5 ms·

> We pay taxes so the state will keep us safe. On the other hand, we don’t expect the state to be getting all up in our bedrooms, legalizing who women can have

> We pay taxes so the state will keep us safe. On the other hand, we don’t expect the state to be getting all up in our bedrooms, legalizing who women can have sex with or rewarding women with public honors for having children. That’s private. The Romans, however, saw things very differently. Rewarding women for babies was A-OK, making laws about how much jewelry a girl could wear was just sensible policy. But murder? That was family business. I love reading things like this. Its a good reminder that things we think are common sense (like the government being involved in murder but not in legislating how much jewelry a girl can wear) are not necessarily so. They are very much cultural based. And these are both human cultures. What would an alien culture think is common sense?

wolverine876 6y ago
> Its a good reminder that things we think are common sense (like the government being involved in murder but not in legislating how much jewelry a girl can wear) are not necessarily so. They are very much cultural based. And these are both human cultures. What would an alien culture think is common sense? First, I think the word "culture" is extremely loaded and ambiguous, and stereotypes great masses of individuals each with their own opinions, and to make static things that constantly change. But that said, whatever it is, it exists somehow. IMHO this relativism argument - that it's nothing more than local 'culture' - is greatly overstated. The evidence is that individual liberty is a principle embraced by people almost every place that they have had the choice: The U.S., almost every country in Europe, Japan, China (where they have a choice - in Taiwan, in Hong Kong until very recently, and in Tienanmen Square in 1989 - they strongly advocate for it), Korea, India, almost every country in Latin America, Tunisia, Syria (where they had a choice), Benin, Botswana, etc. etc. In addition, people risk their lives to travel from repressive countries without traditions of liberty to free countries and they strongly embrace the freedom. My ancestors did. Finally, you don't see people migrating the other way. (I don't see how speculating on unknown, non-human, intelligent lifeforms informs the discussion.)
- whakim 6y ago
  I feel that you've kind of missed GP's point, which is that we tend to take for granted the functions of the state, when in fact those functions have shifted over time. For example, it was not until relatively recently (i.e., the 20th century) that providing a social safety net came to be considered a core competency of governments. To take another example: the Roman Empire provided free rations of grain and olive oil (the annona) to all citizens of Rome and Constantinople for several hundred years. This was an incredibly big deal because it a) set a high base level of demand for bulk goods that enabled the huge economies of scale upon which Roman long distance trade operated; and b) enabled the populations of Rome and Constantinople to reach levels that no European city would again equal until the Early Modern period. Romans probably viewed the annona like modern Americans view social security. Romans would (probably) have thought social security ridiculous, whereas most Americans would view the annona as a large scale encroachment by the state on market pricing of commodities.
allturtles 6y ago
The author of the book seems to be confounding two different categories. The excerpt is about how there was no state apparatus to investigate homicide as a matter of course. But that doesn't mean there was no laws against homicide.
- irrational 6y ago
  Did they have laws against homicide? I took "But murder? That was family business." to mean they didn't have laws against homicide. It was up to each family to decide what to do about it on an individual basis. I could be wrong. I know nothing about Roman Jurisprudence.
  - geeB 6y ago
    I think since the early roman kingdom days, murders within a family (parricide) were punished by the state, at least some of them (e.g. a father might have had right of death over his offspring, but maybe that ended once they reached adulthood?). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poena_cullei https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poena_cullei on the punishment for parricide at a later time has something on it. Eventually it would be extended to homicide outside one's family (Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis), but as the GP says the article confuses things a bit between the state not being involved at all, and a lack of investigation. I think murder was just like anything else in that regard, meaning that the state would not prosecute any crimes on its own without someone going to court in the first place. But that was also the case for the jewellery example, or anything else: if nobody complained about it, the state did not have a police force looking out for these things and the crime would go unpunished.
Iv 6y ago
I was surprised to read, a few days ago, that until late in the middle age (12th century if I recall correctly), waging personal wars, vendetta, revenges were seen as normal business. It took the Holy Roman Emperor to install courts of justice and force people to go through there and still took generations to drill in the idea that "He looked at my daughter in a lewd way so I put an arrow in his eye" was not a way to do things.
- weare138 6y ago
  It was accepted long after the 12th century, even in America. Aaron Burr, while vice president of the United States, killed Hamilton in a duel in 1804. Future president Andrew Jackson killed Charles Dickinson in a duel in 1806 for insulting his wife and calling Jackson a coward.
  - Iv 6y ago
    Ah but duels are a different matter, they obey codes and rules and require mutual consent. Last duel in France was in 1958 actually.
    - throwanem 6y ago
      I suppose one might argue that if someone did not wish to consent to a feud or to owe weregild, that someone should have thought better than to perform whatever act incurred the penalty.
- ginko 6y ago
  Quite a bit later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewiger_Landfriede https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewiger_Landfriede
- geeB 6y ago
  In western history, this was definitely something (re?)introduced by various germanic people after the western roman empire collapse, and already they were encouraging monetary reparations. In roman times, if someone killed your cousin you could go to court and it would mostly end there. After the collapse, if someone killed your cousin your family had the right to kill someone of "equal value" from the family of the killer. Aside from the brutality and senseless violence (as seen from us today), the biggest problem was that people disagreed on "equal value", resulting in a feud, i.e. an escalation of revenge because each party felt that the other side's killing was way more than warranted to make things even. So the states (starting from the early barbarian kingdoms) would encourage the family of the killed to accept a monetary payment to avoid the murders to spiral out of control. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild. I think the concepts of feud and weregild did not even exist in the roman world. But you are right that for a long time you still had the right for revenge, until eventually it was fully phased out. A bit like the transition between the gold standard and fiat currency.

wolverine876 6y ago

> Its a good reminder that things we think are common sense (like the government being involved in murder but not in legislating how much jewelry a girl can wear) are not necessarily so. They are very much cultural based. And these are both human cultures. What would an alien culture think is common sense? First, I think the word "culture" is extremely loaded and ambiguous, and stereotypes great masses of individuals each with their own opinions, and to make static things that constantly change. But that said, whatever it is, it exists somehow. IMHO this relativism argument - that it's nothing more than local 'culture' - is greatly overstated. The evidence is that individual liberty is a principle embraced by people almost every place that they have had the choice: The U.S., almost every country in Europe, Japan, China (where they have a choice - in Taiwan, in Hong Kong until very recently, and in Tienanmen Square in 1989 - they strongly advocate for it), Korea, India, almost every country in Latin America, Tunisia, Syria (where they had a choice), Benin, Botswana, etc. etc. In addition, people risk their lives to travel from repressive countries without traditions of liberty to free countries and they strongly embrace the freedom. My ancestors did. Finally, you don't see people migrating the other way. (I don't see how speculating on unknown, non-human, intelligent lifeforms informs the discussion.)

whakim 6y ago
I feel that you've kind of missed GP's point, which is that we tend to take for granted the functions of the state, when in fact those functions have shifted over time. For example, it was not until relatively recently (i.e., the 20th century) that providing a social safety net came to be considered a core competency of governments. To take another example: the Roman Empire provided free rations of grain and olive oil (the annona) to all citizens of Rome and Constantinople for several hundred years. This was an incredibly big deal because it a) set a high base level of demand for bulk goods that enabled the huge economies of scale upon which Roman long distance trade operated; and b) enabled the populations of Rome and Constantinople to reach levels that no European city would again equal until the Early Modern period. Romans probably viewed the annona like modern Americans view social security. Romans would (probably) have thought social security ridiculous, whereas most Americans would view the annona as a large scale encroachment by the state on market pricing of commodities.

allturtles 6y ago

The author of the book seems to be confounding two different categories. The excerpt is about how there was no state apparatus to investigate homicide as a matter of course. But that doesn't mean there was no laws against homicide.

irrational 6y ago
Did they have laws against homicide? I took "But murder? That was family business." to mean they didn't have laws against homicide. It was up to each family to decide what to do about it on an individual basis. I could be wrong. I know nothing about Roman Jurisprudence.
- geeB 6y ago
  I think since the early roman kingdom days, murders within a family (parricide) were punished by the state, at least some of them (e.g. a father might have had right of death over his offspring, but maybe that ended once they reached adulthood?). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poena_cullei https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poena_cullei on the punishment for parricide at a later time has something on it. Eventually it would be extended to homicide outside one's family (Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis), but as the GP says the article confuses things a bit between the state not being involved at all, and a lack of investigation. I think murder was just like anything else in that regard, meaning that the state would not prosecute any crimes on its own without someone going to court in the first place. But that was also the case for the jewellery example, or anything else: if nobody complained about it, the state did not have a police force looking out for these things and the crime would go unpunished.

Iv 6y ago

I was surprised to read, a few days ago, that until late in the middle age (12th century if I recall correctly), waging personal wars, vendetta, revenges were seen as normal business. It took the Holy Roman Emperor to install courts of justice and force people to go through there and still took generations to drill in the idea that "He looked at my daughter in a lewd way so I put an arrow in his eye" was not a way to do things.

weare138 6y ago
It was accepted long after the 12th century, even in America. Aaron Burr, while vice president of the United States, killed Hamilton in a duel in 1804. Future president Andrew Jackson killed Charles Dickinson in a duel in 1806 for insulting his wife and calling Jackson a coward.
- Iv 6y ago
  Ah but duels are a different matter, they obey codes and rules and require mutual consent. Last duel in France was in 1958 actually.
  - throwanem 6y ago
    I suppose one might argue that if someone did not wish to consent to a feud or to owe weregild, that someone should have thought better than to perform whatever act incurred the penalty.
ginko 6y ago
Quite a bit later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewiger_Landfriede https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewiger_Landfriede
geeB 6y ago
In western history, this was definitely something (re?)introduced by various germanic people after the western roman empire collapse, and already they were encouraging monetary reparations. In roman times, if someone killed your cousin you could go to court and it would mostly end there. After the collapse, if someone killed your cousin your family had the right to kill someone of "equal value" from the family of the killer. Aside from the brutality and senseless violence (as seen from us today), the biggest problem was that people disagreed on "equal value", resulting in a feud, i.e. an escalation of revenge because each party felt that the other side's killing was way more than warranted to make things even. So the states (starting from the early barbarian kingdoms) would encourage the family of the killed to accept a monetary payment to avoid the murders to spiral out of control. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild. I think the concepts of feud and weregild did not even exist in the roman world. But you are right that for a long time you still had the right for revenge, until eventually it was fully phased out. A bit like the transition between the gold standard and fiat currency.