Appenzell
Switzerland
A Daily Compendium
of Free-Market Thinking
The Daily Bell Newswire - It's FREE!    


News & Analysis

Horror of Common Law?

Friday, July 02, 2010 – by  Staff Report


Albania's modern-day blood feuds ... All over Albania, there are entire generations scared to venture outdoors in case they're killed − all because of decades-old 'blood feuds'. And not even the law can help them. In the best tradition of Balkans quarrels, it all began with a mix of strong brandy, fiery tempers and very long memories. One hot summer's night in 2000, Pëllumb Morevataj, a man with a big thirst and a bigger ego, was out drinking in his village in northern Albania, when a friend made a chance remark about how the Morevataj family had backed down in a feud some half a century before. An argument ensued, and an evening that should have ended with nothing worse than bad hangovers all round saw Pëllumb shoot his drinking companion dead. The blood has not stopped flowing ever since ... The multiple body count aside, vendettas like that involving the Morevataj family are not unusual in the more hot-blooded corners of the Mediterranean: similar tales can be heard among the Mafia clans of Sicily and Corsica, and throughout the Balkans from Croatia to Crete. – UK Telegraph

Dominant Social Theme: Eastern Europe needs to emerge from the darkness of age-old justice into the light of the modern-day European judicial system.

Free-Market Analysis: Just yesterday, inspired by the nomination of Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court, we focused on how the Western legal system had increasingly departed from the sensible roots of common law. Now comes this Telegraph story about blood feuds in Albania, which is actually a short narrative of the evolution of a common-law justice system – and how it has collided with the current, statist paradigms of justice that are prevalent in Western Europe and elsewhere.

For those interested in the evolution of justice systems over the past centuries, the article provides a most interesting perspective. Both intentionally and unintentionally it sheds light on the dominant social theme that the West has levered into place to buttress the current justice system. What would that theme be? "Today's precedent-based justice system is the inevitable and logical outcome of centuries of judicial evolution." This would of course be an accompaniment to the theme we presented yesterday in The Flaw In Western Justice.

Yesterday's article discussed at some length the problems with the American judicial system, which is plagued by corruption and which relies on endless, unrolling precedent for its decision-making. The precedent-oriented approach to justice requires that the penal code and the larger system itself is constantly enlarging and providing new and novel ways of defining both civil and criminal wrongdoing.

The article also discussed the simpler judicial alternative of common law and presented one common law alternative, a recent-case study appearing on the website Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law entitled The Rise of the Rondas Campesinas in Peru. We quoted excerpts, including an initial explanation, as follows: "The rondas campesinas (literally, 'peasant rounds') in Peru are organs of community justice. Existing primarily in rural communities, they have a history of several centuries, but have undergone recent transformations in their functions and their relationship with the state. The rondas campesinas are formed by their own members in the peasant communities. Their primary objective is the fight against abigeas (cattle rustlers)."

We found the explanation of the evolution of this common-law based system in Peru to be most interesting because it shed light on how the West's legal system had evolved and diverged from common law roots. We were struck by the Telegraph article in much the same way. Not only does the Telegraph article describe Albanian blood-feuds, it does us the service of providing a frame of reference that shows clearly how these feuds are part of a more ancient legal system and why they have apparently spun out of control. Here's some more from the article:

Here in Albania, there is an aspect to such feuds that make them unique – namely, that both sides in the feud claim to be acting entirely within the law. Not the law of 21st-century Europe, but a law that is much older, and in many parts of this ex-Communist state, the only one that is respected. The Kanun, or canon, is a 500-year-old code of conduct covering every aspect of medieval life, from births and marriages to hunting and grazing rights. And amid its edicts on the duties of a village blacksmith, and the penalties for allowing a goat to stray onto a neighbour's land, it lays out detailed procedures for blood feuds, with a chillingly loose definition of an eye-for-an-eye. When someone is killed, revenge can be exacted not just against the killer himself, but all males in his extended clan.

The Morevataj blood feud is one of an estimated 10,000 to have erupted in Albania since 1990, following the collapse of what had been one of the world's most closed communist regimes. Under dictator Enver Hoxha – a man so hardline he felt the Soviet Union went soft after Khrushchev denounced Stalin – the Kanun was suppressed as ruthlessly as the Bible. But in the anarchy of the early Nineties, its influence quickly re-emerged, as did countless old grievances that had lain dormant in the Hoxha era, particularly over land that was 'redistributed' during the socialist period. Today's blood feuds, though, can erupt over far more minor things than property or grazing rights: a chance drunken insult, for example, or a glance that lingers on another man's wife too long. ...

The Zizo case is just one of hundreds on the files of Gjin Marku, a professional blood-feud mediator who is the chair of the Committee for National Reconciliation. ... His grandfather, a village elder, was a mediator too, and some of his wife's relatives are currently involved in a blood feud themselves (it began with a murder back in 1953). 'I remember my grandfather with his white horse and white beard and a special seal – he was persecuted by the communists,' says Marku.'But in parts of Albania, people have always viewed the Kanun as a form of self-government. They prefer their own laws rather than those of outsiders.'

The origins of the Kanun, he explains, go back to the 1400s, when a northern Albanian prince called Lekë Dukagjini laid down a set of word of mouth laws to help the area's quarrelsome mountain clans get along peacefully. While not exactly the most progressive of visions – a wife who goes astray, for example, could expect much harsher penalties than a goat – its edicts were cherished in a land often subject to outside rule, be it by the Ottoman Turks or the neighbouring Serbs or Greeks. By the early 20th century, printed copies of the Kanun appeared, ensuring that the vendetta tradition remained alive and well during the interwar reign of Albania's modernising King Zog: rumour has it that he was the target of more than 600 blood feuds, including 55 assassination attempts.

The real problem today, Marku insists, is not the Kanun itself, but the fact that people no longer follow it properly. The book itself emphasises reconciliation, laying out peacemaking rituals in which the warring parties drink glasses of brandy mixed with each other's blood. But rather like the way some Islamic terrorists justify violence through the Koran, modern-day blood feuders interpret the Kanun selectively, focusing only on the passages that serve their interests. 'The purpose of the Kanun is to help the rule of law, not weaken it, but unfortunately there is no longer the clan structure that ensured that it was applied correctly,' Marku tells me.'In one case recently, a young man killed the mother of his brother's murderer. If he was really set on revenge, he should only have killed an adult male. It has become a total mess in every direction.' ...

Soon, the blood feud dramas that play out up and down the country will be recreated on the big screen, courtesy of top US independent filmmaker Joshua Marston, who last month finished shooting a fictional movie about a family in the middle of a blood feud. The writer and director of the acclaimed 2004 drug smuggling drama Maria Full of Grace, Marston has spent the past two years in Albania researching his subject. Just as his earlier film chronicled the horrors of life as a drug mule, his latest work aims to strip away the romantic myths about honour and revenge and show the real-life impact that blood feuds have on ordinary families.

We don't know if we are going to bother to see Marston's film, but from the above narrative, it is fairly clear to us how Albanian justice evolved. Like other examples of common law justice, social rules and regulations were codified and then enforced either by local courts or simply by community custom – or by clans that would arrive at an agreed-upon sanction or penalty. The clan-oriented simplicity of such systems is likely prevalent throughout common law no matter where it arose. It is in fact mimicked in the West by two-party political systems that must also negotiate with each other without benefit of a higher authority.

Problems have obviously arisen regarding Eastern European common law systems because communism and other intrusive statist philosophies have likely fractured the power of the clans and the communal morality of society as a whole. What is left is not nearly what once was. Unfortunately, the decayed remnants of Albanian common law are now to be featured in a large-scale movie which will give people once again negative impressions of common law.

This is of course a dominant social theme of sorts and a most pernicious one. As a Bell feedbacker/scholar, pointed out just yesterday, the US is not a nation of LAWS but a nation based on LAW. In fact both Europe and the US were founded on traditional principles of common law. The sensible focus of common law involves private, marketplace justice and allows aggrieved parties to solve both civil and criminal offenses on their own using the standards of community morality.

This sort of justice is not based on precedent but on common sense and tends to limit quarrels and even violence. The system of blood feuds is actually an important component because these blood fuels, like honor-duels, kept people keenly respectful of each other. It is the devolution of common law in Albania that has upset the balance and given rise to the abuses this article focuses on.

It is difficult, from our humble perspective anyway, to believe that current Western methodologies of justice are superior to what came before. Precedent justice, combined with the West's modern-day prison-industrial complex, will inevitably give rise to a web of complex criminal and civil "laws" that will continually expand over time. This is how the EU ends up legislating whether or not eggs can be sold "by the dozen" as we reported yesterday.

Unlike common law, the precedent-based legal system can only multiply its "laws" until almost everything can be considered a prosecutable action. The end result is an oppressive and impossibly complex system good for intimidation and control. This contrasts unfavorably in our view with the simple and straightforward process of common law that was previously relied on to resolve both criminal and civil issues.

Conclusion: As we pointed out in yesterday's article, the current legal system is in large part supported by torrents of fiat-money generated by central banking. As the current monetary system continues its unrolling collapse, we expect the worst excesses of the current statist judiciary to begin to retreat as well. However, confusion and elemental injustices will likely remain – an unfortunate legacy of the modern state and the elite that stands behind it.

Post Feedback

We look forward to reading your feedback. All comments are automatically posted. However, please note that any posts containing harassment, vulgarity, personal attacks or those which are deemed to be of a violent nature are not welcomed and will either not appear or be removed.






View Feedback

Posted by Robert Fahl on 7/2/2010 8:12:55 AM

I live in Albanian Kosovo. The blood feud thing is alive and well in the Balkans. But here, there is a long standing blood feud between Muslims and Othodox Christians. Once US Forces depart from this backwater armpit of a country, all Hell will break loose as old scores WILL BE SETTLED. It's just the way it is here. Right, wrong, good or bad, that's just the way it is in this part of the world! Memories are long and the pay back is a b--h!

Posted by Puzzled on 7/2/2010 9:00:05 AM

The laws in the USA are already so onerous that an individual has to retain an attorney, if they make anything, sell or buy even necessities. But for legal incidents, you can't just go to court & get justice. Justice for Americans is how deep are your pockets!

Posted by Neo on 7/2/2010 10:44:37 AM

Just as there are rules for the common man, there are rules for the PE, and we unfortunately all have to currently live by them for just a little while longer. It is serendipitous that I stumbled upon a feedbacker quote early this morning on another of your articles:

"Give me six lines written by the most honourable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him." " Cardinal Richelieu.

It is said that Cardinal Richelieu was the world's first prime minister. If you read some of the machinations he deviously levered on his rise to power and the immortal "face-off" between the people and the state that was his legacy, you would begin to see, like me, how this jigsaw puzzle is being pieced together.

On a side note, his coat of arms was uncannily similar to the scales of justice, no?

But I think DB already sees these connections, as singular or collective "you" are an old soul, or souls. Is life boring for you, DB? Are you toying with us? Or are you learning too, like me (or us)?

Anyway, King Louis XIII (no, I'm King Louis XIII!), like all other kings, it seems, needed a confidant, a rallying point, a sub-contractor to manage the people. They don't make kings like they used to, now do they? Bland and weak, like Welsh rarebit. I can see how Rothschild got his gold foot in the door, and in the face of the ruling class.

This sub-contractor needs some managers to help him manage the masses, so laws based on statutes were needed. This allowed the whims of the state to be whimsically applied by people that do not know why they do it. "Ours is not to reason why, but to do or die" would be apropos, no?

Alas, they are going full circle in Albania, but not really in a circle, but a helix. I think they will sort out this common law "ignorance" by the "shallow youth of all ages", with a healthy dose of history, elders, and old souls to guide them back to true justice. And the entire Albanian population will be more consciously competent as a result. I wish I were there, in some ways. But there will be here, soon enough.

Keep up the good work, DB. You the mang (or womang)!


Reply from the Daily Bell:

We are always learning!

Posted by Stas on 7/2/2010 11:30:17 AM

Die Rache is suess " the revenge is sweet.

The way we live now, is not the way we should be living.

What is HONOR? Does anybody know? Just this passed Sunday the vice President was having an icecream cone in an icecream parlor, the propraetor asked a question about the taxes, the "honorable vip" answered Fxxxxk".

If you recall Mr. President called a Conn police sgt. "stupid" and tried to cover up with "Beer party".

I remember the dignity the grandparents had in the family; now the grandparents are being pushed out of the family circles!
Not that the times have changed, but there is no more respect among people.

What do you expect from the young generation; the family structure is destroyed, the religion is gone, the honor is none existing.

Besides, Albania is MUSLIM country. Albania is still communist
socialistic governed. The muslims are moving into the Europe and the new law will be SHARIAH. Kill all those infidels. We should have respect and stop personal attacks; be honest, be polite!

Posted by Brya on 7/2/2010 11:59:25 AM

Looks like this; 1. an education of the masses is lacking; 2. Even if everyone was adequatelyu educated, there is overpopulation. Educaton indicates that in itself will result in violence and death.

Posted by Victor Barney on 7/2/2010 1:35:53 PM

America: Can there be any doubt the America is quickly becoming the "beast of Revelation?" Our leader is even a Marxist, which is Anti-Messiah according to Karl Marx! That's true history you know! Marx even said first you must kill all the Jews! Hitler finally took him up on it! I wonder just who will be Obama's SS troops and who they will be killing? Real Americans? Watch!

Posted by Bruce on 7/2/2010 3:11:27 PM

A dominant social theme of the power elite is the idea of collective authority. We are led to believe that collective authority through the voting process is binding upon the individual, all individuals with feet upon a certain land mass.

Hence, the PE has devised ways to convert every attempt to exercise a lawful process, and to obtain a remedy for a wrong, into a method of controlling people. They have done it through perverting the perception of what law is.

To illustrate this, Curt Bensen, a professor at Coolie Law School, Lansing, Michigan, announced on AM radio that there are three basic kinds of law: Common Law, Civil Law, and Canon Law. He didn't expand on Canon law but described Common law as having the characteristic that the court is bound by precedent case decisions, and that Civil law is characterized by the court being bound by pre-determined statutes and codes.

If case law is codified, as it is now in the US, then what appears on the surface to be common law is actually civil law. Case law was originally was recognized as guidelines to the principles of justice set forth by prior courts for the jury to consider. Now jurors are compelled to take an oath to apply the law (sic) as the Judge gives them. Then we are led to believe that he judge is bound by precedent. Yet, upon examination it appears that judges are actually bound by public policy, and public policy is defined as whatever is necessary to maintain the power structure.

Nonetheless, lawyers are taught that case precedent is common law, and this position, learned by rote, is regurgitated to the public, creating the illusion that there is a difference between European Civil law and American justice.

Civil law is just another form of feudal law.

If you wish an accurate distinction between common law and civil law, for they are polar opposites (or if not, then we must coin a new term), then it can be found in the description of the current legal system in these united States. The legal system we have here is an adversarial system of justice ' that's civil law.

A system of justice which promotes harmony and peace is a common law system.

Under the common law, two parties to a dispute are required to communicate the grievance and attempt to settle privately before going public with the dispute. If private settlement cannot be made, then they agree to abide by the decision of the arbiters that they both choose. At that agreement, peace is made, though the underlying grievance has not yet been justified until trial. Peace is accomplished swiftly, and the parties can go back to both productivity and leisure.

Under an adversarial system, the parties are discouraged from communicating directly, but do so through a third party who has an interest in keeping the conflict alive, since only in litigation can the attorney benefit.

Life experience has demonstrated the power of a middle man who tells one party one thing, and another party quite another, all the while keeping the parties from communicating with each other.

When you reduce matters to their root, the root is called a radical, you begin to see the picture rather than the pieces. Civil law is designed to foment and perpetuate conflict for the purpose of controlling people and obtaining their wealth (energy).

For that reason the power elite have obscured every attempt of the people to utilize principles of law, and to teach those principles to others. Due process of law is where the power is. It reduces the fictional state to the mere image that it is. Due process reveals the wizard for what he is. It strips public servants of their illusion of immunity, and it reveals the individual man to be the sovereign that he is.

Blood feuds are a tool of the power elite to create the illusion that chaos would ensue if their legal system was not empowered to maintain order.

@ Stas

What is honor? Honor is fidelity to the law first (cause no one harm) and fidelity to your own agreements second (do what you say you will.)


Reply from the Daily Bell:

Thanks for another thought-provoking post. However, you write ...

"Blood feuds are a tool of the power elite to create the illusion that chaos would ensue if their legal system was not empowered to maintain order."

We tend to disagree with this. Clan-on-clan actions and honor duels have a long history as a way of resolving conflict. The problem is when they are are operative outside of a larger system of common law - as in the case currently in Albania.

Also, as we understand it historically (and modern law interpreters distort it tremendously) Common Law is codified cultural and moral experience, socially accepted and applied on a case by case basis by a private/communal judiciary of some sort.

What differentiates common law from current Western law are, in part:

-the layers of appeal, which turns justice into process,
-state control enabling a prison-industrial complex
-and most importantly the sociopathic attention to precedent.

It is precedent which defines modern justice most strongly, and thus a one size fits all approach.

Here's a summary as we understand it ...

Common Law:

-resolution-based with no concept of "debt to society"
-social canon of "law" codified by tradition
-punishments customized to crime by simple resolution techniques
-private resolution whenever possible including private retribution, duels, etc.
-simple private or communal courts when necessary (as in early Britain)
-precedent observed but informally and as suitable
-shame based punishments preferred to incarceration
-no obvious distinction between civil and criminal law

Modern Western Law
-control by the state
-emphasis on "debt to society" (society remains undefined?)
-private prison industry complex benefits from incarceration
-incarceration-intensive punishments
-lavish celebration of precedent
-elaborate appeals system
-no ability to seek private redress
-adversarial model with middle man (attorney) emphasized
-distinction between civil and criminal law

Maybe we have left something out, or missed something in the above, but the above is taken from case-histories of Common Law, as we have observed them. It is, however, hard to find clear examples of what Common Law is because the modern legal industry seems to have made a conscious attempt to excise Common Law from legal texts, or at least not to concentrate on it academically. Professors like Curt Bensen only tend to further confuse the situation by defining Common Law in modern terms and avoiding what seems to us a truthful presentation

We have always maintained that the current Western justice system is the most closely held dominant social theme and will be the last to undergo scrutiny and attack. It is even more important to the functioning of the elite than central banking - and that's saying a lot!

Posted by Ichabod on 7/2/2010 4:57:08 PM

Common law originally was based principally on biblical law. But as the article points out, feuds run deep in every culture where clans prevail. It took 400 years for biblical law to overcome the clan. "Blood is thicker than water" meant that the blood of your ancestors prevailed over the water of baptism.

Those interested should check out Dr. R. J. Rushdoony's "Institutes of Biblical Law." He demonstrates that case laws presented in scripture are derived from the Ten Commandments. Another that updates our constitutional law system is "The Second American Revolution" by lawyer John Whitehead. He names Oliver Wendell Holmes as the one responsible for the departure.

There's a whole body of literature out there but it is entirely ignored by collectivist thinkers and receives scant attention elsewhere. Obama in one speech included "precedent" as central to our law today. Precedent means you can't revisit "settled law."

When enough collectivist thinkers are placed on the Supreme Court, America is finished as a Constitutional Republic. Laws will be interpreted however the lawyers want to and a new perception will be created to replace the true meanings of past law.

Political correctness has already been codified with the "hate laws." We might even someday have a single Law Czar if the march towards collectivism ruled by an elite isn't recognized for what it is and halted. Maybe Feinberg will have more time by then. He's elite enough. His czar job was titled "Office of the Special Master."


Reply from the Daily Bell:

"We might even someday have a single Law Czar."

Could absolutely justify this based on where Western law is headed. Agree that Common Law is based on religious canon. But the canon itself is based on communal certainties which are, we would submit, ultimately biological.

Posted by Bruce on 7/2/2010 7:29:59 PM

The foundation of the common law is reason, logic, and common sense. The foundation of the ten commandments is the same. Common law did not proceed out of scriptures. They both arrived out of the same root.

I suppose blood feuds serve the purpose of ridding the world of quarrelsome people. But, it is not an example of common law. It is an example of common lawlessness.

I can understand the passionate desire for revenge, but the killing of a relative who was not involved in a wrong is contrary to the desire of most people ' to created a sense of balance and stability in society.

As described, blood feuds make no sense other than to perpetuate chaos and to organize what remains after the conflict. That is the business of the power elite.

There are times when bloodshed makes sense as a matter of law, but those times are when an intolerable situation must be rectified and there is no other quick and adequate remedy. Self defense is one such situation. Taking a life for a life which was taken in premeditated murder where there is no doubt of guilt may be another. Still another situation may be when one is restricted of liberty without foundation.

When one says I'm going to violate you in any way I wish, and there is nothing you can do about it, Mister Wesson has an appropriate answer.

Violence is an extraordinary remedy.

If violence is necessary, then, as I quote a late acquaintance of mine, "The gashes look better on them!"


Reply from the Daily Bell:

We are not arguing for a modern renewal of blood feuds! Merely observing that the THREAT of violence - violent feuds or duels - served a disciplinary function within Common Law as we understand it. This is where the precept comes from - an eye for an eye, etc.

The threat of violence seems a historical fact within these Common Law systems. People tended to work things out for themselves, rather than to look to other adjudication, and part of those settlements might include ritualized violence or the threat of violence. See Hamilton/Burr, the Three Musketeers. Here, too:

(Wikipedia) Click to View Link

History

Further information: History of fencing and European dueling sword

Physical confrontations related to insults and social standing surely pre-date Homo sapiens, but the formal concept of a duel, in Western society, developed out of the mediaeval judicial duel and older pre-Christian practices such as the Viking Age Holmganga. Judicial duels were deprecated by the Lateran Council of 1215. However, in 1459 (MS Thott 290 2) Hans Talhoffer reported that in spite of Church disapproval, there were nevertheless seven capital crimes that were still commonly accepted as resolvable by means of a judicial duel.

Most societies did not condemn duelling, and the victor of a duel was regarded not as a murderer but as a hero; in fact, his social status often increased. During the early Renaissance, duelling established the status of a respectable gentleman, and was an accepted manner to resolve disputes. Duelling in such societies was seen as an alternative to less regulated conflict.

According to one scholar, "In France during the reign of Henry IV (1589"1610), more than 4,000 French aristocrats were killed in duels in an eighteen-year period...During the reign of Louis XIII (1610"1643)...in a twenty-year period 8,000 pardons were issued for murders associated with duels...In the United States thousands of Southerners died protecting what they believed to be their honor."

The first published code duello, or "code of duelling", appeared in Renaissance Italy; however, it had many antecedents, ranging back to old Germanic law. The first formalised national code was France's, during the Renaissance. In 1777, Ireland developed a code duello, which was indeed the most influential in American duelling culture.

Posted by Bruce on 7/2/2010 8:24:37 PM

There is no doubt that the credible threat of violence makes for a more polite society, and curbs the tendency of a psychopath to engage in his fetish -- whether he be uniformed and organized, or a privateer.


Reply from the Daily Bell:

Exactly. Is historical fact.

Posted by Philip Mccormack on 7/2/2010 10:43:04 PM

Another great staff report DB. The way things are right now (Common Law) Trial by Jury is a comic opera by Gilbert and Sullivan.

How can we have Common Law when numerous mainstream 'professors of law' describe it as the law of precedents. If that is the law then it is law made by judges when common law since time immemorial was created to avoid this as judges were and are easily corrupted.

The judges direct Jurors to take an oath to uphold the law and the facts by his judgement. Jurors are there or should be to refute the law if they disagree with it, using the not guilty verdict. Jury trial is trial by country and cannot or should not be overturned by the Supreme Court only by another T by J .

In Canada section 11 (F) only permits T by J if there is a possible sentence of more than 5 years. People's ignorance of Common Law is appalling and with people I include lawyers who if they are not ignorant they are corrupt. Under these circumstances there is no point to Common Law.

T by J it has been reduced to a comic opera or is just a joke. Take your choice. Common law has been gutted, and I agree with DB the judicial system, will be more difficult to control than the fiat monetary system. The dominant social theme of late seems to be to get rid of common law which is obvious when reading about the monstrous laws the EU is creating. Have a happy day.


Reply from the Daily Bell:

Two thoughts:

1. The more we examine this area, the more we see that the idea of communal, private - "real" - justice has been almost totally destroyed in the West. While the current mercantilist fiat money system is under attack, the Western justice system rolls along, growing more authoritarian every day. Not only that, but the powers-that-be have created a confusing mimic of the Common Law justice system using statist authorities much as they have created an equally confusing mimic of money-systems using statist central banks. It is intended to be confusing in our opinion.

2. Common Law has basically been dead in Europe and even America since the second world war and really, in America, since the Civil War. In a Common Law society, with such law generally accepted by the state, the South would have seceded without difficulty. Common Law was in a sense, overturned during the War Between the States. Wonder if this point corresponds to any modern libertarian literature. Maybe Rothbard.

Posted by Gene on 7/2/2010 11:32:09 PM

"An armed society is a polite society".
Robert Heinlein

"The most dangerous continent on the planet is Europe, The most dangerous place in Europe is the Balkans".
Richard Maybury

Quite true on both accounts.

Posted by Bill on 7/2/2010 11:41:11 PM

Sadly the US justice system has some huge flaws. A system based on precedent presupposes the precedent setting decision was Just in the first place. Unreliable witness testimony has resulted in hundreds if not thousands of wrongful convictions and several wrongful executions.The lawyers are the only winners. Drug related imprisonments comprise a huge percentage of prisoners. To date no one has died from a marijuana overdose. The drug economy is in the billions. Yet only the drug kingpins benefit. People will do whatever they need to do to survive.

Posted by Peggy Buxton on 7/2/2010 11:55:33 PM

Just wanted to post a reply to Victor Barney's comment on America being the Beast of the Bible. You cannot change geography, or ignore the history of the Roman Empire, which stretched it's socialist arm throughout the entire Ottoman Empire to Asia Minor. According to an historical view of the Bible, the Beast shall seat Himself in the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem.

I have heard this argument from a skewed view of the pentecostal many times. This is where the word of God has been masterfully twisted by those not grounded in either the history of governments or Biblical history. The bible is specific in the rise of the ancient Roman Empire and is quite clear that the anti-Christ or the Beast is a man so possessed by power and evil that "even the elect will be fooled". America, as a nation or a power is not mentioned.

Posted by Dozer on 7/2/2010 11:55:52 PM

If the judicial system is starved of money, then it will fall apart. The money problems will cause the judges to sit on their hands. Oh sorry, first the lawyers won't show up!

Street level case in point: Simplex Grinnell (a division of Tyco) apparently ripped of their salesmen last year. They neglected to pay their bonuses. This year they are quoting stupidly high prices for jobs so they get no jobs and are just living on their commission draw. How do you spell implosion!


Reply from the Daily Bell:

Implosion: "The use mercantilist central banks for an extended period of time to foment inflation, centralization and ultimately global ruin."

Posted by KeanuReeves on 7/3/2010 12:04:49 AM

Does DB think that the sovereign gold purchases are actually staying in the respective country's vaults, or do you think, as I do, that these purchases are being re-directed to the PE?

"Out of the global ruins steps 1000 lifetimes of wealth for the select few" ' Weeb**.


Reply from the Daily Bell:

Impossible to say. We wouldn't speculate. Doesn't some sort of elite control sovereign banks - at least in some sense.

Posted by John Acord on 7/3/2010 3:41:52 AM

I was under the impression Albanians professed Islam. If so, would not Sharia Law trump blood feuds?

Common law, constitutional law, law based on precedent have all been replaced by a very peculiar law practiced by cabals within the several court systems. These cabals are composed of influential attorneys and the judges carefully groomed for appointment or election who manipulate whatever form of law is available to achieve predetermined outcomes.

The outcome is whatever will enrich the members of the cabal. The US court system is organized theft and crime practiced without any restraint or reference to any legal system. A young attorney is introduced to this system and must make a choice of which cabal to join. It's probably the most important career decision they will face.

The bribes are subtle, I know of one federal judge in Utah, Paul Cassell, dissatisfied with his measly pay and determined to return to private practice who turned his courtroom into a money printing machines for Salt Lake's most important law firm. After several years, he resigned and went to work for the same law firm making millions. This same practice is rampant among federal bankruptcy judges who spend a few years on the bench enriching their respective cabal and then retires to sinecures making millions.

There is no justice in America, only a gaggle of hyenas enriching themselves at the expense of litigants. On the criminal side, we have seen judges in Pennsylvania sentencing thousands of juvenile offenders to prison for trivial offenses and receiving bribes from the private company owning the same prisons where these juveniles were confined. The list is endless and is spread across every jurisdiction in the USA.

Posted by Peggy Buxton on 7/3/2010 4:51:40 AM

Legal precedent is based on color of law and has nothing to do with constitutional law or common law. Legal precedent is used to do violence to our natural rights. The Constitution was written based on natural law. Precedent is used for activism within our court system to create issues in order to divide this Nation and for us to cede our natural rights to the scoundrels who profess to be our representatives.

Posted by Ichabod on 7/3/2010 6:17:45 AM

The "Beast of Revelation" obsession is a conjured story based purely on the dispensational view. Same for rebuilding a physical temple in Jerusalem. Home base for this view was Dallas Theological Seminary and the view is unfortunately widespread among antinomian evangelicals.

Check out "Paradise Restored" by David Chilton for an introduction to a covenant view. "House Divided" by Dr. Kenneth Gentry does a good job treating the view with charity while exposing their misinterpretaton of OT Israel (including the Israeli state nowadays) by ignoring the clear scriptural presentation that Israel of the OT was transformed into the New Testament Church.

To consider use of the law by Jesus note how He ruled in the case of the woman taken in adultery. Out of this story comes the "don't judge" mentality of evangelicals. Looking about at those engaged. Jesus said "which of you will cast the first stone." In biblical law a stone could not be cast by anyone guilty of the same crime. Obviously, all those were guilty and they dropped their stones and walked away.

There's a whole bunch of seat of the pants religion in this county. Not understand by the political and professorial elitists any more than the followers of the dispensational view. It's past time for a serious consideration of Covenant Theology.

Christians have no obligation to support Zionist policies of Israel any more than expansionist plans of any other state. Neither is American called to be the policeman of the world. And to plan for present day Jerusaleum as the center of any future Armageddon is pure foolishness. That took place in AD 70 when the Roman armies destroyed the Temple. For an eyewitness account of that read "Josephus." It's over. Finished!

Posted by Bill Ross on 7/3/2010 7:43:17 AM

I am time challenged and frustrated that commenting on this article requires multiple thesis to support DB's analysis, such as how war on the family and all other voluntary social organizations by statists has resulted in destruction / subversion of the values and knowledge required to peacefully coexist in civilization.

The "gig" of statists is that they have forcefully defined "reality" such that all transactions (including conflict) between persons and groups MUST involve them, so they can extract a commission (and falsely claim to provide civilization, our means of survival, leading to "they OWN us"). Similarly, since statists are of the opinion they define civilization (the rules by which we are forced to live, by them) and opposed to the REAL definition of civilization: "the rules by which we peacefully cooperate for MUTUAL self-interest" which, by definition must be determined by the parties of ANY form of association.

The key to understanding WHY statists and controllers in general are and will stunningly LOSE is this: They produce NOTHING that people will willingly trade for. This means that ALL association with the state by the productive is to the detriment of the productive (the REAL master, since ALL others are dependents). Anything to your detriment is a survival hit, requiring defensive measures.

Clearly, using forceful defense is not an option since, the defensive nature of your actions will be denied and you will be spun as an aggressor, co-opting the idiotic majority in support of decisively dealing with you.

So, force is not an option and neither is being a slave. The only choice left is, given that you have no property rights, it becomes pointless to be productive. Do things that cannot be taxed. The carrots and sticks (motivational economics) of dealing with the state favor unproductivity.

Many readers are hesitant to display the overt defiance and civil disobedience required to effectively deal with tyrannical states. This does not mean that states win. The productive are making the covert choices to associate with the state as little as possible. The state has no REAL support base and is a Rube Goldberg Byzantine construct of co-dependents, none of whom contribute anything REAL. They will ultimately turn on each other and abandon the sinking ship of state, just as they did in the late, not so great USSR. The perceptive can see this happening now.

We, the people are using our inalienable (real, natural) freedom of association to NOT associate with states as best we can. This is sufficient to do in antisocial states. The grim reaper of "Mathematics of Rule" proves WHY:

Click to View Link

As to the war between arbitrary statist decrees (civil law, rule of man) versus common law (anything OK so long as it is peaceful and agreeable to all parties affected, rule of law), common law wins for the simple reason the former requires blind trust (or be smited) in those who have forcefully (meaning no consent) defined themselves nice cushy positions in hierarchies which coerces them to tyranny and central control (faulty decision making) versus agreement between the parties directly affected.

Until the "rule of law" is restored (by us demanding it), the attrition costs of conflict to states (and all of us) will continue to negatively affect our collective survival until we "do get it":

Click to View Link

As to the IMPOSSIBILITY of hierarchical command and control structures existing for the long term and their inability to make correct choices (and therefore survive), here's why:

Click to View Link

Posted by Bill Ross on 7/3/2010 8:30:57 AM

@Bruce

Any chance of sending me an email with links to blogs or whatever you do? I'm curious...

Posted by John Acord on 7/3/2010 2:12:20 PM

I should of added Talmudic Law as the law of preference of the cabals that dominate our courts. It has replaced the common law, constitutional law, and even law based on precedent. A large number of law practitioners are well schooled in Talmudic law long before they enter the profession

Posted by Brady on 7/4/2010 5:04:05 PM

Your otherwise excellent article was marred by an over zealous denigration of precedent.

Adherence to precedent is a feature of both common law systems and what your refer to as "Modern Western Law" and has generally been considered a positive feature of common law systems, so long as the precedents adhered to are sound. In this regard see Blackstone, the greatest commentator on the British common law system

(Click to View Link;.

The classical understanding of the common law is that it is discovered by judges, not created by judges. The characterization of the common law as judge-created is an old ruse of the proponents of political law and other fiat systems. On the contrary, as the Bell argues, the common law is pre-existent and available to be discovered precisely because it is an emergent order, arising out of human interaction. Murray Rothbard and David Friedman have written extensively on this subject.

See, eg.,
Click to View Link ; Click to View Link;
Click to View Link.

What the Bell refers to as "Modern Western Law" is still characterized by the common law to the extent it has not been supplanted by political law, i.e, statutory law and accompanying regulation, although there remain few areas that have not been overrun by political law. It is statutory law, not precedent, which is the real enemy of the common law.

Statutory law is created by fiat and is inherently arbitrary and capricious. It reflects the same fatal conceit respecting the law that Friedrich Hayek identified as typifying attempts to "plan" economic systems

(Click to View Link;.

The common law, by way of contrast, is the creation of a free market in law.

Contrary to the claims of Ichabod and others, the Ten Commandments, which reflect fiat law in its purest form, represent a view of law that is 180 degrees opposed to the British Common Law and its American counterpart.

While many of the Commandments may be supported by common law analogues, the understanding of them as "commandments" renders them arbitrary on their face and, thus, clearly opposed to any common law system. John Acord's comments regarding Talmudic law may be well taken.

I had not considered that fact previously. At the same time we should not ascribe advocacy of fiat law as characteristic of any particular religion or ethnic group. In that regard it is worth
remembering that some of the greatest champions of liberty, free markets and the common law, such as Ludwig Von Mises, Rothbard and Friedman, were/are Jewish.

Finally, the Bell is correct in noting that the customary law systems criticized in the referenced article should be viewed as having been perverted and polluted by interference from political and other fiat law systems. David Friedman

(Click to View Link;

and Michael Van Notten, in his excellent book The Law of the Somalis

(Click to View Link;,

have demonstrated that customary law systems, as they have existed throughout the world and throughout history, are based on essentially the same principles as form the foundation of the common law as developed in the western world. This is of course not surprising if one views law, unhampered by politics, as an emergent order.


Reply from the Daily Bell:

This is well done and most erudite in the best sense - logical but without sophistry, impressive without pretense, etc. Thanks. Here is our response.

To begin with, what we shall call the "canon" of (religious) law is found around the world: (Thou shalt not murder, etc.) The Western version includes interestingly enough, "Thou shalt honor your mother and father." This is because people needed the help of their families in their old age. This is the basis of the Chinese/tribal reverence for parents, ancestors, etc.

So we can see that the most ancient codification of "laws" were similar in ways because they represented "natural law" - the way human society worked ANYWAY, and ought to work.

But when we look at how law evolved, we need to go back in time beyond the neolithic and examine tribal (clan) societies. Within (inside) the clan, obviously, was one "law" (canon law, see above) and then there was another "law" (culturally accepted methodologies) for dealing clan-to-clan with breaches of (mostly) canon law. So now we see there are two sets of legal methodologies, one more or less familial (inter-clan) and one dealing with matters of "state" - both based on the religious/"natural law" canon.

Further, it is clan-to-clan law that probably concerns us the most because it is this law that likely evolved the most aggressively, though still based on the initial "religious" canon.

The ancient clan-to-clan methodologies can be seen in the way that, say, the Democratic and Republican parties deal with each other today in the US. These parties DO respond to each other's various charges, though they do their best to obfuscate whenever possible. But in some cases, the charges are so strong that the other party must respond with some form of acknowledgement and justice.

Clan-to-clan quarrels probably began to with an initial violent solution (a duel, skirmish, etc.). If this was not sufficient, then negotiations took over. If negotiations didn't work - and over time - clan-to-clan quarrels probably became subject to "judgment" of agreed-upon third parties - possibly, or eventually, market-based third parties that were in some sense compensated for their services. This was the beginning of modern justice.

As adjudication became more formalized, precedent was introduced. But our point is that the precedent WAS GENERAL, and not meant to be followed RIGIDLY, as it today. The adherence to precedent TODAY is a signifier of authoritarian societies because one merely needs to influence one judge to set a "precedent" no matter how noxious, that others must follow.

This is why we arrive at the conclusion that precedent is not the OVERWHELMING factor in (ancient) common law "justice." Precedent may have been observed but common sense tells us that precedent would be abridged if it threatened to undermine a solution that both parties would accept.

Thus we can likely see that precedent is a TOOL not an arbitrator.

That is why we "denigrated" precedent. We didn't discount it, but merely sought to put it in what we consider to be its proper place and context historically. Today, obviously, precedent, like central banking itself, has taken on the shape of Godhead. It is one of Western society's deities.

In the above, we realize we may not have used judicial terminology in the way that it is used today, or even the way the great Justice Blackstone defined Common Law (based on previous British evolutions). But that is just the point. One needs to re-examine how justice systems actually evolved thousands of years ago to understand where we have arrived at. it is most interesting in our view that even the vocabulary to accomplish this task is, in a sense, lacking. (One wonders what has been poured down the memory hole and why.)

Interestingly, when one looks at certain evolutions in Albania or Peru (as we have recently been discussing them), one finds significant indicators of ancient justice systems that were simple, shame-based and flexible, using precedent as a tool rather than a deciding factor. Ancient systems invariably track "natural law" because there was neither money or time to turn justice into the methodology of control that it is today.

You obviously know all this, and have considered the same, but it is still worthwhile to point it out. It is useful, as well, to travel back in time as far as possible, whether one wishes to analyze justice, money or aspects of human cultural evolution. if one starts the analysis in mid-stream, it is easier to come to more complex and even mis-directed conclusions - in our humble opinion anyway.

Post Feedback

We look forward to reading your feedback. All comments are automatically posted. However, please note that any posts containing harassment, vulgarity, personal attacks or those which are deemed to be of a violent nature are not welcomed and will either not appear or be removed.








[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

News & Analysis
09/08/10 EU Fizzling
09/08/10 Big Science Goes Broke?
09/07/10 TIME Spreads the Government-Wealth Meme
09/07/10 Combating HAARP Suspicions
09/06/10 EU Treasury Overkill?
09/06/10 Failure of the Famine Meme
Guest Editorials
09/08/10 Successful Economic Policies? For Whom?
by Dr. Ron Paul
09/08/10 Here We Go Again
by Dr. Tibor Machan
09/04/10 The Mind Conspirators
by Nelson Hultberg

Subscribe to the
Daily Bell Newswire

It's FREE!
Timely email notification of...
  • Breaking News
  • Feature Interviews
  • Guest Editorials
  • White Papers
  • eBooks & Shorts
  • Special FREE offers
...and much much more!
Exclusive Interviews
09/05/10 Nathaniel Branden on Mastering the Six Pillars of Esteem and 'Honoring' One's-Self
08/29/10 Steve Forbes on Overseas Wars, the Coming Gold Standard and the Rise of 'Citizen Agitation'
08/22/10 Nelson Hultberg on Libertarian-Conservatism and His New Conservative American Political Party
© Copyright 2008 - 2010 Appenzeller Business Press AG (ARBP). All Rights Reserved. The Daily Bell is an informative compendium of independent economic views and analysis, which is published by ARBP. The information contained in the Daily Bell is for informational purposes only, is impersonal and not tailored to the investment needs of any particular person and should not be construed as financial or investment advice. ARBP does not accept any liability or responsibility for, nor does it verify the accurateness of the information being provided in the Daily Bell. Daily Bell articles and interviews may include the contributions of several Daily Bell editors and may require factual editing after their initial post. Readers of the Daily Bell or any affiliated or linked sources or sites must accept the responsibility for performing their own due diligence before acting on any of the information provided within the report regardless of the source. In addition to proprietary, internally generated content, the Daily Bell publishes guest editorials from a selection of free-market thinkers, which may have been reprinted elsewhere and are not necessarily representative of ARBP's editorial views. Copyright is attributed to the author of any guest editorials featured at the Daily Bell, unless noted otherwise. ARBP often uses images licensed from Getty Images on the Daily Bell website.