of reconciliation.
With that case concluded, the man turned his attention to the two other cases for the afternoon: a dispute between a father and a husband over who should pay a young woman?s medical expenses; and another about a saddle that had been borrowed but not returned.
The man was Harivallabh Parikh, and he was presiding over the People?s Court.
* * *
Gandhi had always warned his village workers not to get involved in village disputes. But sometimes circumstances call for some bending of the rules.
That?s what happened to Harivallabh Parikh.
Harivallabh had been trained in village development work at Gandhi?s own Ashram. Soon after India achieved its independence, Harivallabh decided to find a village to settle in. So he started hiking through a region of eastern Gujarat state populated mostly by adivasis.
After passing through about 200 villages, he stopped at one to restock his supplies.
?I came into the village to buy some grain,? he told me, ?and sat down at a stone-mill to grind it. It?s unusual to see a man hand-grinding, so I soon had a large audience to talk to.?
The villagers hoped Harivallabh might set up a shop in their village, so they invited him to settle there. Harivallabh accepted and left to fetch his wife and a few belongings.
But while he was gone, local officials and moneylenders learned of his plans. Figuring that this could mean an end to their taking advantage of the uneducated and unorganized adivasis, they threatened the villagers, warning them not to accept the newcomers.
When Harivallabh and his wife arrived a few weeks later, they found that most of the villagers wouldn?t even talk to them. They were forced to live in the open under a tree. They spent the first few days singing devotional songs, making friends with the children, and talking with a few brave adults.
Though Harivallabh remembered Gandhi?s advice, disputes were mostly what he heard about from the few villagers who would speak to him; so he saw no way to avoid getting involved. Quarrels were common in the villages around there and could easily lead to murder, even over minor matters. There was also much mistreatment of wives by their husbands.
?In the old days, village councils used to settle disputes,? Harivallabh said. ?But the people lost faith in the councils when they became tools of the corrupt government and police. That was why disputes in this area started getting out of hand.?
Meanwhile, modern legal institutions didn?t do nearly as good a job of maintaining order and harmony in communities.
Gandhi, himself a lawyer, had been a harsh critic of the legal system introduced by the British. ?The lawyers have enslaved India,? Gandhi wrote. The lawyers preyed on quarrels, making them worse by dragging them out and by trying to get the most for their clients?all the while draining their clients? cash.
Harivallabh convinced some of the villagers to let him try to settle their disputes. Sometimes he marked a spot equal in distance from the disputants? homes, where they could meet without loss of prestige. He was often able to settle the disputes in a way both sides could accept.
It was from these beginnings that the People?s Court grew.
Meanwhile, Harivallabh?s patience had won out. The villagers had figured out a way to avoid reprisals on any one family by the moneylenders and officials: They lodged the couple for a short time in each of the village cottages.
A little later, the villagers built the couple a canopy to stay under. Several months after that, Harivallabh got a grant of government land nearby. There he built his ashram?Anand Niketan, ?Abode of Joy.?
Over 30 years later, Harivallabh was overseeing development of 1100 adivasi villages, totaling 1-1/2 million people.
But the heart of the program, he said, was still the People?s Court.
* * *
In 1978, when I visited, the People?s Court had become the high court of a judiciary system based in the villages.
?Most cases are handled in the new village councils,? Harivallabh said. ?It?s only the cases they find too hard to handle that are sent here.? Many of the spectators at the court were village leaders who came to watch each session as a form of training.
In three decades, the People?s Court itself had handled over 30,000 cases of all kinds. Most of these were marriage quarrels, with property disputes next in number. But the court also handled criminal cases?assault, theft, even murder.
The People?s Court usually met once or twice a month. Between times, complaints were accepted by the secretary of the court, who issued summonses to the people involved.
?Often it?s the guilty person who makes the complaint, to keep it out of the government courts,? Harivallabh said. Even reluctant villagers usually responded to the court?s summonses, since the community expected them to. But not always.
?If someone doesn?t turn up in two or three sessions,? Harivallabh said, ?we send 50 to 100 people to talk to them and persuade them. If that doesn?t work, we send 500, or start fasting in front of their house.? Eventually the person would come.
When a case came before the court, each side would tell its story, while Harivallabh asked questions. Other witnesses would be called. Then Harivallabh would state how he understood the case, to check that he?d gotten it straight.
If the case was fairly simple, he would then give a judgment. A harder case would be referred to a jury selected from friends of each side. In these cases, Harivallabh would step in only if the jury couldn?t reach a decision.
This was the basic order of procedure, but it was followed only loosely. The People?s Court was very informal.
The court?s judgments, like its summonses, were almost always respected. When they weren?t, the villagers enforced them in the same ways.
But these judgments were seldom a great burden on the guilty. They were aimed mainly at giving fair compensation for wrongs and at making peace between the two sides; often they were only token. This was because the court?s power to keep peace was based not on the threat of punishment but on the moral pressure of the community, directed by the court.
For the adivasis, the court was a means to quick, efficient justice, without resort to expensive, drawn-out legal proceedings?proceedings that often fueled bitterness and caused great hardship for one or both parties. And because the People?s Court was so close at hand, it helped settle conflicts before they got out of control.
?When I arrived, there were two or three murders in this area every week,? Harivallabh said. ?Now that?s down to three or four a year.? The rate of marital separations had also gone down.
Finally, the People?s Court was a means of social education. Harivallabh used the court to promote high standards of conduct, fair play, justice, and accountability to the community.
As might be expected, the government courts were not always happy about Harivallabh?s efforts to take their place?especially in criminal cases. Harivallabh told of a run-in with the government regarding one of the more than 200 murder cases tried by the People?s Court.
?A few years back, a villager named Fatu borrowed a pair of chickens from his neighbor Ramji to feed a guest. Later on, Fatu refused to pay back the chickens. There was an argument. Fatu shot Ramji with an arrow and killed him, in front of Ramji?s wife.?
Fatu rushed to Harivallabh and told him what he had done.
The case was brought before the People?s Court. ?The judgment was that Fatu would farm Ramji?s land for the family, until Ramji?s son was old enough to handle it. And that Fatu would eat one meal a week with Ramji?s family.
?In the beginning, Fatu resisted going over for his meal, because he was afraid to. When he did start going, the family at first served him his meal outside the door. But, gradually, friendly relations were restored.?
Of course, none of this was legal. More trouble came when the police learned of the case and arrested Fatu. ?But when they brought him to trial, no one came to testify. The police had to explain to the judge that the case had already been settled by the People?s Court.?
The judge sent for Harivallabh. Harivallabh reasoned with the judge in private: ?Ramji was killed. Now you want to kill Fatu. Who will look after the family?? He convinced the judge that Fatu should be let off. So the judge sent for Fatu and told him that when he returned to the court he should claim the killing was self-defense.
Now, even though adivasi custom accepts killing, lying is considered unpardonable. Fatu told the judge he couldn?t do it.
The judge turned to Harivallabh for help.
?I would normally consider myself a devotee of Truth,? Harivallabh told me. ?But in this case, I urged Fatu to go along with the judge.?
Fatu was finally persuaded. But, back in the courtroom, the effort proved too much for him. He blurted out that the killing hadn?t been self-defense at all and, what?s more, that the judge had told him to lie about it!
The judge declared that Fatu must be a madman. He quickly adjourned the court until the next day, when the court would hear the only eyewitness: Ramji?s wife.
The next day Ramji?s wife took the stand. She told the court that her husband had been killed by a stranger and that Fatu hadn?t even been in the village that day. (Harivallabh had supplied her the story.)
?So, Fatu was acquitted. And, since that time, the government hasn?t brought to trial any case settled in the People?s Court.?
* * *
Though the government began leaving the People?s Court alone, the People?s Court did not always leave the government alone. Government officials have themselves sometimes had to answer to the court.
One case involved three forest rangers who were collecting taxes from the adivasis. The rangers were demanding twice what was owed and pocketing half. This was reported to the People?s Court, which took statements from the villagers and then sent summonses to the rangers. One ranger came to the court and confessed, returning the money and signing a promise not to take extra money again.
The other two rangers didn?t come. When the rangers? superiors refused to take action, Harivallabh handed the story to the newspapers and announced that the adivasis would protest in front of government offices. Soon after this announcement, a high official arrived to look into the court?s complaint. As a result, one of the rangers returned the money; the other lost his job.
In a much more serious incident, the body of a murdered boy was found in the field of a village near his own. When the police came to investigate, they lined up the village men and made them crouch on all fours for three days straight, letting them rest only at night. Any man who moved was beaten.
Several nights later, three police returned to the village and demanded to see a young girl said to have been in love with the murdered boy. They took the girl some distance away, and all three raped her. They thrust a stick inside her to make her bleed, so there would be no evidence of the rape, then left her bound and gagged. The village women found the girl soon after.
The People?s Court was called into special session. When the villagers heard the story, several rose and said they would burn down the police station. The villagers were ready to do it, and Harivallabh himself could hardly contain his anger; but he finally convinced them to take a calmer approach.
Several people were sent to the village to get all the facts in the case. Then Harivallabh and others set the story before a local police official. The official assured them that action would be taken and agreed to meet with the court the next day. But, when he arrived at the court, he brought with him a local businessman and a state legislator, who joined him in asking that the villagers forget the whole affair.
The villagers were not ready to forget it. The story?along with a threat of further action?was sent to the government and to the newspapers, which gave it wide publicity. Following this, the three police who had raped the girl were removed from service.
Still not satisfied, 1,500 of the villagers staged a one-day, 40-mile march to two local government centers. Finally, one of the high-ranking officers involved in the murder investigation was demoted and transferred.
Local businessmen and politicians rushed to the state capital to get the demotion reversed. But the chief minister (equivalent to a state governor) reportedly told them he didn?t wish to cut short the life of his administration by letting an adivasi uprising grow to invincible strength.
Harivallabh and the adivasis were demonstrating that almost nothing can stand in the way of a united community. And building unity is what the People?s Court is all about.
More on the People?s Court
Contact Info
Envelopes to India should be addressed in all capital letters.
Harivallabh Parikh
Anand Niketan
Rangpur (via Kosindra)
Baroda Dt.
Gujarat 391 140
INDIA
The Community Board Program
1540 Market Street, Suite 490
San Francisco, California 94102
USA
415-552-1250
www.communityboards.org
Promotes and provides training for ?people?s courts? throughout the U.S.
Private courts? In anarchy, you're at the mercy of whoever has the most money and the most anger
This is some great stuff and I really hope the freedom movement in NH will grow that strong one day. The seed is already there; now it takes time, water and god's blessings :D
Matt, here's a perspective you may find interesting. Take time to really digest, then let me know what you think.
http://www.no-treason.com/wild/Childs_Open_Letter_to_Rand.html
Quote from: aries on August 19, 2006, 08:41 AM NHFT
Private courts? In anarchy, you're at the mercy of whoever has the most money and the most anger
You're right, private courts are just CHAOS!
They could never exist (http://www.judgejudy.com/home/home.asp).
Quote from: Gabo on August 19, 2006, 11:11 AM NHFT
Quote from: aries on August 19, 2006, 08:41 AM NHFT
Private courts? In anarchy, you're at the mercy of whoever has the most money and the most anger
You're right, private courts are just CHAOS!
They could never exist (http://www.judgejudy.com/home/home.asp).
That relies completely on the consent of both parties.
Is the Voluntaryist still being published? I've seen some random old articles pasted around the net but most are from the 90s. Thanks!
Quote from: aries on August 19, 2006, 12:52 PM NHFTThat relies completely on the consent of both parties.
And there you have the essence of what a private court is!
Quote from: aries on August 19, 2006, 12:52 PM NHFT
Quote from: Gabo on August 19, 2006, 11:11 AM NHFT
Quote from: aries on August 19, 2006, 08:41 AM NHFT
Private courts? In anarchy, you're at the mercy of whoever has the most money and the most anger
You're right, private courts are just CHAOS!
They could never exist (http://www.judgejudy.com/home/home.asp).
That relies completely on the consent of both parties.
Give me a country in which there are no government police or courts, and I will show you a place where not going to a voluntary court will utterly destroy any hope you have of doing any business without a huge cost overhead. Between consumer quality forums, credit reports, e-bay, and the general failure of the coercive court systems to manage anything like justice, we basically have a private justice system in North America already.
Please don't turn this into another minarchist-anarchist debate! For us anarchists it is a good idea. The minarchists might be willing to admit that it is a good supplement to state courts. See: no harm done. Even the minarchists will admit that a case only has to go before a state court if an agreement before a private court failed. They might even agree that a private settlement should be tried in any case before an appeal to a state court. And in that case, the state courts will naturally become almost obsolete. And that "almost" doesn't do much harm.
I understand the theory of private courts but I just can't see them being applied properly.
Quote from: aries on August 20, 2006, 06:48 AM NHFT
I understand the theory of private courts but I just can't see them being applied properly.
I understand the theory of private liquor stores but I just can't see them being applied properly.
I understand the theory of private insurance but I just can't see it being applied properly.
I understand the theory of private hospitals but I just can't see them being applied properly.
...
Yes, The Voluntaryist http://voluntaryist.com/ is still being printed.
If you want to subscribe,
Basic subscription (6 issues) are $20.00 USD / or 0.07 ounces of fine gold. For overseas postage please add $5.00 USD / or 1/3 of the regular subscription price.
The Voluntaryist
P.O. Box 275-D
Gramling, South Carolina 29348
I believe the editor, Carl Watner, has become interested in the Free State Project since he's found that it's not all about politics, some of us are interested in voluntary interactions.
Quote from: aries on August 20, 2006, 06:48 AM NHFT
I understand the theory of private courts but I just can't see them being applied properly.
Aries..... private courts exist and work right now.
A "private court" is basically just any dispute resolution that two people agree upon.
If I run over your mailbox and we both decide that I will buy you a new one, that in itself is a sort of private court.
All "private court" means is dispute resolution without using government interference.
Quote from: Pat McCotter on August 20, 2006, 07:50 AM NHFT
Quote from: aries on August 20, 2006, 06:48 AM NHFT
I understand the theory of private courts but I just can't see them being applied properly.
I understand the theory of private liquor stores but I just can't see them being applied properly.
I understand the theory of private insurance but I just can't see it being applied properly.
I understand the theory of private hospitals but I just can't see them being applied properly.
...
I don't understand the theory of courts without government force.
I plain don't like government
You seem to have interpreted me to be saying that I want public courts... no, I don't want any government courts, and any private ones, I don't think will work well.
And I am talking about courts here not in the context of dispute resolution but more in the context of legal resolutions. In a private court you could take your neighbor to court over his pet bears that keep mauling your kittens, right? So how does this scenario pan out?
Come to think of it -- for all the talk about rating people on their willingness to obey contracts, I have never actually found a site that did it on a national/international scale (other than, say, E-Bay, which is very limited in scope). Have I just not found it, or do I need to start thinking up a business plan for a system to track the willingness of people to obey contractual agreements (regardless and independent of local laws)?
Matt,
When you get a chance to read the article I linked to, you will find answers to some of those questions.
Quote from: aries on August 19, 2006, 08:41 AM NHFT
Private courts? In anarchy, you're at the mercy of whoever has the most money and the most anger
Nope. Because you also have a say in which court you go too.
Tracy
I dugg it
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Justice_That_Unites_Free_Market_Law
Tracy
If the legal system were actually fair and just, wouldn't attorney representation be federally funded and free to the public? In that case, everyone would be afforded "equal" representation. Otherwise, money and even reputation determine the outcome.
Manmade laws replace the implementation of the fundamental law of natural selection. Therefore, not only are we subject to the influence of our made-up life-support-system (money), but we also hamper our evolution by way of opposing the natural order.
Any way you slice it, I don't want a bigger piece of the pie; I want cake. The answers aren't in the future, they're in the past.
-M
Why should I be forced, at gunpoint, to pay for your legal fees?
Heck, why should any of us be forced to do anything? What it comes down to is choice. If you choose to live within the system, then you must abide by the system. If you choose not to live in the system, then you are living a life of duress within a system you don't support.
However, it must be determined what, exactly, the goal of life is. If you don't want to live in the system because you don't like the government, and you wish to start your own government, then it is a life based upon personal interpretation. All these things, politics, religion, class-structure, reputations are based upon interpretations both personal and as perceived by others. As long as things are based upon a subjective perspective, there will always be segregations, factions, classes, wars, and a general mess. So forming a new government is not a solution for the long term as much as it's only a shift of power, another segregation destined for disagreement and opposition because it cannot work for everyone.
There needs to be a common thread of reality. This world, this society, is a dream-world, created by the human mind. It is a world of living for excessive wants instead of living for need.
So, by the logic of the "system," if you choose to live in the system, and you would have a "fair" and "just"--which, again, is subjective--system of representation, then why shouldn't you pay for everyone else's legal fees, including your own?
-M
Quote from: Malsem on September 18, 2006, 04:08 PM NHFT
Heck, why should any of us be forced to do anything? What it comes down to is choice. If you choose to live within the system, then you must abide by the system. If you choose not to live in the system, then you are living a life of duress within a system you don't support.
Yup, which is why being able to ignore everyone else's systems is so important.
Quote from: Malsem on September 18, 2006, 04:08 PM NHFT
So, by the logic of the "system," if you choose to live in the system, and you would have a "fair" and "just"--which, again, is subjective--system of representation, then why shouldn't you pay for everyone else's legal fees, including your own?
Contributing to pay everyone else's legal fees might well be "fair" and "just", for some definitions thereof. And, indeed, if that is what people want out of the world they will hire a private organization that does just that... like, say, an insurance company. I know my house insurance provides me with legal funds under a fair variety of circumstances.
Do you mind if I swing by your house later to demand money for the unemployed and the Iraq war? Understand that if you don't pay up, there is a neighborhood gang that will kidnap you and sell your property while they hold you captive. If you have a problem with this, then sending someone around to demand my money for legal aid is distinctly unfair.
Apply the same morality to a tax collector, or cop, that would be applied to any other human if they did the same thing. I personally feel that assault, kidnapping and theft are a tad more serious than ensuring that everyone can walk into the wasteful beurocracy that is modern courts with the same quantity of money...
(And take a wild guess at why the court system is so slow and expensive; it is not because people can choose between lots of different systems that compete on a equal footing.)
Exactly.
In the old ways, if I went out and worked my butt off to find a deer, for example, and bring it home to my people, they would have food, tools, clothing, and it would be what we have.
But now, when I go out and work my butt off, it's not for my family. A huge portion automatically gets taken by the government, yet I don't support the system.
So it's like I just collected a deer for my family, but then someone comes out of nowhere on horseback and decides to take a quarter of the animal for "taxes." What kind of crap is that? I don't see any government agents busting their humps with me while I work. Why am I forced to fund wars and development and destruction? How is that right or just?
-M
Mistakes, also known as The School of Hard Knocks, are the chief reason anyone does anything. People need to learn to take responsibility for their own future.
If you get screwed once, okay, figure out ways to not get screwed again. I only go to auto machanics who work with Triple A. Why? Because Triple A provides arbitration in the event of a dispute. And the reality is, disputes and disagreements happen.
So if someone gets screwed once or twice, chances are a business persons reputation will become very important. And a little pre planning will become a routine for anyone who doesn't want to get screwed. The same is true of the arbitration agencies. Find one thats sizable, and reputable, then use them and any agreements they have with merchants that you do business with.
After a while, standards will be developed, primarily because good ideas are meant to be copied. The eventual outcome is something like a more efficient, less political version of what we have today. I don't know for sure, I'm not a prophet, but it is usually hard to re invent the wheel. So what works will be done, and repeated.
I believe that fear is the primary motivator for why anybody does anything. It comes in varying forms and degrees, though: we fear our mortality, so we fight aging, diseases, and things we don't understand, like nature; we fear not being liked; we fear not making enough money to survive; we fear being humiliated; we fear being alone; and the list goes on.
Mistakes are made, and that is fine. Until the mistakes affect more than ourselves. Our society keeps trying to "solve problems," and "progress with technology," and "control the environment," and we create more problems in every "solution" to a single issue. Now the mistakes are affecting a large scale of fellow inhabitants, and we are not taking responsibility.
Any system, any paradigm created by human concepts is doomed to have opposition and probably war. All of our modern thinking is based upon interpretations. Political systems, religious doctrines, and economic status are invented concepts, dreamworld concepts brought into physical existence. But if we all stop this careering boulder and focus on reality and how we are part of it, then we have a solid foundation of belief pertaining to our survival and the survival of all things. Not to do so is facing imminent demise. We can go on changing hats for so long, and it doesn't really eliminate the fact that you're still covering your head.
-M
Malsem, you are right about fear. I believe peoples fear of what others might do is the priciple reason the state is so strong. The desire to control others. In the battle for security and liberty, security will always win, usually at the expence of liberty.
The only way I can think to combate the fear is to prove there is nothing to be afraid of. This means actually living it. When people see by example, they can decide weather or not it works. People respect fairness in others, politeness, and are comfortable around trusted people. This is how you build the private functions to replace the state. It's one thing to say, "This man, he's a judge, you can trust him." It's a whole different thing to have a trusted friend or family member say, "John Doe is a person of integrity. How do I know? Well about 4 years ago, one of my venders and I had a billing dispute, and we decided to go to Joe."
Why hasn't this happened? Primarily because of the general fear of 'vigilantism' and the legal persecution.
We know that when there has been periods of history when persecution has been lax, that private case law has developed. The desire to solve disputes, primarily to prevent bloodshed, is historical, and a normal human trait. What we now know as common law was developed from case law.
A college professor named I think Craig Benson wrote of something called Law Merchant. It was a private legal system developed parrallel to common law that dealt with inter nation disputes between merchants. It lasted longer in private form than common law for two reasons; inter-nation law at the time was almost impossible to enforce at the point of a gun, reward works better, and the second reason was that it was more responsive to the needs of the merchants who did not have a vested interest in a bitter dispute with a potentially good customer or vender, in other words private justice worked better.
Also private justice isn't free.
I actually consider private justice and security to be top priorities for the liberty movement. It is not good enough to simply protest gov't. There must be an alternative to it, now, not in some near future.
The evil first strike force of gov't has to end, but there must be something to pick up for some of the important things that gov't actually does.
woa....that bit about fasting in front of a perpetrator's house sounds pretty powerful
Quote from: Malsem on September 18, 2006, 03:26 PM NHFT
Manmade laws replace the implementation of the fundamental law of natural selection. Therefore, not only are we subject to the influence of our made-up life-support-system (money), but we also hamper our evolution by way of opposing the natural order.
Be careful when making claims or analogies like this.
Evolution is not goal-oriented. Whatever your beliefs may be, when you're speaking strictly about the theory of evolution, there is a specific denial of design.
Manmade laws no more replace or alter the law of natural selection any more than they replace or alter the law of gravity. There may be cases in which manmade law offers different criteria to natural selection about which genes get passed from generation to generation, but genetics is not the whole of evolution--not by a long shot.
Furthermore, we can no more hamper our evolution any more than we can enhance it. That is to say, we don't know which path evolution will take, and there's virtually no guarantee that, if the tape were run again, that we would emerge a second time. Furthermore, we have virtually no way of knowing what an "enhancement" would be, nor the trade-offs any such enhancement would incur.
Something important to keep in mind regarding evolution is that evolution does not have goals. Speaking strictly from the standpoint of a theory, it was not the goal of evolution to produce humanity any more than it was the goal of evolution to make the dinosaurs extinct.
Evolution produces emergent phenomena. Occasionally, a component may be less efficient than if somebody were to sit down and design it from scratch, but one of the drawbacks of evolution is that redesign is very expensive--if something works well enough, that's what sticks.
I think this is very important to keep in mind with regards to manmade law. For millenia, manmade law has worked "well enough." That is to say, making a change--a redesign--is very expensive, and it will only take hold if the benefits outweigh the costs. Furthermore, we may not be able to dictate all of the aspects of the new design. However, the evolution of thoughts and ideas moves much faster than biological evolution, so we may very well see a redesign in our lifetimes, if not the beginnings of such a thing.
I heartily encourage you to read some books by Richard Dawkins on evolution, especially The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, and others. He has a unique insight into the theory of evolution and will hopefully give you a greater understanding of the terms you used.
Now I just need to figure out how to be less verbose.
Quote from: Felix Benner on August 20, 2006, 03:37 AM NHFTPlease don't turn this into another minarchist-anarchist debate! For us anarchists it is a good idea. The minarchists might be willing to admit that it is a good supplement to state courts. See: no harm done. Even the minarchists will admit that a case only has to go before a state court if an agreement before a private court failed. They might even agree that a private settlement should be tried in any case before an appeal to a state court. And in that case, the state courts will naturally become almost obsolete. And that "almost" doesn't do much harm.
It is a good system, when compared to our corrupt, bloated, money funneling machine we call a government/court system, it's better. However, this doesn't fit the description of a "private" court system the way I have understood it. Its more of a public court system, but limited in scope—in other words, the court's authorty was generally confined to the area over which it presided. This seems consistant with a sub culture that hasn't fully embraced the "information age." Are there several private courts within an area that compete for customers?
Plus, how is this cohersion free? There aren't goon squads who kick down doors and threaten the criminals, but there is communal cohersion—the threat of being looked down on by the community, which only works when a community is as close knit as these seemed to be,
and when the moral standards are relatively homogenous.
Quote from: Gabo on August 19, 2006, 11:11 AM NHFT
Quote from: aries on August 19, 2006, 08:41 AM NHFT
Private courts? In anarchy, you're at the mercy of whoever has the most money and the most anger
You're right, private courts are just CHAOS!
They could never exist (http://www.judgejudy.com/home/home.asp).
This example is specious. True, Judge Judy is a private court, one in which the parties participate consent to abide by her decision, and they sign a contract—which is ultimately enforcable by the public court system if on party fails to uphold their end of the agreement.
Quote from: aries on August 20, 2006, 02:04 PM NHFT
I don't understand the theory of courts without government force.
A court's job is not to provide force; it is to provide social sanction. Consider, for example, the U.S. courts. They don't track people down and arrest them, nor do they imprison people after conviction. That's the job of the executive branch. All the courts do is give their stamp of approval to these actions.
It works the same way in non-State legal systems (as used in ancient Ireland, medieval Iceland, ancient Israel, various Amerind tribes prior to European conquest, much of present-day Somalia, etc.) When is it socially acceptable to use force? (1) in self defense, (2) when both parties agree (duel or fist fight), or (3) with the approval of a court, to the degree needed to carry out the court ruling. Often no use of force is necessary to enforce a court ruling -- the threat of ostracism does the job. For example, merchant's courts in medieval Europe had only economic ostracism to back up their rulings, but that was quite sufficient -- if you refused to pay a judgment against you, then doing business with you was viewed as a risky proposition to be avoided. In ancient Ireland, a person who refused to pay a judgment against him was declared an outlaw and lost all recourse to the court system. In other words, if you turned your back on the legal system, it turned its back on you.
At this point you may be wondering about kangaroo courts chosen by the plaintiffs. There are a couple of different ways non-State legal systems protect against this. One is by prior arrangement: you agree in advance who will try any case between you and some particular other person. Miner's courts in the American West in the 19th century worked this way. (These were private courts, for the simple reason that there weren't any government courts around.) Another way is by having both parties to the dispute agree on an arbiter. If they can't agree, they each pick their own arbiter and those two pick a third arbiter. (The arbiters have a strong incentive to come to an agreement on a third arbiter, as failing to do so is a professional disgrace.) This method was used in ancient Ireland. As I understand it, elements of both methods are used in the Somali customary legal system.
I'd like to emphasize your point about the merchant courts of europe.
Today when people get into contracts, or buy things they do so confident if the merchant screws them than they can be taken to court. Without a monopoly court, no such confidence occurs, unless you're foolish. In every society where there is a weak court system, or one in which the gov't has broken down, you see a return of the 'old fashion' due diligince on seeking merchants.
In todays world this is happening right now. Good or bad, in many Islamic countries Sharia law is making a resurgence. It isn't a grand fundamentalist conspiracy, it is a workable crude private legal system that is taking the place of innefician, broken, and corrupt gov't law. Notice Sharia law is stronges in so called failed states, and corrupt nations.
Japan has never had a strong court system, nor does some of europe. When I was younger I remember hearing about how the Japanese have different 'culteral' ways of doing business. USA business courses would include this subject because It was so important. The japanese have a strong emphasise on 'trust', and 'friendship'. One Japanese businessman was quoted as saying if he can't trust someone in the beginning, how does he know if future problems will be taken care of when they arrise.
Notice that courts never come into the equation. Contracts are important here, because we have strong courts, but friendship and trust are important in japan because they have weak courts.
Frankly I would rather have friendship and trust than a "court" which gives its "stamp of approval" to "force."
I think at some point we will not really have a choice. The more gov't screws up on the promised entitlements and such, the sooner they run out of money to do these things.
A good example is in health insurance. A 'health savings account' is nothing more than a fancy named form of high deductible insurance. When gov't finally screws the money up, alternatives will be found, usually a foreign currancy instead of silver, but always something better than before. When the old age benifits go start running out of money(already happening), they will have no choice but to cut the benifits. They will never stop, the largest voting group in the nation will see to that, but they will reduce. when that happens, the quaint 'old fashioned' methods will become popular.
Some of the overseas militias gain influence by filling in the gaps from broken gov't, hamas, hezbolla, the prison gang in brazill that launced massive riot/millitary assault, and the badr militia in Iraq, which is Iraqs largest charity.
Does that mean we should encourage the communist programs, so that the state collapses faster? ;D
The difference between there and here is that here, we aren't advocating a violent overthrow of anything. In fact, we specifically and loudly reject "the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals."
Quote from: fsp-ohio on December 11, 2006, 10:13 PM NHFT
Japan has never had a strong court system, nor does some of europe. When I was younger I remember hearing about how the Japanese have different 'culteral' ways of doing business. USA business courses would include this subject because It was so important. The japanese have a strong emphasise on 'trust', and 'friendship'. One Japanese businessman was quoted as saying if he can't trust someone in the beginning, how does he know if future problems will be taken care of when they arrise.
Notice that courts never come into the equation. Contracts are important here, because we have strong courts, but friendship and trust are important in japan because they have weak courts.
Cause and effect.
Are you sure friendship and trust are important because the courts are weak; or is it that the courts are weak because the people have relied on friendship and trust instead of using the court system?
I would never encourage statism. It will collapse under its own weight. If, If, there is a community of people already living free of statism, then we can help its victims before it restrengthens itself. This is definately a priority when I move later next month.
Japan has a constitution similar to ours. And I believe they are supposed to have a strong court similar to our 3 branches of gov't. Culterally Japan has long had a strong central gov't, which discourages a divided gov't. Chicken or the egg? But I'd have to say culture came first and formed gov't. Though I'm guessing the courts have never been strong. That's my laymans view. :)
Quote from: fsp-ohio on December 12, 2006, 08:30 PM NHFT
I would never encourage statism. It will collapse under its own weight. If, If, there is a community of people already living free of statism, then we can help its victims before it restrengthens itself. This is definately a priority when I move later next month.
Japan has a constitution similar to ours. And I believe they are supposed to have a strong court similar to our 3 branches of gov't. Culterally Japan has long had a strong central gov't, which discourages a divided gov't. Chicken or the egg? But I'd have to say culture came first and formed gov't. Though I'm guessing the courts have never been strong. That's my laymans view. :)
If I understand correctly, Japan and in fact much of Asia does not see personal liberty in the same light as we do in the West. (Granted, for much of our country freedom has lost any meaning other than a buzzword that "the terrorists hate" or for which we should give up our rights as citizens one by one ???.)
But, wasn't that one reason why Japan thought they could defeat us in WWII? Because we were so individualistic and self-absorbed, as compared to the Japanese which sere self-sacrificing and thought as a unit?
That's a question I really can't answer. My opinion is that they attacked trying to deter us from interfering with their war in asia any more than we already were. They underestimated our resurgence of nationalism. I say deter because I don't think they were trying to beat us. One of their admirals is widely quoted as saying he was well aware of our gun ownership, and the immense difficulty of ever taking over the US.
Quote from: fsp-ohio on December 12, 2006, 09:27 PM NHFT
That's a question I really can't answer. My opinion is that they attacked trying to deter us from interfering with their war in asia any more than we already were. They underestimated our resurgence of nationalism. I say deter because I don't think they were trying to beat us. One of their admirals is widely quoted as saying he was well aware of our gun ownership, and the immense difficulty of ever taking over the US.
Well, I don't know as much about WWII as I should, but I do know that some of their military leadershit didn't want to start a war because they saw no way to defeat us. I would say, if anything, they wanted to cripple our ability to challenge their pacific empire building, and force us to sign a treaty.
But yeah, what was this thread about again? :blush:
In relation to the getto-anarchy thread was the story of the pastors providing mediation. That sounds like free market justice to me.
For anything in life to really go in a positive direction, there must be a natural consequence to violating the natural rights of mankind. If you steal from me, I'm not likely to beat you over the head, but you have lost a potential partner, a friend when hard times occur, and an allie when someone wrongs you in some way or another. This decentralized form of actions and consequences and rewards are the basis of almost all human interaction.
It will never be possible to protect yourself from all harm cause by others, no matter how justice is organized. But it becomes much easier when the contradictions and hypocracy is rooted out. Rather than tell kids it is wrong to steal, but they still must pay their fair share of taxes, teach them it is wrong to steal, period. Many kids today do not see any fundamental difference between schoolyard fighting, or stealing a candy bar, than to smoke weed. There is a huge difference, but there is an entire culture that grew up and became our parents.
Of course our parents largely can only teach what they know. It has long been a way of life in this nation to use legal aggresion to right perceived wrongs. It is normal for almost all. That is why libertarianism is so foreign to most people. You are challenging their foundation of what is normal.
Of course outside of the 'acceptable' use of (gov't or majority) force, the behavior of most is almost textbook libertarianism. This is why despite the incredible cultural acceptance of gov't force, or majoritarian force, I am opptomistic about the potential success of private justice.
Alright, let me straight some things out regarding Japan.
Their juridical system is weak. Because it's weak trust becomes a major factor doing business because you don't go and sue to settle twists hence trust becomes a very important concept in Japanese business.
Prior to World War 2, western culture had tried taken advantage of Japan's trusting business and the Japanese rulers felt they had been the underdog in deals. They was tired of this and wanted to establish themself as a power in the pacific region. The reason why Japanese did not surrender during World War 2 to the U.S.A. was because Americans didn't take Japanese war prisoners. So the only chance to survive a battle for a Japanese soldier that had clashed with an American was to kill or be killed. This lead to further propaganda from the U.S.A. portraying Japanese to be lowly ape-humanoids.
The whole Peral Harbor incident was forged by the U.S. Government. They had prior to the attack been sinking Japanese freighters in the pacific. There was no other way for the Japanese than to strike at U.S.A. or see all their freighters sink. Of course the people of U.S. didn't know that was happening. The first report of Japanese activity was when Pearl Harbor was attacked. Declassified documents have shown that U.S.A. had all along decrypted the Japanese radio communication and knew about the upcomming attack. U.S.A. staged an incident by forcing the navy to align a big portion of the fleet in the harbor. The first general refused this order as it would be naval suicide to do so. He got replaced by the president for another guy who would do this. This to get the American civilians would go along with joining the fray and mayhem from previously being told that U.S.A. stays out of other countries affairs.
The other BIG reason japan never actually surrendered, (they tried to negotiate prior to the two nukes) was roosevelt demanded unconditional surrender. That horrified the Japanese, so they had no choice but to keep fighting. I agree that we knew and provoked japanese attack. The Chinese flying tigers were funded by the US prior to Pearl harbor. In the 1990's some of the tiger veterans sued for US veteran benifits in the supreme court, and won. Due to the flying tigers, we started the war with Japan.
Question? did the Japanese even have an official gov't courts prior the the US establishing one after the war.
I think you are right about the Japanese feeling like they were being taken advantage of. In the 70's I think, The US businesses were complaining the Japanese would not to business with them in Japan, but would in the US. They blamed the Japanese gov't, but I bet it was more of a defense against potentially dishonest US business persons.
Plus, the the Japanese lived in an honor/shame society for centuries before the West came to their shores, so honesty in life was a huge factor. Whereas the people who came to spread Western interests were devious, clever, and by Japanese standards, without scruples.
Quote from: lordmetroid on December 14, 2006, 01:07 PM NHFT
Prior to World War 2, western culture had tried taken advantage of Japan's trusting business and the Japanese rulers felt they had been the underdog in deals.
That predates WWI, but you're correct. And the feelings were mutual, due to totally foreign concepts of honesty and morality.
QuoteThe reason why Japanese did not surrender during World War 2 to the U.S.A. was because Americans didn't take Japanese war prisoners. So the only chance to survive a battle for a Japanese soldier that had clashed with an American was to kill or be killed.
Errr...
Bushido held that death was preferable to capture. Americans captured many Japanese prisoners, but many chose suicide over capture.
Conversely, because of
Bushido, Americans who surrendered to Japan were considered beneath contempt for choosing surrender over death, and "fair game" for any and all abuses.
Yes, American forces killed potential and actual prisoners of war, and I do not offer excuses for them. The Japanese abuses of captured enemy combatants was far, far worse. For evidence, see the treatment given the mainland Chinese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre) 3-4 years prior to Pearl Harbor.
Kevin