Do Cultures that do not have property rights have Laws?

Post Reply New Topic

There is a bit of a going idea that laws spring from ideas about property.
Gintis, Boyd that whole gaggle of folks. It is a very clean and elegant idea and testable. Do the Hadza, !Kung, Inuit, etc the so called egalitarian hunter-gatherers have laws?

Laws of course need a definition. I like

This is to separate law from norms (norms do not have proscribed punishments).
What I am looking for is observed examples not theoretical reasons why they can or can not have laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_law_in_Australia

...and, here is a paper

http://www.lrc.justice.wa.gov.au/2publi ... 060206.pdf

Normally, law is defined by writing -- by which I mean that the difference between a law and a custom (in the sense of "customary law") is that the former is written, while the latter isn't.

Indigeous Australians practise something that is known as "Reciprocal Law".
Indeed, most of the problems that the invaders in Australia had trouble with was this concept of reciprocal law clashing with their own version of law.

Reciprocal based law is common in hunter - gather societies, as it allows some form of law and order, but also allows feuds to be settled in a predetermined form without sending the entire tribe or clan to war and causing the destruction of an entire people. Revenge killings under this system were common, if one man was killed by an enemy tribe, he would be avenged, and then good relations would resume as normal - as you can imagine this concept was never well understood by Europeans.

The oral Torah.

Your definition of law is wholly inadequate. You have limited yourself to penal law.

When you slip and fall on my front step, and you sue me to cover your medical costs, I am not being punished. I am compensating you for the harm that was done to you by my negligence and I am putting you back--as far as money will allow--into the position that you were in before you were injured.

When you buy a product from me that is defective and you sue me for breach of contract, I am not being punished. I am delivering that which I promised to you in exchange for the purchase price.

When I send a person into quarantine, and he challenges that decision in front of a review board, I am not being punished. My decision is being examined to ensure that I made that decision on the basis of reliable, medical evidence, and that it complies with all of the requirements of the statute that authorizes me to do that.

When a parent gives me permission to treat a child in that parent's care, no one is being punished.

When I present my passport in order to enter a foreign country, no one is being punished.

All cultures have "laws" in the sense of normative rules whether or not they are propertarian.

ruveyn

Your definition of law is problematic, in essence you've defined away any argument that could be made against the position I perceive you as holding on this topic. For instance, if we were living a society without property rights and you punched me in the face, a tradition that allowed me to then punch you in the face would have most of the characteristics of a law.

This article speaks on some theories around which methods kept hunter/gatherer societies egalitarian and in line http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fre ... ary?page=2

Ironically, we would refer to the group teasing and shunning an individual as "bullying".

I would like to submit that you entire premiss is wrong because you include pre industrial civilisations in your discussion
I think you are trying to describe the anthropological existence of the modern emergence of the Legal and Penal system
I would suggest that you redescribe your separation of powers

Does any truly communist country count as an example or are they discounted because of the concept of 'state property'?

I think it will be difficult to exactly pull apart tradition and law for any culture that didn't write, you might want to look at some of the remote Scottish islands like St Kilda, I don't know for sure but I don't think they had any property laws before they were forced to pay rent for the privilege of living on their own island

.

Do the kibbutz count or does it fall foul of 'communal property' as a concept even though some went to the extreme of not even owning clothing.

They follow the law of the Great Spirit, brother bear, and brother buffalo.

1. it this I think you are wrong how are there not sanctions for being in breach of contract?
2. If you are found in violation you are not punished? If the quarantined person violates his quarantine is he punished?
3. If you treat a child against his parents wishes there is no sanction?
4. If you refuse to present your passport I am pretty sure the is some kind of punishment.

If there is no sanction it is not a Law it is a Norm.

How many Kibbutzim are currently in operation? And I am talking about real Kibbutzim, not these tourist traps in Israel where American Jewish tourists go for two weeks to pick fruit from the trees (for which privilege they pay thousands of dollars) so they can feel the "hardships" of the People.

When people did not have a pot to pee in Kibbutzim made sense. It made efficient use of the few available goods. Privately owned goods spend most of their time in a cupboard and are not put to any earthly use. Privately owned good promote the illusion of wealth derived from what is owned and not what is put to good use.

ruveyn