J Thomas on May 07, 2011, 06:46:17 pm
It is absurd to say I have no right to complain about anything he does with his own reactor on his own property until after he blows himself up and takes me with him.

Your grounds might be justified - but people are always inventing grounds to exercise power over other people.  So your argument should not be accepted until there have been a lot of nuclear accidents, and these accidents have produced demonstrable, rather than hypothetical harm.

It depends. If one accident takes out a tenth of the population on Ceres, should they wait for 10 accidents? I think one is enough.

But we have not had a civilian nuclear accident on earth that takes out a tenth of the population of the town where the accident occurred, and are not likely to, yet nonetheless have a great pile of litigation.

I hope that Ceres won't have US 1970-style nuclear power plants.

My hypothetical example involves lots of small nuclear plants that are completely safe when left alone, that can become unsafe if fiddled with by somebody who isn't competent to adjust them.

That has nothing to do with accidents in ancient nuclear plants on Terra.

sam on May 07, 2011, 07:04:48 pm
Exactly. It was an execution, not a trial. Incidentally, this is what got a NYC-ensconced, so-called, ZAP advocate*, Perry Metzger frothing at the mouth. He thinks that stateless societies will (or should) all fall into line when applying the ZAP and settle most (all?) differences by Xeer or similar informal legal systems. Since he mis-characterized Harris and Young's executions as trials, he told me it was murder and basically that this is not the way anarchy works. He even wrote a pitiful little Just So Story showing how it should have been done. It was awful and completely trivialized the deaths of de Leon and the Roses.

So Perry complains your depiction of anarchy is not legalistic enough, and I complain it is far too legalistic.


sam on May 07, 2011, 07:12:48 pm
Someone murdered your wife, and unfortunately he didn't make an error in victim selection. Now, five years later, evidence has been pieced together, and you claim that Joe is the murderer. But you can't just shoot him - that's not immediate self-defence; you would be treated as a violator of the ZAP if you did so.

Well actually you can just shoot him, and in the sagas, people were apt to do so.  A court case will then probably ensue.  In saga period Iceland, if you killed him furtively, you would probably lose the ensuing case.  If, however, you killed him openly and in public, and publicly announced the reason and evidence, confidently campaigned in the court of public opinion before campaigning in the court of law, probably win it.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2011, 07:14:29 pm by sam »

sam on May 07, 2011, 07:23:15 pm
You did originally state a disclaimer that the sagas may not have represented Icelandic society. Then you claimed from the sagas what Icelandic society was like. Now you say it wasn't that way.

Obviously Icelandic sagas are more dramatic than icelandic everyday life.  But the background society is, equally obviously, the background society that Icelanders took for granted.  The Sagas are extraordinary events taking place  in the ordinary everyday world that Icelanders took for granted.

Thus, characters in Sagas themselves take blood vengeance rather than legal action for monetary damages far more often than was ordinary.  But the legal consequences of oneself taking blood vengeance are what the ordinary real life consequences of taking blood vengeance were.

J Thomas on May 08, 2011, 12:03:59 am
You did originally state a disclaimer that the sagas may not have represented Icelandic society. Then you claimed from the sagas what Icelandic society was like. Now you say it wasn't that way.

Obviously Icelandic sagas are more dramatic than icelandic everyday life.  But the background society is, equally obviously, the background society that Icelanders took for granted.  The Sagas are extraordinary events taking place  in the ordinary everyday world that Icelanders took for granted.

Thus, characters in Sagas themselves take blood vengeance rather than legal action for monetary damages far more often than was ordinary.  But the legal consequences of oneself taking blood vengeance are what the ordinary real life consequences of taking blood vengeance were.

I tend to agree with you. The sagas might not be representative but we have nothing else to go on, and I'd like to believe we can learn something from them. It makes sense to speculate from them.

But as an argument for reality they're kind of weak. It could be a lot like somebody in the 27th century figuring out the US justice system from surviving cop shows and lawyer shows.

sam on May 08, 2011, 03:13:46 am
Obviously Icelandic sagas are more dramatic than icelandic everyday life.  But the background society is, equally obviously, the background society that Icelanders took for granted.  The Sagas are extraordinary events taking place  in the ordinary everyday world that Icelanders took for granted.

Thus, characters in Sagas themselves take blood vengeance rather than legal action for monetary damages far more often than was ordinary.  But the legal consequences of oneself taking blood vengeance are what the ordinary real life consequences of taking blood vengeance were.

I tend to agree with you. The sagas might not be representative but we have nothing else to go on, and I'd like to believe we can learn something from them. It makes sense to speculate from them.

But as an argument for reality they're kind of weak. It could be a lot like somebody in the 27th century figuring out the US justice system from surviving cop shows and lawyer shows.

Other than improbable scrupulous honesty and law abiding character of cops and judges on those shows, and the improbable tendency of cops to vigorously investigate, and investigate by the book, twenty seventh centurians would get a reasonably accurate account.  They would correctly learn what was legal, and what was illegal, though they would imagine everyday life to be a lot more violent than it actually was.

J Thomas on May 08, 2011, 07:37:10 am


But as an argument for reality they're kind of weak. It could be a lot like somebody in the 27th century figuring out the US justice system from surviving cop shows and lawyer shows.

Other than improbable scrupulous honesty and law abiding character of cops and judges on those shows, and the improbable tendency of cops to vigorously investigate, and investigate by the book, twenty seventh centurians would get a reasonably accurate account.  They would correctly learn what was legal, and what was illegal, though they would imagine everyday life to be a lot more violent than it actually was.

I am not a lawyer, so when I heard lawyers chuckling over the idea of people thinking they knew something real about law from Perry Mason and later TV shows, I tended to think they were right.

You are a lawyer, so I should know not to trust you.

J Thomas on May 08, 2011, 07:47:18 am

Incidentally, this is what got a NYC-ensconced, so-called, ZAP advocate*, Perry Metzger frothing at the mouth. He thinks that stateless societies will (or should) all fall into line when applying the ZAP and settle most (all?) differences by Xeer or similar informal legal systems. Since he mis-characterized Harris and Young's executions as trials, he told me it was murder and basically that this is not the way anarchy works.

That is wrong on so many levels....

Quote
He even wrote a pitiful little Just So Story showing how it should have been done. It was awful and completely trivialized the deaths of de Leon and the Roses.

* Though he says he advocates the ZAP, he made a couple of, not-so-veiled threats against me, that would constitute the initiation of force under the ZAP.

He threatened physical force against you? That sounds out of character, from what you've said of him.

Quote
The reason for his threats was that I jokingly said I might have to introduce an opinionated New Yorker in an upcoming arc. He sputtered accusations that I would be mocking him with a "sock puppet" and defaming his good name, yadda, yadda, yadda. So he made his threats and then threw me off a list that he hosts on his server for what he assumed I was going to do on an entirely different list! Hell hath no fury like a geek scorned. ::)

Well, that isn't so bad. If he has the right to throw people off lists, and there are decent alternative lists, then it's all settled.

Quote
And now you know... the rest of the story.  ;)

It sounds like he isn't worth your attention, apart from being an important guy who can throw people off lists. But you got a story out of it.

quadibloc on May 08, 2011, 09:13:41 am
So I say, shoot the bastard and deal with his next of kin in arbitration, if they think what I did was wrong. Just as their is no statute of limitations for murder under state jurisdictions, I see no conflict with the ZAP for killing a murderer, no matter how much time has passed.
Actually, come to think of it, neither do I.

The reason I think there's a need for arbitration is that his next of kin might sincerely believe that he is innocent.

Societies where there are multiple ethnic, linguistic, or religious groups - even when they're living together in peace most of the time, but who still have a little bit of a lingering "us" and "them" mentality - are at particular risk of the skewed-perception problem. (Of course, people usually end up living in societies like that, on the knife-edge of genocidal mob violence, because of state-imposed territorial expansion.)

So we're used to societies having to do something about the blood-feud problem... ever since Hammurabi. So, since I was expecting arbitration to do something that states had been doing all along through the initiation of force, naturally I expected the arbitration system to involve some initiation of force.

If one is going to rely on self-selection and so on to ensure the blood-feud problem either does not arise, or at least isn't fatal to the society - occasionally people do bad things or stupid things anywhere - then indeed I suppose that arbitration or customary law rules don't have to "solve" it.

SandySandfort on May 08, 2011, 11:43:30 am
It sounds like [Perry] isn't worth your attention, apart from being an important guy who can throw people off lists. But you got a story out of it.

I always knew that Perry was humor impaired and imbued with an unwarranted belief in his own superiority. Basically he is a one-trick pony, but has done very well doing that one trick. Beyond that, though, he is an emotional infant. Yes, he isn't worth my attention, but telling the story was fun. ;D

SandySandfort on May 08, 2011, 12:07:22 pm
So I say, shoot the bastard and deal with his next of kin in arbitration, if they think what I did was wrong. Just as their is no statute of limitations for murder under state jurisdictions, I see no conflict with the ZAP for killing a murderer, no matter how much time has passed.
Actually, come to think of it, neither do I.

The reason I think there's a need for arbitration is that his next of kin might sincerely believe that he is innocent.

Good point, but by taking vengeance first, that arbitration would come after the murder is killed. That would be fine by me. If someone not directly involved in the dispute, wants to take me to arbitration, I would be there. (Given the scenario, what would I have to lose?)

However, you raised a problem that could arise from this strategy:

... the blood-feud problem...

Declaring your willingness to submit to arbitration is the first step in preventing a feud, but as you suggest, the murderer may come from a culture that takes altruistic punishment seriously and his family or whomever may be willing to risk their own lives to take yours.

One could forestall that by agreeing to accepting outlawry should you lose at arbitration. That would pretty much ensure a death penalty if the arbiter decided that you killed an innocent man.

I can think of several other steps one might take, but my guess is that blood feuds would be rarer in the Belt than in 19th Century America. We remember the Hatfields and the McCoys not because they were the norm, but because they were an aberration. The US justice system did not implode because of the actions of a couple of families of inbred, mouth-breathers. Neither would arbitration in a ZAP-based market anarchy.

spudit on May 08, 2011, 02:34:38 pm
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

sam on May 08, 2011, 03:59:12 pm
So we're used to societies having to do something about the blood-feud problem... ever since Hammurabi. So, since I was expecting arbitration to do something that states had been doing all along through the initiation of force, naturally I expected the arbitration system to involve some initiation of force.

Iceland had blood feuds, but these were infrequent (cultural and racial homogeneity doubtless helped), and tended to end.  One the sagas depicts such a feud.  Family A hits Family B, Family B hits Family A, with a bag of silver dollars going back and forth on every hit, and the clan patriarchs moaning to each other about their inability to control their womenfolk.

Every hit was followed by the patriarchs settling the matter out of court, for money, but more hot headed members of the clan failed to accept the settlement.  (These patriarchs bemoaned the fact that they were not very patriarchal)

quadibloc on May 08, 2011, 04:06:23 pm
I can think of several other steps one might take, but my guess is that blood feuds would be rarer in the Belt than in 19th Century America.
Oh, indeed.

The mental block I have, and the mistake I keep making, is this: I assume that the ZAP is being presented as a moral imperative, which dumps me into the following syllogism -

if the ZAP is a moral imperative, applicable and compulsory in all times and places,
then it is possible to impose peace in the Middle East without resorting to the initiation of force.

The absurdity of the conclusion presumably matches the magnitude of my misconception.

sam on May 08, 2011, 05:43:05 pm
if the ZAP is a moral imperative, applicable and compulsory in all times and places,
then it is possible to impose peace in the Middle East without resorting to the initiation of force.

To explain your point in ways less likely to be misunderstood:

Compelling people to comply with the zero aggression principle is not aggression.  Can some people in the middle east compel most other people in the middle east to comply with the zero aggression principle without themselves committing aggression?

Since mentioning Jews in this context causes some people in this forum to lose their heads, let us instead consider Sunni and Shia.

Muqtada al-Sadr was quelled by Iraqi army troops, and militias tolerated by or associated with the Iraqi army, burning, raping, and massacring Shia's under his authority, while more moderate Shia's looked the other way, and the US army provided a safe haven for these forces to organize and regroup.  Could any other means have been effectual?  Certainly no other means were effectual.

 

anything