| baltassoc |
11-03-2003 02:33 PM |
Alien v Predator
Quote:
Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
No, no, no. The major change in concept was the idea that the Sovereign had a monopoly over the use of force.
|
No, seriously. You've got to stop saying that I am wrong and then saying the same thing I just said. This argument is obviously turning tautological, but a couple of comments.
Quote:
Look at it this way. Year 800. Pick your Germanic country. Commit a violent crime. What happens?
(1) there is a price to be paid to the victim;
(2) violence is done to your body by the victim's family.
|
My understanding (although I am willing to be corrected - it's been over a decade since I really studied this seriously) is that in Northern Europe ca. 800 this is an either/or proposition, not a both/and. Together they make up the system. The injured party/party's family only has a right to violence if the weregeld was not paid. And there's really a third option, servitude; the violence only come in where the weregeld can't or won't be paid. This is quite a different concept from the Babylonian / Judiac eye for an eye tradition, which is inefficient in that it destroys labor inputs as punishment, rather than transfering them to the vicitm as compensation. Efficient as always, those Germans.
Quote:
Fast forward to 2003. Commit a violent crime anywhere in the US.
(1) there is a price to be paid to the victim;
(2) something (maybe not actuall violence) is done with or to your body by the government.
(1) doesn't seem to be the difference. (2) is.
|
Well, yes. Taking away the right to extract the cost from the private group is tantamount to abandoning the weregeld system, since other systems (including the Romans) still recognize a private cause of action for wrongs. But again, this argument has turned tautological - you see an evolution, I see extiction. Either way, the animal that was no longer is. |
