Saturday, 31 July 2010

The Private Law of Gypsies

The ASI has an intriguing note here about a current society that functions without a government as such, and yet still somehow manages to enforce a legal code.

And I sincerely hope that the well-read Kingbingo will be happy to read a rather compelling demolition of the idea that a government is necessary to create, administer and enforce law. Or, indeed, necessary at all.

27 comments:

Rationalist said...

Intriguing.
Whatever your beef with other commentators, I must point out that the very smallness and isolation of each gypsy group (whatever the correct collective name) provides a sense of 'the other' (Hegel) that doesn't exist in society as a whole.
The paper validates a philosophical/psychological concept (Herrschaft und Knechtschaft), but not a libertarian (anarchic) ruling principle for society as a whole, I'm afraid.

Rationalist said...

To quote from the penultimate paragraph of the paper:
Religious beliefs typically consist of rules that govern both the spiritual and the corporeal world. Thus groups whose members share religious beliefs have a 'built-in' means of fostering private order. Here individuals can use already existing rules that govern their spiritual realm to create and enforce rules that govern their corporeal one.
and the last:
[W]e can predict that certain kinds of superstitions will develop in precisely those instances where they make most sense: where traditional institutions of law and order fail.

Obsidian said...

Reading the ASI post, it looks to me the exchange of one set of chains for another.

It's a fine example of how we don't need government, but one that is based on superstition, xenophobia and insularity is hardly a poster child for the alternative!

Kingbingo said...

Oh goody more homework.

If you had posted this before I had left work I could of printed the 56 pages from the two articles and read them by now. Not yet sure if I can be bothered at the weekend but I will read all this. Maybe I should get an ipad?....

However, I suspect that Obsidian comment is apt "it looks to me the exchange of one set of chains for another."

ALL the Ancap stuff I have found so far lambaste the state (almost entirely correctly) then goes on to replace the structures with new private structures that are very similar to the stuff they have just replaced except with a different name.

All the Rothbard stuff did, then a poster on this site directed us to Hans Herman-Hoppe (or whatever) and he did exactly the same thing. I'm not holding out a lot of hope for this one.

P.S Both Rothbard and HHH always start off by saying that they are not just going to replace government with something that looks like it, and then precede to do precisely that.

Kingbingo said...

Btw: If you like the Peter Leeson stuff you should read this: http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-book438pdf?.pdf

Specifically page 42 onwards, it talks about the need for government at all in free-markets and cites a number of examples that I think would suit your point better than the gypo piece.

Anonymous said...

"If you had posted this before I had left work I could of printed the 56 pages from ---"

I could of ???!!!
What sort of fucking English is that ?????

Obnoxio The Clown said...

I don't fucking want to live in a gypsy society, for fuck's sake. And I'm pretty fucking sure gypsies aren't particularly libertarian.

I'm just holding them up as an example of how there is a currently extant "society" that doesn't require a fucking central government to function.

Obnoxio The Clown said...

"ALL the Ancap stuff I have found so far lambaste the state (almost entirely correctly) then goes on to replace the structures with new private structures that are very similar to the stuff they have just replaced except with a different name."

Jesus H. Fucking Christ, Kingbingo: there is a fucking world of fucking difference between an armed group declaring how things must be done and a private business offering the same thing. If you don't like the private business, you choose another or set up your own. If you don't like the government, you're fucked.

/me bangs head on desk.

Kingbingo said...

" there is a fucking world of fucking difference between an armed group declaring how things must be done and a private business offering the same thing."

So there is a world of difference between who is bossing you around based on the colour of their name badge?

Obnoxio The Clown said...

Did you not read my comment then?

For someone who claims to be well-read, you seem to be rather blind to obvious things.

Gitane said...

Old stuff m'fraid and been around since the early 20thC. Anthropologists have been knocking this stuff out for a long time. try Mauss's "The Gift" whose rationalist observation appear to tell us that someone somewhere did something for someone else for nothing and we've been paying back ever since. The end of reciprocity is like the end of days and we're well past that and into a new age of slavery.
Gypsies indeed! then you should have a stab at the!Ik if you want more of this satisfying libertarian guff! Talk about clutching at straws and any port in a storm to make a point. Fuck me you must be desperate for a good fucking row if you have to start refering to this bollocks.

Kingbingo said...

"If you don't like the private business, you choose another or set up your own. If you don't like the government, you're fucked."

Of course I read your comment. You don't get the connection clearly.

If you don't like your government you can vote for another, get involved in politics etc.

But if your subject to the whims of a private security group that your not a member of you're fucked.

If you have a bitter dispute with a neighbour/colleague etc, and they decide to have a gang come round, kidnap you and lock you in their basement, a privately run prison if you will how is that fine? At least with a state you have a commonly agreed rule book that everyone has to work by.

You would just have private mobs enforcing whatever justice suited them.

Kingbingo said...

With your ill-thought out anarchy society you end up having people using violence, but accountable only to those that pay for it, as oppose to the (admittedly flawed) electoral process.

Instead anarchists get all precious about the idea of using force. As if the moment you take away the state (the monopoliser of force) everyone will play nice.

You say that to an anarchist and they suddenly have the idea of private security and private jails. Well if your arrested by a private police force and thrown in a private jail its still that 'force' concept that makes anarchist shriek.

Or did you think that when a private security firm starts giving you orders you can just blithely tell them you don't want to subscribe to their service. As you get a nightstick across the back of the neck no doubt.

Your just exchanging the tyranny of the masses (democracy) for the tyranny of the robber barons (anarchy).

As ever you have failed to think the whole idea through.

Obnoxio The Clown said...

"Instead anarchists get all precious about the idea of using force. As if the moment you take away the state (the monopoliser of force) everyone will play nice."

Look around you.

Everybody, by and large, does play nice. You predicate the whole of society on a miniscule subsection of it.

Kingbingo said...

"Everybody, by and large, does play nice. You predicate the whole of society on a miniscule subsection of it."

Have you ever wondered why its such a miniscule subsection?

And what would happen if there was nothing to stop them?

Rationalist said...

Jesus H Christ on a Cross (think that's the original):
I entered the conversation thinking this was a rational debate - WRONG!
When you mongs have finished ...

Anonymous said...

"But if your subject to the whims of a private security group---"

YOUR. WHAT THE FUCK.

It's "YOU'RE" i.e. YOUR ARE.

NOT "your" for fuck's sake.

Kingbingo said...

"YOUR. WHAT THE FUCK.

It's "YOU'RE" i.e. YOUR ARE.

NOT "your" for fuck's sake."

Oh well there have it, completely invalidates my argument that now a 'grammer fuck' has turned up.

Rationalist said...

@Anonymong
I'm afraid the present state of (what passes for) education in England makes that particular idiocy all-pervasive. Ignore the mongs who accuse you of everything from 'elitism' to 'snobbery'.
My previous point about the quality of discourse still holds.
Cue posts accusing me of everything from 'elitism' to 'snobbery'.

Rationalist said...

Kingbingo is one whose grasp of the English language reflects his intellect.
And I thought Obo was prejudiced!
Sorry.

Obnoxio The Clown said...

"And what would happen if there was nothing to stop them?"

Why do you assume that there would be nothing to stop them??

You've already said that "every AnCap goes on to replace the structures with new private structures that are very similar to the stuff they have just replaced".

You are arguing that AnCaps would just have government by another name on one hand, and yet would be entirely defenceless on the other.

I'd like to point out that an AnCap society would be much better armed, for one thing. So if someone threatened you with violence, you'd be able to stop them in their tracks with the additional benefit of them not going on to cause anyone else any harm after a judge as tickled them with a feather, like what happens now.

That alone would improve on our current legal situation.

Anonymous said...

"Grammer fuck"

What the fuck is a grammer fuck for fuck sake ?

It's GRAMMAR for fuck sake.

Kingbingo said...

"What the fuck is a grammer fuck for fuck sake ?

It's GRAMMAR for fuck sake."

Its perfectly deliberate to make the point I don't give a fuck.

Kingbingo said...

"Kingbingo is one whose grasp of the English language reflects his intellect."

I'm quite dyslexic and will sometimes make these mistakes, so what??

I'm perfectly confident with my intellect. My career trajectory so far in a very competitive industry full of extremely bright people seems to confirm that, as well as having built up and sold on a successful business in my time.

The fact you feel the need to make such a weak ad-hominem attacks, and that you resort to them so quickly says a lot more about your confidence in the intellect.

Kingbingo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kingbingo said...

Oh and while I'm in a sharing mood, feel free to attack my schooling too if you like.

I grew up poor in a single mother household (she worked nights as a nurse to support us) and went to the local shitty comp school. Most of my peer group today stack shelves. I think out of 600 pupils at most a handful went to university.

At university I worked most nights and every weekend to pay my way.

The fact I start off like that, and today I'm always the youngest guy in the room in some of highest level private equity deals really means I could not give a flying fuck what Rationalist and the other coward who wants to take a pop at me as anonymous think.

Because I know, as in really know, that your poxy ad-hominem are falling so short your just pissing on your own shoes.

Rationalist said...

Tears.
Boo-hoo.