Tradition and the state

By -
Amish communities have little need for noise ordinances. A town full of Orthodox Jews does not need to worry much about passing laws concerning public indecency.

It is when tradition ceases to handle such matters that the state is asked to step in and settle interpersonal conflicts.


Comments

  1. Samson Corwell2:21 AM

    I am having difficulty seeing a relevant distinction that makes one "state" and the other "non-state". Seems like the same mistake libertarians and paleos make about law and culture.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Samson Corwell9:01 PM

      Nothing? I was sure that would get a response about "the state" or something.

      Delete
  2. Mike B.12:39 PM

    Samson, is that a serious question? One meaningful distinction is that the state has a territorial monopoly on the legal use of force (except the limited license it grants, of its own prerogative, to self defense and security agencies) and it can lawfully fine, imprison and even kill those who violate the norms it promulgates. Amish and Jewish communities in the U.S. lack these features. The distinction between tradition/culture and law should be obvious. Thomas Sowell insightfully observed that Hasidic Jewish diamond dealers have lower transaction costs because they have a high-trust internal culture and do not need to rely on courts to arbitrate disputes, as they have access to more informal and flexible (as well as inexpensive) modes of dispute resolution when conflicts do arise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Samson Corwell11:17 PM

      First off, I don't agree with Weber's definition of "the state". Second, it is a very serious question. Formal legal courts and customary law are two forms of the same thing.

      Delete
  3. Mike B.9:32 AM

    Samson, whether you "agree" with it or not, Weber's definition is a useful one because it is so commonly employed, including by our own President. Definitions cannot be true or false; only useful or less so. See Wittgenstein.

    In any event, the point remains that the State (however conceived of) may legally imprison, fine or kill you for breaking the law. By contrast, a town of Orthodox Jews cannot legally kill you for breaking the Sabbath, even though the prescribed penalty for that sin is indeed death (with caveats and nuance, but the point remains). If you can't perceive that as being a meaningful difference, I'm not sure what would even count as a meaningful difference in your view. As a lawyer and former orthodox Jew, this might seem marginally more obvious to me, but it's not a subtle or difficult point to grasp.

    Also, customary law is not "the same thing" as "formal legal courts." This is a confused statement; customary law is a fairly small subset of law that may be enforced by courts in certain circumstances. But this is a total red herring; Gene was talking about the difference between tradition and law. His point was a good one, and one made historically by figures as diverse as James Madison and Lao Tzu.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

St. Paul and I Agree...

By -
Taxation is not theft: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13 The key idea implicit here, and the one that turned me on the subject of whether or not taxation is theft, is that "every soul" owes obedience to the "governing authorities." Now, if that is a debt I truly owe , then, when those authorities levy the taxes they need to do the job of governing, I owe them those taxes, and attempts to collect them certainly do not constitute acts of theft. And obviously it doesn't matter at all, from this point of view, whether or not I "signed" any sort of "social contract." (In fact, the history of political thought since the Reformation can be read as an attempt to find a secular rep...
Read more

Libertarianism and Violence, II

By -
I decided to move some discussion from this post up to the top level here. Specifically, Watoosh wrote: "Well, if violence is defined as initiation of force (which, of course, presupposes certain property rights), then I think Rockwell is correct..." Well, if we define cats as elephants, then many people keep elephants in their house. More seriously, firstly, violence is not usually defined that way. It's defined as, you know, violence, so that, say, someone may respond violently or non-violently to someone who aggresses against them. Otherwise, it would make no sense to say, for instance, "He punched me, but I did not stoop to violence in response." And, secondly, the libertarian usage of "initiation of force" is very offbeat. If I wander onto someone's meadow, most people would not say I had "initiated force" -- I mean, sure, I used "force" against the earth to push off walking, but that's not force directed against...
Read more