Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
what is government?
47 views
Skip to first unread message
Dan Goodman
Oct 30, 2012, 7:42:32 PM10/30/12
to
What is a government? Some forms of anarchism look very much like
government to me: Charles Fourier's, for example (except for being
more bureaucratic than most governments.) Or the anarchist society in
Ursula K. Le Guin's novel The Dispossessed.
--
Dan Goodman
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
government to me: Charles Fourier's, for example (except for being
more bureaucratic than most governments.) Or the anarchist society in
Ursula K. Le Guin's novel The Dispossessed.
--
Dan Goodman
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Keith F. Lynch
Oct 30, 2012, 8:07:48 PM10/30/12
to
Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> What is a government? Some forms of anarchism look very much like
> government to me: Charles Fourier's, for example (except for being
> more bureaucratic than most governments.) Or the anarchist society
> in Ursula K. Le Guin's novel The Dispossessed.
Fourier's version and Le Guin's version are what I would call
> What is a government? Some forms of anarchism look very much like
> government to me: Charles Fourier's, for example (except for being
> more bureaucratic than most governments.) Or the anarchist society
> in Ursula K. Le Guin's novel The Dispossessed.
syndicalism, not anarchism. Similarly with the so-called anarchists
in real-life 1930s Spain.
I'm not saying all of these syndicalist proposals were identical, of
course. Le Guin's was profoundly anti-property. The Spanish favored
absolute financial equality. Fourier didn't mind variation in wealth,
but he did insist that every syndicate, or "phalanx," must have
exactly the same number of adult members.
All I can figure is that different people have very different ideas as
to what makes a government a different sort of thing than any other
kind of organization. So what people who call themselves anarchists
are opposed to varies. In my case, it's coercion that I oppose.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
David Friedman
Oct 30, 2012, 9:01:49 PM10/30/12
to
In article <xn0i4ygr...@news.iphouse.com>,
find my long one.
The short answer is that individual rights can be seen as part of a
commitment strategy, analogous to territorial behavior in some animals.
My believing that I have a right not to have my wallet stolen (for
example) means that I will bear costs fighting off someone who tries to
steal it that are out of proportion to the amount actually at stake. It
doesn't follow that I will bear unlimited costs, of course--under some
circumstances one surrenders. Rights in this sense, I argue, underlie
all human societies--although what the rights are might vary from one to
another. They help explain how it is possible to get out of a Hobbesian
anarchy.
A government is an organization against which individuals drop that
commitment strategy. That's what I meant, a long time ago before I had
thought the ideas all the way through, by an agency of legitimized
coercion.
For more details, see:
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Property/Property.html
I describe my preferred arrangement as anarchism because it contains no
such organizations.
You can find talks covering some of this at:
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/MyTalks/MyRecentTalks.html
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
_Salamander_: http://tinyurl.com/6957y7e
_How to Milk an Almond,..._ http://tinyurl.com/63xg8gx
"Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> What is a government? Some forms of anarchism look very much like
> government to me: Charles Fourier's, for example (except for being
> more bureaucratic than most governments.) Or the anarchist society in
> Ursula K. Le Guin's novel The Dispossessed.
I can give you my short answer, and point you at places where you can
> What is a government? Some forms of anarchism look very much like
> government to me: Charles Fourier's, for example (except for being
> more bureaucratic than most governments.) Or the anarchist society in
> Ursula K. Le Guin's novel The Dispossessed.
find my long one.
The short answer is that individual rights can be seen as part of a
commitment strategy, analogous to territorial behavior in some animals.
My believing that I have a right not to have my wallet stolen (for
example) means that I will bear costs fighting off someone who tries to
steal it that are out of proportion to the amount actually at stake. It
doesn't follow that I will bear unlimited costs, of course--under some
circumstances one surrenders. Rights in this sense, I argue, underlie
all human societies--although what the rights are might vary from one to
another. They help explain how it is possible to get out of a Hobbesian
anarchy.
A government is an organization against which individuals drop that
commitment strategy. That's what I meant, a long time ago before I had
thought the ideas all the way through, by an agency of legitimized
coercion.
For more details, see:
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Property/Property.html
I describe my preferred arrangement as anarchism because it contains no
such organizations.
You can find talks covering some of this at:
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/MyTalks/MyRecentTalks.html
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
_Salamander_: http://tinyurl.com/6957y7e
_How to Milk an Almond,..._ http://tinyurl.com/63xg8gx
Dan Goodman
Oct 30, 2012, 9:27:32 PM10/30/12
to
the State -- but not by corporations, or the enforcers of neighborhood
covenants.
Dan Goodman
Oct 30, 2012, 9:29:51 PM10/30/12
to
David Friedman wrote:
> In article <xn0i4ygr...@news.iphouse.com>,
> "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
> > What is a government? Some forms of anarchism look very much like
> > government to me: Charles Fourier's, for example (except for being
> > more bureaucratic than most governments.) Or the anarchist society
> > in Ursula K. Le Guin's novel The Dispossessed.
>
> I can give you my short answer, and point you at places where you can
> find my long one.
>
> The short answer is that individual rights can be seen as part of a
> commitment strategy, analogous to territorial behavior in some
> animals. My believing that I have a right not to have my wallet
> stolen (for example) means that I will bear costs fighting off
> someone who tries to steal it that are out of proportion to the
> amount actually at stake. It doesn't follow that I will bear
> unlimited costs, of course--under some circumstances one surrenders.
> Rights in this sense, I argue, underlie all human societies--although
> what the rights are might vary from one to another. They help explain
> how it is possible to get out of a Hobbesian anarchy.
>
> A government is an organization against which individuals drop that
> commitment strategy. That's what I meant, a long time ago before I
> had thought the ideas all the way through, by an agency of
> legitimized coercion.
Would you consider some professional associations, unions,
> In article <xn0i4ygr...@news.iphouse.com>,
> "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
> > What is a government? Some forms of anarchism look very much like
> > government to me: Charles Fourier's, for example (except for being
> > more bureaucratic than most governments.) Or the anarchist society
> > in Ursula K. Le Guin's novel The Dispossessed.
>
> I can give you my short answer, and point you at places where you can
> find my long one.
>
> The short answer is that individual rights can be seen as part of a
> commitment strategy, analogous to territorial behavior in some
> animals. My believing that I have a right not to have my wallet
> stolen (for example) means that I will bear costs fighting off
> someone who tries to steal it that are out of proportion to the
> amount actually at stake. It doesn't follow that I will bear
> unlimited costs, of course--under some circumstances one surrenders.
> Rights in this sense, I argue, underlie all human societies--although
> what the rights are might vary from one to another. They help explain
> how it is possible to get out of a Hobbesian anarchy.
>
> A government is an organization against which individuals drop that
> commitment strategy. That's what I meant, a long time ago before I
> had thought the ideas all the way through, by an agency of
> legitimized coercion.
corporations, families, churches, etc. to be governments then?
>
> For more details, see:
>
> http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Property/Property.html
>
> I describe my preferred arrangement as anarchism because it contains
> no such organizations.
>
> You can find talks covering some of this at:
>
> http://www.daviddfriedman.com/MyTalks/MyRecentTalks.html
--
> For more details, see:
>
> http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Property/Property.html
>
> I describe my preferred arrangement as anarchism because it contains
> no such organizations.
>
> You can find talks covering some of this at:
>
> http://www.daviddfriedman.com/MyTalks/MyRecentTalks.html
--
David Friedman
Oct 30, 2012, 9:42:52 PM10/30/12
to
In article <xn0i4yjl...@news.iphouse.com>,
If a corporation sends someone to steal my stuff, I'll be willing to
bear larger costs than the value of the stuff to stop him. Similarly for
your other groups.
"Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> > A government is an organization against which individuals drop that
> > commitment strategy. That's what I meant, a long time ago before I
> > had thought the ideas all the way through, by an agency of
> > legitimized coercion.
>
> Would you consider some professional associations, unions,
> corporations, families, churches, etc. to be governments then?
I don't think so.
> > A government is an organization against which individuals drop that
> > commitment strategy. That's what I meant, a long time ago before I
> > had thought the ideas all the way through, by an agency of
> > legitimized coercion.
>
> Would you consider some professional associations, unions,
> corporations, families, churches, etc. to be governments then?
If a corporation sends someone to steal my stuff, I'll be willing to
bear larger costs than the value of the stuff to stop him. Similarly for
your other groups.
Keith F. Lynch
Oct 30, 2012, 9:59:13 PM10/30/12
to
Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> Some libertarians and anarcho-capitalists seem to oppose coercion
> by the State -- but not by corporations, or the enforcers of
> neighborhood covenants.
It depends on what counts as coercion. Even if you count some of what
> Some libertarians and anarcho-capitalists seem to oppose coercion
> by the State -- but not by corporations, or the enforcers of
> neighborhood covenants.
firms do as coercion, government is in an entirely different league.
No firm can steal your property, lock you up, draft you, or execute you.
There are exceptions, such as Wells Fargo "foreclosing" a house they
had no mortgage on, destroying all the contents in the process, but
they're very rare. Mostly when firms want to get coercive, they get
governments to do their dirty work for them.
As for neighborhood covenants, those are done by contract. If
you don't like a proposed contract, propose a change. If you and
the other party to the contract can't reach a mutually acceptable
compromise, don't sign; do business elsewhere. Buy a house in a
neighborhood without any such contract, or with a contract that's
acceptable to you.
Keith F. Lynch
Oct 30, 2012, 10:08:27 PM10/30/12
to
Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> Would you consider some professional associations, unions,
> corporations, families, churches, etc. to be governments then?
Speaking only for myself, no. All they can do is expel/divorce/
> Would you consider some professional associations, unions,
> corporations, families, churches, etc. to be governments then?
fire/excommunicate you. They can't seize your property, kidnap
you, lock you up, or put you to death.
If you don't like what a guest in your home is doing, you can order
him to leave. If you don't like what the person you hired to rake
your leaves is doing, you can fire him. If you establish a new
religion with you as messiah, and one of your disciples denounces
you as a poopyhead, you can declare him anathema and tell him he
won't be allowed in the Perpetual Afterlife SF Con that you're
chair of. None of that is coercion.
In some countries, of course, the church is the government. Denounce
their sacred prophet as a poopyhead, and they'll perform a free
cephalectomy on you.
David Dyer-Bennet
Oct 31, 2012, 12:48:12 AM10/31/12
to
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
> Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> Some libertarians and anarcho-capitalists seem to oppose coercion
>> by the State -- but not by corporations, or the enforcers of
>> neighborhood covenants.
>
> It depends on what counts as coercion. Even if you count some of what
> firms do as coercion, government is in an entirely different league.
> No firm can steal your property, lock you up, draft you, or execute you.
Nonsense; they can do any or all of those -- unless there's a government
> Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> Some libertarians and anarcho-capitalists seem to oppose coercion
>> by the State -- but not by corporations, or the enforcers of
>> neighborhood covenants.
>
> It depends on what counts as coercion. Even if you count some of what
> firms do as coercion, government is in an entirely different league.
> No firm can steal your property, lock you up, draft you, or execute you.
to make those things "illegal", in which case there's at least some
chance the corporation would suffer negative consequences.
> There are exceptions, such as Wells Fargo "foreclosing" a house they
> had no mortgage on, destroying all the contents in the process, but
> they're very rare. Mostly when firms want to get coercive, they get
> governments to do their dirty work for them.
> As for neighborhood covenants, those are done by contract. If
> you don't like a proposed contract, propose a change. If you and
> the other party to the contract can't reach a mutually acceptable
> compromise, don't sign; do business elsewhere. Buy a house in a
> neighborhood without any such contract, or with a contract that's
> acceptable to you.
contract, but I certainly would look elsewhere, yes. I understand that
out west that's often nearly impossible, everything is too new.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
Ken Arromdee
Oct 31, 2012, 5:34:03 PM10/31/12
to
In article <ylfka9v3...@dd-b.net>,
aren't anarcho-capitalists and think that preventing firms (and individuals)
from doing this is a legitimate function of government.
Claiming that "some libertarians and anarcho-capitalists" think companies
should be able to do such things is like claiming that "some leftists and
Stalinists like to starve people to death"--it's literally accurate, but all
the work of the sentence is being done by the subset that comes after the
"and".
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
Obi-wan Kenobi: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."
Yoda: "Do or do not. There is no 'try'."
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>> Some libertarians and anarcho-capitalists seem to oppose coercion
>>> by the State -- but not by corporations, or the enforcers of
>>> neighborhood covenants.
>>
>> It depends on what counts as coercion. Even if you count some of what
>> firms do as coercion, government is in an entirely different league.
>> No firm can steal your property, lock you up, draft you, or execute you.
>Nonsense; they can do any or all of those -- unless there's a government
>to make those things "illegal", in which case there's at least some
>chance the corporation would suffer negative consequences.
This objection applies *only* to anarcho-capitalists. Most libertarians
>>> Some libertarians and anarcho-capitalists seem to oppose coercion
>>> by the State -- but not by corporations, or the enforcers of
>>> neighborhood covenants.
>>
>> It depends on what counts as coercion. Even if you count some of what
>> firms do as coercion, government is in an entirely different league.
>> No firm can steal your property, lock you up, draft you, or execute you.
>Nonsense; they can do any or all of those -- unless there's a government
>to make those things "illegal", in which case there's at least some
>chance the corporation would suffer negative consequences.
aren't anarcho-capitalists and think that preventing firms (and individuals)
from doing this is a legitimate function of government.
Claiming that "some libertarians and anarcho-capitalists" think companies
should be able to do such things is like claiming that "some leftists and
Stalinists like to starve people to death"--it's literally accurate, but all
the work of the sentence is being done by the subset that comes after the
"and".
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
Obi-wan Kenobi: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."
Yoda: "Do or do not. There is no 'try'."
David Friedman
Oct 31, 2012, 7:21:14 PM10/31/12
to
In article <k6s5gb$6mm$1...@blue-new.rahul.net>,
that firms and individuals should be free to do all those things, but
that they should be prevented from doing so by mechanisms that don't
involve government.
You may or may not agree that such mechanisms would work, but that is
what anarcho-capitalists believe.
arro...@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
> In article <ylfka9v3...@dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> >>> Some libertarians and anarcho-capitalists seem to oppose coercion
> >>> by the State -- but not by corporations, or the enforcers of
> >>> neighborhood covenants.
> >>
> >> It depends on what counts as coercion. Even if you count some of what
> >> firms do as coercion, government is in an entirely different league.
> >> No firm can steal your property, lock you up, draft you, or execute you.
> >Nonsense; they can do any or all of those -- unless there's a government
> >to make those things "illegal", in which case there's at least some
> >chance the corporation would suffer negative consequences.
>
> This objection applies *only* to anarcho-capitalists. Most libertarians
> aren't anarcho-capitalists and think that preventing firms (and individuals)
> from doing this is a legitimate function of government.
>
> Claiming that "some libertarians and anarcho-capitalists" think companies
> should be able to do such things is like claiming that "some leftists and
> Stalinists like to starve people to death"--it's literally accurate, but all
> the work of the sentence is being done by the subset that comes after the
> "and".
It isn't even literally accurate. The anarcho-capitalist position isn't
> In article <ylfka9v3...@dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> >>> Some libertarians and anarcho-capitalists seem to oppose coercion
> >>> by the State -- but not by corporations, or the enforcers of
> >>> neighborhood covenants.
> >>
> >> It depends on what counts as coercion. Even if you count some of what
> >> firms do as coercion, government is in an entirely different league.
> >> No firm can steal your property, lock you up, draft you, or execute you.
> >Nonsense; they can do any or all of those -- unless there's a government
> >to make those things "illegal", in which case there's at least some
> >chance the corporation would suffer negative consequences.
>
> This objection applies *only* to anarcho-capitalists. Most libertarians
> aren't anarcho-capitalists and think that preventing firms (and individuals)
> from doing this is a legitimate function of government.
>
> Claiming that "some libertarians and anarcho-capitalists" think companies
> should be able to do such things is like claiming that "some leftists and
> Stalinists like to starve people to death"--it's literally accurate, but all
> the work of the sentence is being done by the subset that comes after the
> "and".
that firms and individuals should be free to do all those things, but
that they should be prevented from doing so by mechanisms that don't
involve government.
You may or may not agree that such mechanisms would work, but that is
what anarcho-capitalists believe.
David Harmon
Nov 1, 2012, 10:01:24 AM11/1/12
to
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 23:48:12 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, David
Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote,
Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote,
>Nonsense; they can do any or all of those -- unless there's a government
>to make those things "illegal",
*Real* crimes don't need government to make them that.
>to make those things "illegal",
Scott Dorsey
Nov 1, 2012, 11:10:16 AM11/1/12
to
Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>What is a government? Some forms of anarchism look very much like
>government to me: Charles Fourier's, for example (except for being
>more bureaucratic than most governments.) Or the anarchist society in
>Ursula K. Le Guin's novel The Dispossessed.
I believe that these sorts of societies don't have a real name, since they
>What is a government? Some forms of anarchism look very much like
>government to me: Charles Fourier's, for example (except for being
>more bureaucratic than most governments.) Or the anarchist society in
>Ursula K. Le Guin's novel The Dispossessed.
don't remain stable in real life. Which is a shame and it is arguably a
deficiency in the human animal. Perhaps "autogestion" is as close as we
can get in English.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Scott Dorsey
Nov 1, 2012, 11:14:42 AM11/1/12
to
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>
>> Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>> Some libertarians and anarcho-capitalists seem to oppose coercion
>>> by the State -- but not by corporations, or the enforcers of
>>> neighborhood covenants.
>>
>> It depends on what counts as coercion. Even if you count some of what
>> firms do as coercion, government is in an entirely different league.
>> No firm can steal your property, lock you up, draft you, or execute you.
>
>Nonsense; they can do any or all of those -- unless there's a government
>to make those things "illegal", in which case there's at least some
>chance the corporation would suffer negative consequences.
A trip to Nigeria, where Shell Oil runs a private police force and a private
>"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>
>> Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>> Some libertarians and anarcho-capitalists seem to oppose coercion
>>> by the State -- but not by corporations, or the enforcers of
>>> neighborhood covenants.
>>
>> It depends on what counts as coercion. Even if you count some of what
>> firms do as coercion, government is in an entirely different league.
>> No firm can steal your property, lock you up, draft you, or execute you.
>
>Nonsense; they can do any or all of those -- unless there's a government
>to make those things "illegal", in which case there's at least some
>chance the corporation would suffer negative consequences.
army (as well as their own private telephone network) may be in order.
Kevrob
Nov 1, 2012, 11:15:24 AM11/1/12
to
On Oct 31, 5:34 pm, arrom...@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
> In article <ylfka9v3s0vn....@dd-b.net>,
Mike Bloomberg, for example. :)
Kevin
> In article <ylfka9v3s0vn....@dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
> >>> Some libertarians and anarcho-capitalists seem to oppose coercion
> >>> by the State -- but not by corporations, or the enforcers of
> >>> neighborhood covenants.
>
> >> It depends on what counts as coercion. Even if you count some of what
> >> firms do as coercion, government is in an entirely different league.
> >> No firm can steal your property, lock you up, draft you, or execute you.
> >Nonsense; they can do any or all of those -- unless there's a government
> >to make those things "illegal", in which case there's at least some
> >chance the corporation would suffer negative consequences.
>
> This objection applies *only* to anarcho-capitalists. Most libertarians
> aren't anarcho-capitalists and think that preventing firms (and individuals)
> from doing this is a legitimate function of government.
>
> Claiming that "some libertarians and anarcho-capitalists" think companies
> should be able to do such things is like claiming that "some leftists and
> Stalinists like to starve people to death"--it's literally accurate, but all
> the work of the sentence is being done by the subset that comes after the
> "and".
> --
>
Unless you take a wide view of the intersection of sets: Unca Joe and
>
> >>> Some libertarians and anarcho-capitalists seem to oppose coercion
> >>> by the State -- but not by corporations, or the enforcers of
> >>> neighborhood covenants.
>
> >> It depends on what counts as coercion. Even if you count some of what
> >> firms do as coercion, government is in an entirely different league.
> >> No firm can steal your property, lock you up, draft you, or execute you.
> >Nonsense; they can do any or all of those -- unless there's a government
> >to make those things "illegal", in which case there's at least some
> >chance the corporation would suffer negative consequences.
>
> This objection applies *only* to anarcho-capitalists. Most libertarians
> aren't anarcho-capitalists and think that preventing firms (and individuals)
> from doing this is a legitimate function of government.
>
> Claiming that "some libertarians and anarcho-capitalists" think companies
> should be able to do such things is like claiming that "some leftists and
> Stalinists like to starve people to death"--it's literally accurate, but all
> the work of the sentence is being done by the subset that comes after the
> "and".
> --
>
Mike Bloomberg, for example. :)
Kevin
David Dyer-Bennet
Nov 1, 2012, 2:07:01 PM11/1/12
to
involves government.
David Harmon
Nov 1, 2012, 11:52:58 PM11/1/12
to
On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 13:07:01 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, David
Applying that definition to a society without government is
attempting to win the argument by definitions.
Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote,
>David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 23:48:12 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, David
>> Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote,
>>>Nonsense; they can do any or all of those -- unless there's a government
>>>to make those things "illegal",
>>
>> *Real* crimes don't need government to make them that.
>
>Unethical or immoral, sure. But the usual definition of illegal
>involves government.
Mainly because a society without government isn't "usual".
>David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 23:48:12 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, David
>> Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote,
>>>Nonsense; they can do any or all of those -- unless there's a government
>>>to make those things "illegal",
>>
>> *Real* crimes don't need government to make them that.
>
>Unethical or immoral, sure. But the usual definition of illegal
>involves government.
Applying that definition to a society without government is
attempting to win the argument by definitions.
Lowell Gilbert
Nov 2, 2012, 12:03:44 PM11/2/12
to
David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> writes:
> On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 13:07:01 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, David
> Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote,
>>David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 23:48:12 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, David
>>> Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote,
>>>>Nonsense; they can do any or all of those -- unless there's a government
>>>>to make those things "illegal",
>>>
>>> *Real* crimes don't need government to make them that.
>>
>>Unethical or immoral, sure. But the usual definition of illegal
>>involves government.
>
> Mainly because a society without government isn't "usual".
> Applying that definition to a society without government is
> attempting to win the argument by definitions.
I don't think he was trying to do that.
> On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 13:07:01 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, David
> Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote,
>>David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 23:48:12 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, David
>>> Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote,
>>>>Nonsense; they can do any or all of those -- unless there's a government
>>>>to make those things "illegal",
>>>
>>> *Real* crimes don't need government to make them that.
>>
>>Unethical or immoral, sure. But the usual definition of illegal
>>involves government.
>
> Mainly because a society without government isn't "usual".
> Applying that definition to a society without government is
> attempting to win the argument by definitions.
He was speaking about specific actions,
and whether the word "illegal" applies or
not is irrelevant to the point.
David Harmon
Nov 2, 2012, 12:37:29 PM11/2/12
to
On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 12:03:44 -0400 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, Lowell
Gilbert <lgus...@be-well.ilk.org> wrote,
to DDB; yet he is sliding toward a similar result I think, by means
of a limited view of what kinds of human legal constructs are
possible. No reason they have to be governmental by definition.
>He was speaking about specific actions,
>and whether the word "illegal" applies or
>not is irrelevant to the point.
Indeed that is not the point. The point is that you cannot show
that government declaring something "illegal" is the only way you
and society can enforce that someone cannot "steal your property,
Gilbert <lgus...@be-well.ilk.org> wrote,
>David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> writes:
>> Mainly because a society without government isn't "usual".
>> Applying that definition to a society without government is
>> attempting to win the argument by definitions.
>
>I don't think he was trying to do that.
You are right, I overstated. No reason to attribute such a motive
>> Mainly because a society without government isn't "usual".
>> Applying that definition to a society without government is
>> attempting to win the argument by definitions.
>
>I don't think he was trying to do that.
to DDB; yet he is sliding toward a similar result I think, by means
of a limited view of what kinds of human legal constructs are
possible. No reason they have to be governmental by definition.
>He was speaking about specific actions,
>and whether the word "illegal" applies or
>not is irrelevant to the point.
that government declaring something "illegal" is the only way you
and society can enforce that someone cannot "steal your property,
lock you up, draft you, or execute you".
And yes, I did recently reread _The Machinery of Freedom_.
Kevrob
Nov 2, 2012, 1:32:39 PM11/2/12
to
On Nov 2, 12:39 pm, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 12:03:44 -0400 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, Lowell
> Gilbert <lguse...@be-well.ilk.org> wrote,
> On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 12:03:44 -0400 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, Lowell
>
> >David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> writes:
> >> Mainly because a society without government isn't "usual".
> >> Applying that definition to a society without government is
> >> attempting to win the argument by definitions.
>
> >I don't think he was trying to do that.
>
> You are right, I overstated. No reason to attribute such a motive
> to DDB; yet he is sliding toward a similar result I think, by means
> of a limited view of what kinds of human legal constructs are
> possible. No reason they have to be governmental by definition.
>
> >He was speaking about specific actions,
> >and whether the word "illegal" applies or
> >not is irrelevant to the point.
>
> Indeed that is not the point. The point is that you cannot show
> that government declaring something "illegal" is the only way you
> and society can enforce that someone cannot "steal your property,
> lock you up, draft you, or execute you".
>
Excellent point. Something can be "legal" or "illegal" under
> >David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> writes:
> >> Mainly because a society without government isn't "usual".
> >> Applying that definition to a society without government is
> >> attempting to win the argument by definitions.
>
> >I don't think he was trying to do that.
>
> You are right, I overstated. No reason to attribute such a motive
> to DDB; yet he is sliding toward a similar result I think, by means
> of a limited view of what kinds of human legal constructs are
> possible. No reason they have to be governmental by definition.
>
> >He was speaking about specific actions,
> >and whether the word "illegal" applies or
> >not is irrelevant to the point.
>
> Indeed that is not the point. The point is that you cannot show
> that government declaring something "illegal" is the only way you
> and society can enforce that someone cannot "steal your property,
> lock you up, draft you, or execute you".
>
customary or religious law, for example, and sometimes communities can
resolve disputes under those kinds of law without resorting to a
"government."
> And yes, I did recently reread _The Machinery of Freedom_.
Kevin
David Friedman
Nov 2, 2012, 6:12:01 PM11/2/12
to
On the general subject of alternative ways of enforcing legal rules,
some here might be interested in my current book project, which is a
book on legal systems very different from ours. The draft is up on my
web page for comments.
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Course_Pages/legal_systems_very_di
fferent_12/LegalSystemsDraft.html
One of the things that has become clear in the course of studying a wide
range of legal systems is that feud systems are a fairly common, and
functional, alternative to the sorts of centrally run systems we are
most familiar with. They are systems where the use of force against
those who violates the rules is decentralized, typically by the victims
and/or their allies, with mechanisms that make using or threatening
force much less practical when you are in the wrong than in the right.
What those mechanisms are varies.
Another interesting thing is how common systems are where, although
there is a centralized system for making laws and trying cases, the
actual process of prosecuting cases is private--either by the victim, as
in our tort system, or by volunteer prosecutors, as in Periclean Athens
and 18th century England.
The book grew out of a seminar I've been teaching for some years, which
I created to make myself learn more interesting stuff. It worked.
some here might be interested in my current book project, which is a
book on legal systems very different from ours. The draft is up on my
web page for comments.
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Course_Pages/legal_systems_very_di
fferent_12/LegalSystemsDraft.html
One of the things that has become clear in the course of studying a wide
range of legal systems is that feud systems are a fairly common, and
functional, alternative to the sorts of centrally run systems we are
most familiar with. They are systems where the use of force against
those who violates the rules is decentralized, typically by the victims
and/or their allies, with mechanisms that make using or threatening
force much less practical when you are in the wrong than in the right.
What those mechanisms are varies.
Another interesting thing is how common systems are where, although
there is a centralized system for making laws and trying cases, the
actual process of prosecuting cases is private--either by the victim, as
in our tort system, or by volunteer prosecutors, as in Periclean Athens
and 18th century England.
The book grew out of a seminar I've been teaching for some years, which
I created to make myself learn more interesting stuff. It worked.
David Dyer-Bennet
Nov 2, 2012, 11:10:02 PM11/2/12
to
historically.
David Friedman
Nov 3, 2012, 12:43:38 PM11/3/12
to
In article <ylfkobjf...@dd-b.net>,
Arguably, Jewish law slid the other way as a result of the destruction
of the kingdom of Israel. Somali customary law, so far as we can tell,
remained stateless until the exiting colonial powers (U.K. and Italy)
decided to set up a central government--and that project, continued by
the U.N. after its initial failure, hasn't turned out very well. The
Cheyenne, arguably, were gradually evolving towards a government at the
point when they were forced onto reservation, but I don't think the
other plains tribes were.
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> > Excellent point. Something can be "legal" or "illegal" under
> > customary or religious law, for example, and sometimes communities can
> > resolve disputes under those kinds of law without resorting to a
> > "government."
>
> Although those things tend to slide into being forms of government,
> historically.
I don't think that's clear.
> > Excellent point. Something can be "legal" or "illegal" under
> > customary or religious law, for example, and sometimes communities can
> > resolve disputes under those kinds of law without resorting to a
> > "government."
>
> Although those things tend to slide into being forms of government,
> historically.
Arguably, Jewish law slid the other way as a result of the destruction
of the kingdom of Israel. Somali customary law, so far as we can tell,
remained stateless until the exiting colonial powers (U.K. and Italy)
decided to set up a central government--and that project, continued by
the U.N. after its initial failure, hasn't turned out very well. The
Cheyenne, arguably, were gradually evolving towards a government at the
point when they were forced onto reservation, but I don't think the
other plains tribes were.
ppint. at pplay
Nov 3, 2012, 4:34:27 PM11/3/12
to
- hi; in article,
<1dd633a0-05cb-4c4b...@l7g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
kev...@my-deja.com "Kevrob" concurred:
a duel, or a lynching; in the absence of any ameliorating system,
such as that for conciliation provided by a mutually recognised
authority wergild (or its equivalent) mayn't exist, and in any
case need not be accepted even if offered; and in the multiple,
extended case, the process may variously be termed blood feud or
vendetta - and in the extreme, war of enslavement, or genocide.
- i do not know whether the principle that the king(or chief)'s
peace dies with the king, or chief, is a stage that societies
universally pass through on their way to a fully socialised
legal system independant of the imperium (and eventually, whose
rule the imperium, itself, is forced to recognise), and i doubt
that this could be proven or demonstrated; but i suspect that it
is true for every agrarian society, for every settled pastoral
society, and effectively for any nomadic pastoral society living
in a setting defined by agrarian &/or settled pastoral societies,
that attains or accepts a fully socialised legal system.
- love, ppint.
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
"And I usually use a mallet instead of the rolling pin..."
- glinda, 23/10/96 (10/23/96 for merkins)
<1dd633a0-05cb-4c4b...@l7g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
kev...@my-deja.com "Kevrob" concurred:
> David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:
>> Indeed that is not the point. The point is that you cannot show
>> that government declaring something "illegal" is the only way you
>> and society can enforce that someone cannot "steal your property,
>> lock you up, draft you, or execute you".
>
>Excellent point. Something can be "legal" or "illegal" under customary
>or religious law, for example, and sometimes communities can resolve
>disputes under those kinds of law without resorting to a "government."
- indeed. in the singular, the process may be variously termed
>> Indeed that is not the point. The point is that you cannot show
>> that government declaring something "illegal" is the only way you
>> and society can enforce that someone cannot "steal your property,
>> lock you up, draft you, or execute you".
>
>Excellent point. Something can be "legal" or "illegal" under customary
>or religious law, for example, and sometimes communities can resolve
>disputes under those kinds of law without resorting to a "government."
a duel, or a lynching; in the absence of any ameliorating system,
such as that for conciliation provided by a mutually recognised
authority wergild (or its equivalent) mayn't exist, and in any
case need not be accepted even if offered; and in the multiple,
extended case, the process may variously be termed blood feud or
vendetta - and in the extreme, war of enslavement, or genocide.
- i do not know whether the principle that the king(or chief)'s
peace dies with the king, or chief, is a stage that societies
universally pass through on their way to a fully socialised
legal system independant of the imperium (and eventually, whose
rule the imperium, itself, is forced to recognise), and i doubt
that this could be proven or demonstrated; but i suspect that it
is true for every agrarian society, for every settled pastoral
society, and effectively for any nomadic pastoral society living
in a setting defined by agrarian &/or settled pastoral societies,
that attains or accepts a fully socialised legal system.
- love, ppint.
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
"And I usually use a mallet instead of the rolling pin..."
- glinda, 23/10/96 (10/23/96 for merkins)
David Friedman
Nov 4, 2012, 1:26:28 AM11/4/12
to
In article <20121103.203...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk>,
functioned tolerably well in a variety of societies. I'm not sure the
long lasting, multi-generational, blood feud is entirely mythical, but I
don't think it is at all typical. The famous U.S. example, the Hatfield
and McCoy conflict, ended with a total of four deaths, three of them the
men responsible for the fourth, only to be later revived by the
government of the state three of whose citizens had been killed. The
Finnish gypsies, the Kaale, one of the world's odder societies, don't
seem to have a mechanism for terminating feuds, but shift pretty quickly
from violence to avoidance.
I'm not sure what, for you, counts as a "mutually recognized authority."
In the Icelandic system there was a legal system, including courts, but
it had no enforcement powers--that was entirely private. Does that
suffice? The traditional Somali system uses a more nearly ad hoc court
system, but there is (as, I think, in most such systems) a recognized
system of traditional law, although no legislature. Is it sufficient
that there are mutually recognized norms? That's all the Rominchal seem
to have, but it didn't sound, from the description in _Gypsy Law_, as
though the result was "bloody feud."
The Commanche come as close as any society I'm familiar with to pure
anarchists, but their feuds automatically terminated after the second
killing, at least if I correctly remember Hoebel's account.
v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk ("ppint. at pplay") wrote:
> - indeed. in the singular, the process may be variously termed
> a duel, or a lynching; in the absence of any ameliorating system,
> such as that for conciliation provided by a mutually recognised
> authority wergild (or its equivalent) mayn't exist, and in any
> case need not be accepted even if offered; and in the multiple,
> extended case, the process may variously be termed blood feud or
> vendetta - and in the extreme, war of enslavement, or genocide.
Feud systems have a bad reputation with moderns, but they seem to have
> - indeed. in the singular, the process may be variously termed
> a duel, or a lynching; in the absence of any ameliorating system,
> such as that for conciliation provided by a mutually recognised
> authority wergild (or its equivalent) mayn't exist, and in any
> case need not be accepted even if offered; and in the multiple,
> extended case, the process may variously be termed blood feud or
> vendetta - and in the extreme, war of enslavement, or genocide.
functioned tolerably well in a variety of societies. I'm not sure the
long lasting, multi-generational, blood feud is entirely mythical, but I
don't think it is at all typical. The famous U.S. example, the Hatfield
and McCoy conflict, ended with a total of four deaths, three of them the
men responsible for the fourth, only to be later revived by the
government of the state three of whose citizens had been killed. The
Finnish gypsies, the Kaale, one of the world's odder societies, don't
seem to have a mechanism for terminating feuds, but shift pretty quickly
from violence to avoidance.
I'm not sure what, for you, counts as a "mutually recognized authority."
In the Icelandic system there was a legal system, including courts, but
it had no enforcement powers--that was entirely private. Does that
suffice? The traditional Somali system uses a more nearly ad hoc court
system, but there is (as, I think, in most such systems) a recognized
system of traditional law, although no legislature. Is it sufficient
that there are mutually recognized norms? That's all the Rominchal seem
to have, but it didn't sound, from the description in _Gypsy Law_, as
though the result was "bloody feud."
The Commanche come as close as any society I'm familiar with to pure
anarchists, but their feuds automatically terminated after the second
killing, at least if I correctly remember Hoebel's account.
Lowell Gilbert
Nov 4, 2012, 6:09:44 PM11/4/12
to
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes:
> The book grew out of a seminar I've been teaching for some years, which
> I created to make myself learn more interesting stuff. It worked.
I'm thrilled to hear that. Your comments in this area over the last few
> The book grew out of a seminar I've been teaching for some years, which
> I created to make myself learn more interesting stuff. It worked.
years have come close to inspiring me to learn about the subject on my
own, but haven't quite produced any specific action. I'll await your
book's publication, and spend this week's study time preparing a story
that Michael Tighe(/of York) is twisting my arm to tell next weekend.
Be well.
Mark Zenier
Nov 4, 2012, 11:36:12 AM11/4/12
to
In article <ddfr-193606.2...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu>,
Kind of rough on the tourism industry, or anything else that requires
tolerance of outsiders.
Mark Zenier mze...@eskimo.com
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)
tolerance of outsiders.
Mark Zenier mze...@eskimo.com
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)
David Friedman
Nov 5, 2012, 12:02:38 PM11/5/12
to
In article <k78oe...@enews4.newsguy.com>,
at the time.
I gather that in the traditional Somali system, visiting foreigners in
effect could get adopted by a local clan in order to plug into the
system.
mze...@eskimo.com (Mark Zenier) wrote:
> >The Commanche come as close as any society I'm familiar with to pure
> >anarchists, but their feuds automatically terminated after the second
> >killing, at least if I correctly remember Hoebel's account.
>
> Kind of rough on the tourism industry, or anything else that requires
> tolerance of outsiders.
I don't think there were a whole lot of tourists visiting the Commanche
> >The Commanche come as close as any society I'm familiar with to pure
> >anarchists, but their feuds automatically terminated after the second
> >killing, at least if I correctly remember Hoebel's account.
>
> Kind of rough on the tourism industry, or anything else that requires
> tolerance of outsiders.
at the time.
I gather that in the traditional Somali system, visiting foreigners in
effect could get adopted by a local clan in order to plug into the
system.
Mark Zenier
Nov 6, 2012, 12:37:48 PM11/6/12
to
In article <ddfr-ADD6C8.0...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu>,
that stick out in my mind, but you get the same sort of reception on up
and down in history. As I remember, Viking Weregild didn't need to paid
for strangers).
IMHO, Feud based justice systems are more shame based than guilt based.
(Maintaining standing (honor) within the local society, as opposed to
following some moral absolutes). That leads to outsiders being looked
at as prey. Anyone without sufficient connections or self protection is
dead meat or, at the least, gets targeted by every rock throwing ragamuffin
on the street.
A bad environment for trade, leading to systemic poverty.
Semi-Serious Hypothesis: The more brutal aspects of European Colonialism
was driven by the desire to be able to go for a ride without the previously
mentioned ragamuffins stoning your coachman.
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>In article <k78oe...@enews4.newsguy.com>,
> mze...@eskimo.com (Mark Zenier) wrote:
>
>> >The Commanche come as close as any society I'm familiar with to pure
>> >anarchists, but their feuds automatically terminated after the second
>> >killing, at least if I correctly remember Hoebel's account.
>>
>> Kind of rough on the tourism industry, or anything else that requires
>> tolerance of outsiders.
>
>I don't think there were a whole lot of tourists visiting the Commanche
>at the time.
>
>I gather that in the traditional Somali system, visiting foreigners in
>effect could get adopted by a local clan in order to plug into the
>system.
I was commenting on many cultures. (Albania and Afghanistan are a couple
>In article <k78oe...@enews4.newsguy.com>,
> mze...@eskimo.com (Mark Zenier) wrote:
>
>> >The Commanche come as close as any society I'm familiar with to pure
>> >anarchists, but their feuds automatically terminated after the second
>> >killing, at least if I correctly remember Hoebel's account.
>>
>> Kind of rough on the tourism industry, or anything else that requires
>> tolerance of outsiders.
>
>I don't think there were a whole lot of tourists visiting the Commanche
>at the time.
>
>I gather that in the traditional Somali system, visiting foreigners in
>effect could get adopted by a local clan in order to plug into the
>system.
that stick out in my mind, but you get the same sort of reception on up
and down in history. As I remember, Viking Weregild didn't need to paid
for strangers).
IMHO, Feud based justice systems are more shame based than guilt based.
(Maintaining standing (honor) within the local society, as opposed to
following some moral absolutes). That leads to outsiders being looked
at as prey. Anyone without sufficient connections or self protection is
dead meat or, at the least, gets targeted by every rock throwing ragamuffin
on the street.
A bad environment for trade, leading to systemic poverty.
Semi-Serious Hypothesis: The more brutal aspects of European Colonialism
was driven by the desire to be able to go for a ride without the previously
mentioned ragamuffins stoning your coachman.
Keith F. Lynch
Nov 7, 2012, 8:38:36 PM11/7/12
to
ppint. at pplay <v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> in the singular, the process may be variously termed a duel,
> or a lynching;
Sounds nasty. But the important question is whether its error rate
> in the singular, the process may be variously termed a duel,
> or a lynching;
is worse than that of governments. I don't think anyone knows that.
> in the absence of any ameliorating system, such as that for
> conciliation provided by a mutually recognised authority wergild
> (or its equivalent) mayn't exist, and in any case need not be
> accepted even if offered;
supress all private feuds, if only by arbitrarily taking sides and
smashing the heads of the "wrong" side. However, I for one prefer
justice to order.
> and in the multiple, extended case, the process may variously
> be termed blood feud or vendetta - and in the extreme, war of
> enslavement, or genocide.
actions. Without strong government support for slavery, the slaves
would just run away, and the slave owners would have no recourse.
Slavery lasted as long as it did here in Virginia only because
non-slaveholders were taxed to support slavecatchers -- a large
subsidy to slaveholders.
Doug Wickström
Nov 8, 2012, 2:25:50 AM11/8/12
to
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 17:37:48 GMT, mze...@eskimo.com (Mark Zenier)
wrote:
>As I remember, Viking Weregild didn't need to paid
>for strangers).
Not so. From the Law of the West Goths: "Kills a man a man of
Gothland, or of Sweden, he shall be blood-guilty, and shall pay
wereguild. And he not pay wereguild, he shall be outlaw, and
every man's hand may be set against him as they will." Or
something to that effect. I'm working from memory.
So there was a sense of nation, and of obligation to fellow
citizens and allies.
--
Doug Wickström
wrote:
>As I remember, Viking Weregild didn't need to paid
>for strangers).
Gothland, or of Sweden, he shall be blood-guilty, and shall pay
wereguild. And he not pay wereguild, he shall be outlaw, and
every man's hand may be set against him as they will." Or
something to that effect. I'm working from memory.
So there was a sense of nation, and of obligation to fellow
citizens and allies.
--
Doug Wickström
David Friedman
Nov 8, 2012, 3:00:15 AM11/8/12
to
In article <genm981k6gp21vutt...@4ax.com>,
In the Icelandic case, I think it was a question of whether you were "in
law" with the other person. Everyone in Iceland except outlaws was in
law with everyone else, aside from a few hours in the year 1000 when
Christians and pagans were out of law with each other.
But I suspect that if an Icelander killed a Norwegian, he wouldn't be
surprised to have the victim's kin demand wergeld of him.
law" with the other person. Everyone in Iceland except outlaws was in
law with everyone else, aside from a few hours in the year 1000 when
Christians and pagans were out of law with each other.
But I suspect that if an Icelander killed a Norwegian, he wouldn't be
surprised to have the victim's kin demand wergeld of him.
Kevrob
Nov 8, 2012, 10:45:13 AM11/8/12
to
On Nov 8, 3:00 am, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:
> In article <genm981k6gp21vuttd0s53f7214p1km...@4ax.com>,
> Doug Wickström <nimshu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 17:37:48 GMT, mzen...@eskimo.com (Mark Zenier)
ever again?
Kevin
wrote:
> In article <genm981k6gp21vuttd0s53f7214p1km...@4ax.com>,
> Doug Wickström <nimshu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 17:37:48 GMT, mzen...@eskimo.com (Mark Zenier)
> > wrote:
>
> > >As I remember, Viking Weregild didn't need to paid
> > >for strangers).
>
> > Not so. From the Law of the West Goths: "Kills a man a man of
> > Gothland, or of Sweden, he shall be blood-guilty, and shall pay
> > wereguild. And he not pay wereguild, he shall be outlaw, and
> > every man's hand may be set against him as they will." Or
> > something to that effect. I'm working from memory.
>
> > So there was a sense of nation, and of obligation to fellow
> > citizens and allies.
>
> In the Icelandic case, I think it was a question of whether you were "in
> law" with the other person. Everyone in Iceland except outlaws was in
> law with everyone else, aside from a few hours in the year 1000 when
> Christians and pagans were out of law with each other.
>
> But I suspect that if an Icelander killed a Norwegian, he wouldn't be
> surprised to have the victim's kin demand wergeld of him.
>
>
Had he not, would the Norwegians have ever traded with him and his
>
> > >As I remember, Viking Weregild didn't need to paid
> > >for strangers).
>
> > Not so. From the Law of the West Goths: "Kills a man a man of
> > Gothland, or of Sweden, he shall be blood-guilty, and shall pay
> > wereguild. And he not pay wereguild, he shall be outlaw, and
> > every man's hand may be set against him as they will." Or
> > something to that effect. I'm working from memory.
>
> > So there was a sense of nation, and of obligation to fellow
> > citizens and allies.
>
> In the Icelandic case, I think it was a question of whether you were "in
> law" with the other person. Everyone in Iceland except outlaws was in
> law with everyone else, aside from a few hours in the year 1000 when
> Christians and pagans were out of law with each other.
>
> But I suspect that if an Icelander killed a Norwegian, he wouldn't be
> surprised to have the victim's kin demand wergeld of him.
>
>
ever again?
Kevin
David Friedman
Nov 8, 2012, 11:47:36 AM11/8/12
to
In article
<f46b3e2c-700a-48c1...@a6g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
if the king of Norway was angry with you--I'm thinking about the events
leading up to the Christian/Pagan crisis in 1000. More likely the kin of
the victim would kill him if given the chance.
I don't think there was as tight an idea of nationality as we have,
despite a good deal of patriotic sentiment in the sagas ("By law was our
nation built up, by lawlessness will it be torn down") When Egil is in
Norway and discovers that the sister of his friend has been challenged
for her land by a berserker, and only has a teenaged son to fight for
it, he takes over the case and kills the berserker. Nobody seems to
think it odd, although he's an Icelander, not a Norwegian.
To take a different case from the beginning of that saga, when Egil's
father and grandfather are on their way to Iceland from Norway, they
stop on an island, wait until the ship that king Harald seized from
Egil's uncle Thorvald (who Harald killed) comes by with two of Harald's
nephews on it, attack the ship, kill almost everyone on it including the
nephews, fish one man out of the sea and send him back to Harald to tell
him who did it. This is after Harald refused to pay wergeld for
Thorvald, and pretty clearly is a response to that refusal.
<f46b3e2c-700a-48c1...@a6g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > But I suspect that if an Icelander killed a Norwegian, he wouldn't be
> > surprised to have the victim's kin demand wergeld of him.
> >
> >
>
> Had he not, would the Norwegians have ever traded with him and his
> ever again?
I think "the Norwegians" refusing to trade could only happen, if at all,
> > But I suspect that if an Icelander killed a Norwegian, he wouldn't be
> > surprised to have the victim's kin demand wergeld of him.
> >
> >
>
> Had he not, would the Norwegians have ever traded with him and his
> ever again?
if the king of Norway was angry with you--I'm thinking about the events
leading up to the Christian/Pagan crisis in 1000. More likely the kin of
the victim would kill him if given the chance.
I don't think there was as tight an idea of nationality as we have,
despite a good deal of patriotic sentiment in the sagas ("By law was our
nation built up, by lawlessness will it be torn down") When Egil is in
Norway and discovers that the sister of his friend has been challenged
for her land by a berserker, and only has a teenaged son to fight for
it, he takes over the case and kills the berserker. Nobody seems to
think it odd, although he's an Icelander, not a Norwegian.
To take a different case from the beginning of that saga, when Egil's
father and grandfather are on their way to Iceland from Norway, they
stop on an island, wait until the ship that king Harald seized from
Egil's uncle Thorvald (who Harald killed) comes by with two of Harald's
nephews on it, attack the ship, kill almost everyone on it including the
nephews, fish one man out of the sea and send him back to Harald to tell
him who did it. This is after Harald refused to pay wergeld for
Thorvald, and pretty clearly is a response to that refusal.
David Dyer-Bennet
Nov 8, 2012, 6:07:35 PM11/8/12
to
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
> Genocide and wars of enslavement are almost invariably government
> actions.
I think the 20th century looks that way because it's the century of
> actions.
large central governments.
I was just reading Ben Franklin on the subject...here we
go...<http://www.historycarper.com/1764/03/01/a-narrative-of-the-late-massacres/>.
Keith F. Lynch
Nov 8, 2012, 7:30:19 PM11/8/12
to
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>> Genocide and wars of enslavement are almost invariably government
>> actions.
> I think the 20th century looks that way because it's the century of
> large central governments.
> I was just reading Ben Franklin on the subject...here we
> go...<http://www.historycarper.com/1764/03/01/a-narrative-of-the-late-massacres/>.
Is that the best you can do? Just 20 murders, by a gang? Much
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>> Genocide and wars of enslavement are almost invariably government
>> actions.
> I think the 20th century looks that way because it's the century of
> large central governments.
> I was just reading Ben Franklin on the subject...here we
> go...<http://www.historycarper.com/1764/03/01/a-narrative-of-the-late-massacres/>.
more recently, the Virginia Tech shooter killed 33, and did it
singlehandedly. I think 9/11 holds the record for a massacre not
conducted by a government, at about 3000. Government massacres of
course routinely go well into the tens of millions. I don't think
anything much smaller can reasonably be considered a genocide.
Keith F. Lynch
Nov 8, 2012, 8:07:50 PM11/8/12
to
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> Nobody seems to think it odd, although he's an Icelander, not
> a Norwegian.
Weren't they the same country at the time? Iceland has only been
> Nobody seems to think it odd, although he's an Icelander, not
> a Norwegian.
independent since 1944.
David Friedman
Nov 8, 2012, 8:42:54 PM11/8/12
to
In article <k7hl16$gu3$3...@reader1.panix.com>,
the traditional Icelandic account, it was settled by Norwegians fleeing
Harald Haarfagr's unification of Norway.
It went under Norwegian rule about 1263.
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> > Nobody seems to think it odd, although he's an Icelander, not
> > a Norwegian.
>
> Weren't they the same country at the time? Iceland has only been
> independent since 1944.
When Egilsaga takes place, c. 900, Iceland was independent. According to
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> > Nobody seems to think it odd, although he's an Icelander, not
> > a Norwegian.
>
> Weren't they the same country at the time? Iceland has only been
> independent since 1944.
the traditional Icelandic account, it was settled by Norwegians fleeing
Harald Haarfagr's unification of Norway.
It went under Norwegian rule about 1263.
David Friedman
Nov 8, 2012, 8:45:29 PM11/8/12
to
In article <ylfkd2zn...@dd-b.net>,
I think slave raiding across the border was largely a private
entrepreneural project, although of course supported by the approval of
the state the slaves were being brought to and sold in.
As I interpret it, that was one reason it was an expanding polity. Slave
raiding weakened the surrounding territories at no cost to the Sultan,
and the fact that once they were under Ottoman rule they would no longer
be raided reduced the incentive to resist conquest.
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>
> > Genocide and wars of enslavement are almost invariably government
> > actions.
>
> I think the 20th century looks that way because it's the century of
> large central governments.
In the Ottoman case, back when it was a successful and expanding polity,
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>
> > Genocide and wars of enslavement are almost invariably government
> > actions.
>
> I think the 20th century looks that way because it's the century of
> large central governments.
I think slave raiding across the border was largely a private
entrepreneural project, although of course supported by the approval of
the state the slaves were being brought to and sold in.
As I interpret it, that was one reason it was an expanding polity. Slave
raiding weakened the surrounding territories at no cost to the Sultan,
and the fact that once they were under Ottoman rule they would no longer
be raided reduced the incentive to resist conquest.
Joy Beeson
Nov 9, 2012, 12:22:18 AM11/9/12
to
On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 00:30:19 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> I don't think
> anything much smaller can reasonably be considered a genocide.
All depends on the size of your gen.
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> I don't think
> anything much smaller can reasonably be considered a genocide.
It's theoretically possible to commit genocide without killing or even
inconveniencing anybody.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
Mark Zenier
Nov 8, 2012, 2:16:04 PM11/8/12
to
Keith F. Lynch
Nov 10, 2012, 4:17:21 PM11/10/12
to
Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
> It's theoretically possible to commit genocide without killing or
> even inconveniencing anybody.
If so, the definition needs work. For instance I don't think it
> It's theoretically possible to commit genocide without killing or
> even inconveniencing anybody.
should be considered genocide if you "destroy" a religious group by
convincing all its members that the religion is bogus.
Joy Beeson
Nov 11, 2012, 12:02:28 AM11/11/12
to
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 21:17:21 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> For instance I don't think it
> should be considered genocide if you "destroy" a religious group by
> convincing all its members that the religion is bogus.
How about doing it by kidnapping their children and bringing them up
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> For instance I don't think it
> should be considered genocide if you "destroy" a religious group by
> convincing all its members that the religion is bogus.
in the one true faith?
That's a sharp change of subject, but something that has frequently
been tried in real life.
Thomas Womack
Nov 11, 2012, 5:59:11 AM11/11/12
to
In article <k7e3b...@enews2.newsguy.com>,
which included a night at a 'Shangaan village'. They hadn't quite
finished building the village when we turned up, and it may be that
this anthropology is at least as phony as the village, but the guide
told us 'guests are put up in the first house to the left of the
entrance to the corrall, and invaders coming in the night know to kill
the guests first'. Which was quite strikingly alien.
Mark Zenier <mze...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>That leads to outsiders being looked
>at as prey. Anyone without sufficient connections or self protection is
>dead meat or, at the least, gets targeted by every rock throwing ragamuffin
>on the street.
I went to South Africa a couple of years ago on an organised trip,
>That leads to outsiders being looked
>at as prey. Anyone without sufficient connections or self protection is
>dead meat or, at the least, gets targeted by every rock throwing ragamuffin
>on the street.
which included a night at a 'Shangaan village'. They hadn't quite
finished building the village when we turned up, and it may be that
this anthropology is at least as phony as the village, but the guide
told us 'guests are put up in the first house to the left of the
entrance to the corrall, and invaders coming in the night know to kill
the guests first'. Which was quite strikingly alien.
David Friedman
Nov 11, 2012, 12:44:18 PM11/11/12
to
In article <k7mg91$a2h$2...@reader1.panix.com>,
mothers that you will take their children away from them if they don't
abandon their religion? The Texas Child Protection people tried that,
but eventually got shot down by the court system. I think that arguably
qualifies as attempted genocide under U.S. law.
Author of _Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
> > It's theoretically possible to commit genocide without killing or
> > even inconveniencing anybody.
>
> If so, the definition needs work. For instance I don't think it
> should be considered genocide if you "destroy" a religious group by
> convincing all its members that the religion is bogus.
How about if you do it by "inconveniencing" but not killing--telling
> > It's theoretically possible to commit genocide without killing or
> > even inconveniencing anybody.
>
> If so, the definition needs work. For instance I don't think it
> should be considered genocide if you "destroy" a religious group by
> convincing all its members that the religion is bogus.
mothers that you will take their children away from them if they don't
abandon their religion? The Texas Child Protection people tried that,
but eventually got shot down by the court system. I think that arguably
qualifies as attempted genocide under U.S. law.
Author of _Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_
David Friedman
Nov 11, 2012, 12:49:32 PM11/11/12
to
In article <h8cu98tu0h6gkjaav...@4ax.com>,
Are there examples where that was done on a scale that would wipe out
the religion? I think the Shakers disappeared because they were not
allowed to adopt children, which isn't quite the same thing. The
Ottomans took Christian children for the Janizaries, but that wasn't an
attempt to wipe out Christianity.
The attack on the FLDS in Texas was arguably an attempt along those
lines, though only in one state, but it was shot down by the courts,
fortunately. I think the people responsible ought to have been liable
for massive damages, but as far as I know it didn't happen.
the religion? I think the Shakers disappeared because they were not
allowed to adopt children, which isn't quite the same thing. The
Ottomans took Christian children for the Janizaries, but that wasn't an
attempt to wipe out Christianity.
The attack on the FLDS in Texas was arguably an attempt along those
lines, though only in one state, but it was shot down by the courts,
fortunately. I think the people responsible ought to have been liable
for massive damages, but as far as I know it didn't happen.
Kevrob
Nov 11, 2012, 4:35:11 PM11/11/12
to
On Nov 11, 12:49 pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:
> In article <h8cu98tu0h6gkjaav4229td9uuh1b1q...@4ax.com>,
to have Catholicism and dissenting Protestantism disppear from
Ireland, even if that wasn't to be. Stamping out all but the embers
of the native language and arrogating to their co-religionists most of
the good land andall of the political power served their purposes well
enough. Economic restrictions were an incentive to emigrate, too, so
insofar as what we now call "ethnic cleansing" is a species of
genocide, that was going on.
We could compare the fees recusants paid to the higher taxes non-
Muslims had to pay under the Caliphate.
Kevin
wrote:
> In article <h8cu98tu0h6gkjaav4229td9uuh1b1q...@4ax.com>,
> Joy Beeson <jbee...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 21:17:21 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
> > <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
> > > For instance I don't think it
> > > should be considered genocide if you "destroy" a religious group by
> > > convincing all its members that the religion is bogus.
>
> > How about doing it by kidnapping their children and bringing them up
> > in the one true faith?
>
> > That's a sharp change of subject, but something that has frequently
> > been tried in real life.
>
> Are there examples where that was done on a scale that would wipe out
> the religion? I think the Shakers disappeared because they were not
> allowed to adopt children, which isn't quite the same thing. The
> Ottomans took Christian children for the Janizaries, but that wasn't an
> attempt to wipe out Christianity.
>
> The attack on the FLDS in Texas was arguably an attempt along those
> lines, though only in one state, but it was shot down by the courts,
> fortunately. I think the people responsible ought to have been liable
> for massive damages, but as far as I know it didn't happen.
>
>
I'm sure it was the hope of those who intituted the Irish Penal Laws
>
> > On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 21:17:21 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
> > <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
> > > For instance I don't think it
> > > should be considered genocide if you "destroy" a religious group by
> > > convincing all its members that the religion is bogus.
>
> > How about doing it by kidnapping their children and bringing them up
> > in the one true faith?
>
> > That's a sharp change of subject, but something that has frequently
> > been tried in real life.
>
> Are there examples where that was done on a scale that would wipe out
> the religion? I think the Shakers disappeared because they were not
> allowed to adopt children, which isn't quite the same thing. The
> Ottomans took Christian children for the Janizaries, but that wasn't an
> attempt to wipe out Christianity.
>
> The attack on the FLDS in Texas was arguably an attempt along those
> lines, though only in one state, but it was shot down by the courts,
> fortunately. I think the people responsible ought to have been liable
> for massive damages, but as far as I know it didn't happen.
>
>
to have Catholicism and dissenting Protestantism disppear from
Ireland, even if that wasn't to be. Stamping out all but the embers
of the native language and arrogating to their co-religionists most of
the good land andall of the political power served their purposes well
enough. Economic restrictions were an incentive to emigrate, too, so
insofar as what we now call "ethnic cleansing" is a species of
genocide, that was going on.
We could compare the fees recusants paid to the higher taxes non-
Muslims had to pay under the Caliphate.
Kevin
Doug Wickström
Nov 12, 2012, 9:24:33 PM11/12/12
to
On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:49:32 -0800, David Friedman
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>I think the Shakers disappeared because they were not
>allowed to adopt children,
Shakers disappeared* because they were not allowed to _have_
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>I think the Shakers disappeared because they were not
>allowed to adopt children,
children. The communities grew by the voluntary accession of
adults.
*There are a few left.
--
Doug Wickström
Dan Goodman
Nov 12, 2012, 9:58:45 PM11/12/12
to
Doug Wickström wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:49:32 -0800, David Friedman
> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> > I think the Shakers disappeared because they were not
> > allowed to adopt children,
>
> Shakers disappeared* because they were not allowed to have
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:49:32 -0800, David Friedman
> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> > I think the Shakers disappeared because they were not
> > allowed to adopt children,
>
> children. The communities grew by the voluntary accession of
> adults.
>
> *There are a few left.
If I recall correctly, they took in orphans.
> adults.
>
> *There are a few left.
--
Dan Goodman
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
David Friedman
Nov 12, 2012, 10:29:19 PM11/12/12
to
In article <hnb3a85ni1rq5rlfr...@4ax.com>,
population in part by adopting children. Until they were forbidden to do
so.
Wikipedia agrees with at least the first part:
"Strict believers in celibacy, Shakers acquired their members through
conversion, indenturing children, and adoption of orphans."
And perhaps the second:
"This continued until orphanages were established and the states began
to limit adoption by religious groups."
and
"Shakers are no longer allowed to adopt orphans after new laws were
passed in 1960 denying adoption to religious groups"
although by that time the Shakers were mostly gone anyway.
Doug Wickström <nims...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:49:32 -0800, David Friedman
> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> >I think the Shakers disappeared because they were not
> >allowed to adopt children,
>
> Shakers disappeared* because they were not allowed to _have_
> children. The communities grew by the voluntary accession of
> adults.
I thought they chose not to have children and maintained their
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:49:32 -0800, David Friedman
> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> >I think the Shakers disappeared because they were not
> >allowed to adopt children,
>
> Shakers disappeared* because they were not allowed to _have_
> children. The communities grew by the voluntary accession of
> adults.
population in part by adopting children. Until they were forbidden to do
so.
Wikipedia agrees with at least the first part:
"Strict believers in celibacy, Shakers acquired their members through
conversion, indenturing children, and adoption of orphans."
And perhaps the second:
"This continued until orphanages were established and the states began
to limit adoption by religious groups."
and
"Shakers are no longer allowed to adopt orphans after new laws were
passed in 1960 denying adoption to religious groups"
although by that time the Shakers were mostly gone anyway.
Keith F. Lynch
Nov 12, 2012, 10:50:00 PM11/12/12
to
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> "Shakers are no longer allowed to adopt orphans after new laws were
> passed in 1960 denying adoption to religious groups"
Can non-religious groups (other than families) adopt orphans?
> "Shakers are no longer allowed to adopt orphans after new laws were
> passed in 1960 denying adoption to religious groups"
Why can't individual Shakers adopt orphans?
Philip Chee
Nov 13, 2012, 12:51:35 AM11/13/12
to
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:29:19 -0800, David Friedman wrote:
> In article <hnb3a85ni1rq5rlfr...@4ax.com>,
> Doug Wickström <nims...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:49:32 -0800, David Friedman
>> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I think the Shakers disappeared because they were not
>> >allowed to adopt children,
>>
>> Shakers disappeared* because they were not allowed to _have_
>> children. The communities grew by the voluntary accession of
>> adults.
>
> I thought they chose not to have children and maintained their
> population in part by adopting children. Until they were forbidden to do
> so.
>
> Wikipedia agrees with at least the first part:
>
> "Strict believers in celibacy, Shakers acquired their members through
> conversion, indenturing children, and adoption of orphans."
>
> And perhaps the second:
>
> "This continued until orphanages were established and the states began
> to limit adoption by religious groups."
>
> and
>
> "Shakers are no longer allowed to adopt orphans after new laws were
> passed in 1960 denying adoption to religious groups"
Wouldn't that have violated the separation of Church and State?
> In article <hnb3a85ni1rq5rlfr...@4ax.com>,
> Doug Wickström <nims...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:49:32 -0800, David Friedman
>> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I think the Shakers disappeared because they were not
>> >allowed to adopt children,
>>
>> Shakers disappeared* because they were not allowed to _have_
>> children. The communities grew by the voluntary accession of
>> adults.
>
> I thought they chose not to have children and maintained their
> population in part by adopting children. Until they were forbidden to do
> so.
>
> Wikipedia agrees with at least the first part:
>
> "Strict believers in celibacy, Shakers acquired their members through
> conversion, indenturing children, and adoption of orphans."
>
> And perhaps the second:
>
> "This continued until orphanages were established and the states began
> to limit adoption by religious groups."
>
> and
>
> "Shakers are no longer allowed to adopt orphans after new laws were
> passed in 1960 denying adoption to religious groups"
> although by that time the Shakers were mostly gone anyway.
--
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>, <phili...@gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
Kevrob
Nov 13, 2012, 6:38:13 AM11/13/12
to
On Nov 13, 12:51 am, Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:29:19 -0800, David Friedman wrote:
> > In article <hnb3a85ni1rq5rlfrmid4kqvh2ri3pf...@4ax.com>,
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:29:19 -0800, David Friedman wrote:
> > Doug Wickström <nimshu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:49:32 -0800, David Friedman
> >> <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> >> >I think the Shakers disappeared because they were not
> >> >allowed to adopt children,
>
> >> Shakers disappeared* because they were not allowed to _have_
> >> children. The communities grew by the voluntary accession of
> >> adults.
>
> > I thought they chose not to have children and maintained their
> > population in part by adopting children. Until they were forbidden to do
> > so.
>
> > Wikipedia agrees with at least the first part:
>
> > "Strict believers in celibacy, Shakers acquired their members through
> > conversion, indenturing children, and adoption of orphans."
>
> > And perhaps the second:
>
> > "This continued until orphanages were established and the states began
> > to limit adoption by religious groups."
>
> > and
>
> > "Shakers are no longer allowed to adopt orphans after new laws were
> > passed in 1960 denying adoption to religious groups"
>
> Wouldn't that have violated the separation of Church and State?
>
> > although by that time the Shakers were mostly gone anyway.
>
Don't forget that, until recently, the agencies placing children for
>
> >> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:49:32 -0800, David Friedman
> >> <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> >> >I think the Shakers disappeared because they were not
> >> >allowed to adopt children,
>
> >> Shakers disappeared* because they were not allowed to _have_
> >> children. The communities grew by the voluntary accession of
> >> adults.
>
> > I thought they chose not to have children and maintained their
> > population in part by adopting children. Until they were forbidden to do
> > so.
>
> > Wikipedia agrees with at least the first part:
>
> > "Strict believers in celibacy, Shakers acquired their members through
> > conversion, indenturing children, and adoption of orphans."
>
> > And perhaps the second:
>
> > "This continued until orphanages were established and the states began
> > to limit adoption by religious groups."
>
> > and
>
> > "Shakers are no longer allowed to adopt orphans after new laws were
> > passed in 1960 denying adoption to religious groups"
>
> Wouldn't that have violated the separation of Church and State?
>
> > although by that time the Shakers were mostly gone anyway.
>
adoption wouldn't consider a single person, other than the child's
blood relative, a suitable adoptive parent. There was also the rubric
that a child from one religious tradition would have to have adoptive
parents of the same faith.
Had Shakers married, Shaker couples probably could have continued to
adopt orphans who came from Protestant parents, as long as the
deceased didn't leave specific instructions that the kid(s) had to be
raised Lutheran or Congregationalist or whatever.
Kevin
David Harmon
Nov 13, 2012, 11:44:21 AM11/13/12
to
On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:49:32 -0800 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, David
Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote,
Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote,
>The attack on the FLDS in Texas was arguably an attempt along those
>lines, though only in one state, but it was shot down by the courts,
>fortunately. I think the people responsible ought to have been liable
>for massive damages, but as far as I know it didn't happen.
Perhaps if the Mormon had been elected.
>lines, though only in one state, but it was shot down by the courts,
>fortunately. I think the people responsible ought to have been liable
>for massive damages, but as far as I know it didn't happen.
David Friedman
Nov 13, 2012, 11:59:16 AM11/13/12
to
In article <QdqdnYkdDOyC5D_N...@earthlink.com>,
I doubt it. The LDS is pretty negative on the split-off groups, as one
might expect.
might expect.
Keith F. Lynch
Nov 13, 2012, 7:47:30 PM11/13/12
to
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:
groups.
> David Friedman wrote:
>> "Shakers are no longer allowed to adopt orphans after new laws were
>> passed in 1960 denying adoption to religious groups"
> Wouldn't that have violated the separation of Church and State?
Only if the laws distinguished between religious and non-religious
>> "Shakers are no longer allowed to adopt orphans after new laws were
>> passed in 1960 denying adoption to religious groups"
> Wouldn't that have violated the separation of Church and State?
groups.
0 new messages