I can easily envision a future that's like a Jackson Pollock painting: the canvas is the wasteland - a lawless wilderness of savage barbarity. And all the flecks of paint are attempts at civilization. Most will be improvised, and will exist only due to random alignment of circumstances. Very few will be well considered and planned. And through Darwinian processes, the fit communities will survive.
So what makes a community fit? I'd wager it would be the law that they choose to live under.
For legal reasons, let's consider what can be called: principles and theory of law - applicable to any legal system (past, present, and future, extant or hypothetical).
___
When Prepping, there comes a point when broader considerations come to mind - when you've covered enough of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, that interpersonal interactions come to the fore. This to me, is when law should be considered.
What is the purpose of law? Primarily, to prevent in-group conflict. And secondarily, ➡️
...to resolve any in-group conflict that should arise.
And I have a few thoughts on the subject - a few principles that may be worth considering for anyone planning a community, or who should ever find themselves in a situation where it comes up out of necessity (such as in a post-collapse hellscape, for example).
1) practicality - how enforceable is a law? It's easy enough to say what should, or should not, be. But how easily can this be made into a reality? Who will enforce it? And how?
2) simplicity - The code of law should be simple, and easily understood. While I don't object to the existence of lawyers, in principle... The law should be simple enough that any citizen can serve as a lawyer. A dispassionate advocate (without his own neck to worry about), will probably make a case more competently, than someone swayed by concern and anxiety for their own future. But the law should be simple.
3) Who is fit to judge? - I really like the jury system, and the american bill of rights. There can be no such thing as perfect justice. And in the absence of video evidence or electronic records, the jury system is about as fair as justice gets.
4) The balance of necessity, and a desire for justice - Finding a way to prosper as a community, in a post-collapse world, will likely be an "all hands on deck" affair. Deindustrialization will mean that every able body is needed, because life is ➡️
...much more difficult without electricity. So the desire to punish, must be tempered by the demands of practicality. An emphasis on crime prevention is much more preferable, to harsh punishments.
_____
Prepping is an investment in the future. No one wants to put all the effort it takes, into building a community, only to see it fall apart.
So I'm looking for feedback, and devil's advocacy. Because I want to see my efforts succeed. The future, fast approaches.🥃
@YoMomz Interesting post.
The law or maintaining order has a lot to do with the people/creatures you are governing over. Sometimes it's better to ruthlessly purge your community of people who cannot operate within your laws.
Being lenient or as you say practical can actually be more destructive. For example, the behavior could spread. Again, you'll have to know the creatures in the community.
A jury for a community maybe overkill.
It's a good discussion to have.
@redmaple - No doubt, there will be some beheadings in a "start from scratch" scenario, because there's always gonna be that guy.
The way I see it, options for remedial action are limited (because jails take scarce resources). And communities are limited to the death penalty, corporal punishment (caning, flogging, and the like), humiliation (a day in stockades where people throw vegetables, etc), and expulsion (banishment). Let me know if I'm forgetting something though.
@redmaple - But I think it'd be wise to keep in-group death penalties to a minimum, and only after an acceptable trial of some sort, because of the possibility of blood feuds and how destructive those can be.
When pondering what sort of community order to advocate, I find it useful to imagine myself at the bottom of the hierarchy. And to ask: "Would I still consider things to be fair?"
Cheers, and thanks for the feedback. 🍻
@YoMomz We definitely want to avoid blood feuds and rampant petty crime.
I've found the family centered discipline interesting. A community being a group of families (households) each with a clear leader. Each family being responsible for its members and by extension, the punishment of it's members.
It then becomes the family's responsibility to punish it's members to the satisfaction of the community in fear of all it's family members being ostracized. The whole, give your family a bad name.
@redmaple - I like that!
I was leaning in a similar direction... but I wasn't able to articulate it so well yet.
I think out of necessity, decentralization is key (with legit patriarchy a given, of course). And for me, decentralization is desirable as well, and most conducive to freedom.
I do think that in-group crime will be fairly rare - because everyone will be largely preoccupied (idle hands and all that).
@redmaple - I think the most likely major crime problem, will be sexual in nature.
In a world with war-brides (which I don't object to), and where the previous society broke due to loose morals and broken sexual contracts, it just seems likely to me that there will be some carry-over into the new order. And besides all that, sex is a primal instinct.
So here's what I'm thinking: women are property - first of their fathers, and then of their husbands. So rape becomes a property crime.
@redmaple - So if and when it occurs, it is actually prosecuted by the husband or father. But then there's the matter of differentiating between rape and whore-ishness.
A proposed approach: There will be women's spaces (home, and maybe a sewing circle or something) and men's spaces (everywhere else, basically). When the nature of consent is ambiguous, sex is presumed to be rape if it occurs in a woman's space, and presumed to be infidelity in a men's space.
@YoMomz I have no space for whoreishness. A woman cannot consent in my eyes. She is property. It's like taking someone else's car for a drive claiming the car consented or didn't resist. Only the owner can consent.
Giving a woman the power to consent is opening a can of worms you should be already familiar with.
--
In times of scarcity, theft would also be a common crime. And possibly disputes about property damage. I borrowed your tool and now it's not working type of situations.
@redmaple - Re: whore-ishness - I don't disagree. But the owner (husband) may simply wish to call it a mulligan, take her back, and move on. Infidelity would be grounds for divorce with prejudice (no cash and prizes, no custody), at her owner's (husband's) discretion.
It's not so much a reflection of my own personal opinion, but simply a consideration of the possibility that the woman's father may otherwise object. It's a preventative measure to counteract the simpery of others, and future ➡️
@redmaple -...generations.
But with rape as a property crime on the other hand, I'm comfortable with castration or beheading for that.
A rapist (in this context), violates another man's property and family (and it doesn't hit much closer), so capital punishment seems entirely appropriate to me. And also, with capital punishment as a potential outcome, it becomes crucial to define what is, and what isn't rape.
____
Thankfully, theft seems like a much simpler remedy: I like caning for that.
😉👍
@YoMomz The way some previous generations handled females is they were not allowed to be without male family supervision.
To me this becomes unnecessarily complicated to determine if she was willing. If you don't own her, and you had sex with her, it's rape.
Men will always be responsible so just have laws that reflect that. And it will make judgement very easy. Fuck the white knights.
Theft is much easier to handle.
@redmaple - I had to ponder that for a while... At first, I was like "Why didn't I think of that?!"🤦🏻♂️
But with any idea, I do my best to pick it apart - just as a matter of course, to see if it holds up.
I think it's wise to never underestimate the conniving and petty nature of females. And with this system, I can see "assassination by means of adultery" as becoming a thing. Women may be property and all, but they will always possess a measure of autonomy and free will.
@redmaple - Especially after a generation or two, when the forsaken system we were born into has left the collective living memory... A woman may be able to tempt and seduce a man, while knowing full well that he would face all consequences - particularly if she happens to be married to a simp.
And I suppose it depends on one's values. But I don't think it sits well with me, for that reason.
Regarding white knights: yeah generally, fuck those guys.
@redmaple - But part of the rationale in denying women a public voice, is that those who have authority over them, and responsibility for them (men), will speak on their behalf.
So with that, it becomes a question of who speaks for them. Primarily, that would be first fathers, and then husbands. But secondarily, I could see that being brothers, cousins, sons, and whatnot - though certainly not random strangers stricken by the thirst.
@redmaple - And I'm thinking here mostly, of those rare cases of actual abuse (of all sorts). Personally, I was conceived in one abusive household, only to be raised in another - so I know that it can happen on occasion.
So while random white knighting should be highly discouraged, if there's a personal and familial connection - a real personal investment in the outcome, then I can see a place for it.
And I suppose this too, is a matter of values. But those are some considerations. 🍻
@YoMomz Incest situations would be tricky. That may require a separate law and not be included as rape. I never considered that. 🍻
@redmaple - And naturally, any dispute about all that, can be brought to public trial.
___
And to strike an optimistic note, I do believe that the rates of both in-group rape and whore-ishness, will be drastically reduced.
But I give it some forethought, because the consequences can be so destructive. I see it as a matter of stakes, rather than of probability.
🍻