ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, April 15, 2017

Perspectives on law

John Derbyshire quotes George Orwell, and in doing so, explains why civic nationalism failed as a substitute for American nationalism.
The masses still more or less assume that “against the law” is a synonym for “wrong.” It is known that the criminal law is harsh and full of anomalies and that litigation is so expensive as always to favour the rich against the poor: but there is a general feeling that the law, such as it is, will be scrupulously administered … An Englishman does not believe in his bones, as a Spanish or Italian peasant does, that the law is simply a racket.
The English People, Collins, 1947
This is why it was never possible for the USA to survive as Constitutional nation respecting the Rights of Englishmen once non-English people were permitted to become citizens. No other people shared the Englishman's view of the law. The Northern Europeans didn't grasp the concept of its theoretical limits. The Southern Europeans saw it as a racket to benefit the powerful and the well-connected. The Jews and Irish saw it as a game to be exploited for the benefit of their tribes.

And once that respect for the law disappears, it cannot easily be restored. It's infectious. I certainly take a much more lax, even disrespectful, approach to things like restricted parking than I ever did prior to our move to Italy. I can recall being in Spain, near a crowded market, waiting for my friend to pick up meat from the butcher. There were no parking spaces, but there were some places reserved for taxis.

At first, I started to drive past them, and then I thought, "wait a minute, I'm in Spain. As if anyone is going to care." So, I drove into the taxi space and was able to wait there as long as I required without anyone paying even the slightest attention.

Labels:

115 Comments:

Blogger MrPaules April 15, 2017 11:08 AM  

I once was accosted in Switzerland by a little old crone who barely came up to my chin. She literally grabbed me by the ear and began to lecture me in German. My offense, you ask? I was walking the wrong direction on a one-way sidewalk. Somewhere between Spain and Switzerland there is a happy medium. It's a matter of taste.

Anonymous (((King Curtis))) April 15, 2017 11:18 AM  

My sister babysits for a relatively wealthy German couple in Manhattan. The other babysitters in the apartment building are all black. She told me they accused her of having white privilege. When she told the German couple, they said "this is why we don't hire blacks."

OpenID herenvardo April 15, 2017 11:30 AM  

The English are pretty much unique among Europeans in their attitude to law. It's a combination of Teutonic loyalty with Celtic pragmatism. Celts will fight any ruler or law not doing right, but Germanics will follow any ruler (even a tyrant) who follows due process. The English (and hence the original Americans) fell right in between, with a law-abiding public who held even kings to be under the law. It really was a piece of genius.

Blogger praetorian April 15, 2017 11:36 AM  

Somewhere between Spain and Switzerland there is a happy medium.

Somewhere between Switzerland and Switzerland there is a happy medium.

Blogger Miss Carnivorous April 15, 2017 11:37 AM  

That explains the parking habits of the Chinese in Chinatowns across the US. Double and triple parking and parking in and across people's driveways! We have special intersections designed for Chinese drivers to stop them from mowing down pedestrians. A sign in the Asian health center window reads, "Walking is a right, driving is a privilege."

Blogger Desillusionerad April 15, 2017 11:39 AM  

Exactly what is meant by 'The Northern Europeans didn't grasp the concept of its theoretical limits.'?
I will grant you that continental law (especially northerner) is fundamentally distinct from 'English' law, but not in the way you seem to suggest.

OpenID herenvardo April 15, 2017 11:40 AM  

And, you can see it playing out with Brexit. The Latins are fine with the EU Commission being an unelected body - they never respected their own legislatures, they don't respect this one! The Germans are schokked that anyone would bail out just because they don't agree with the bosses! The Brits can see where it's all headed, or at least a slim majority of us can, & we're all, time to go!

Blogger Lazarus April 15, 2017 11:48 AM  

When I was temporarily enamored of the De-Tax movement, a lot of study material referenced the quality of the English law and the Judges employed therein compared to the current crop of pretenders and their corruption of the language of law.

The Black's Law Dictionary available today is a pale shadow of the original.

Blogger #6277 Hammer April 15, 2017 11:50 AM  

"That explains the parking habits...." No. That's just because they can't see over the steering wheel.

Blogger #6277 Hammer April 15, 2017 11:51 AM  

"That explains the parking habits...." No. That's just because they can't see over the steering wheel.

Anonymous weston April 15, 2017 11:52 AM  

And this is why it is incredibly bad news to have anyone from the Kushner family near the White House, let alone important within it. Just read about Jared's father. He was also the biggest fundraiser for the NJ Democratic Party as I recall. They do things like become good partners with George Soros.

Blogger VD April 15, 2017 11:52 AM  

The Northern Europeans didn't grasp the concept of its theoretical limits

I invite you to contemplate the historical German/Russian/Swedish grasp of limited government.

Blogger Troy Lee Messer April 15, 2017 11:56 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous instasetting April 15, 2017 11:56 AM  

Supposedly the early on the three big denominations went to the Baptists. Now imagine the Big Three as elephants and the Baptists as a horse, and everyone else as cats and ants in size.

And the Elephants said to the Horse, 'lets all agree to have an Established National Church in America, and it will be us Four." From the view of the Elephants it must have seemed a combination of generosity and prudence to include the Horse.

But the Horse said 'Neigh.'

Because Baptists were about freedom of conscience.

We probably should have a religious test in America. Only Baptists are allowed to serve in gov't.. Not the English, who have a long history of being oppressors (ask the Welsh and the Irish and the Scots). I don't trust Yankee Puritans.

Blogger dc.sunsets April 15, 2017 11:57 AM  

Wasn't it Blackstone who stated that the judge's role is to discern what IS the law?

If so, it appears that this was a concept particularly peculiar to the English. No wonder things spun in the wrong direction for 200+ years.

Blogger Troy Lee Messer April 15, 2017 11:58 AM  

I disagree. I practiced last for 10 years. I was I meh competence in practicing law but my philosophy undergrad taught me evaluate the soundness and validity of law as practiced by the courts. The courts make a lot of shit up and it is premised on feelings. Not law. I.e. Constructive X. Constructive delivery. Constructive possession. The deed didn't get delivered screwing the litigant. Fine. We will just proclaim by judicial fiat the deed was delivered. Oh. The state can't prove that bag of weed in the back 40 of your Chevy suburban was yours (as in on your person). Well we will just by magic fiat, constructive possession, proclaim that it was yours.
Lots of little things like this. Tiny little chinks of reason taken out. Lots of times when the outcome of case is negative. I.e.what the judge didnt want... courts will simply invent a doctrine around it. Say lime the exclusionary rule. Instead of getting rid of unlimited immunity of pigs and holding them accountable for violating your 4th amendment rights, scouts has built this insane set of rules for when itiis ok to exclude evidence.

Tl;Dr. I blame judges. Should a reset happen, they should all go in woodchippers.

Anonymous CK April 15, 2017 12:00 PM  

We have a grocery store in Texas that changed its policy regarding the 15 items or less aisle to not offend the New-americans. Their policy is to not tell them anything but to leave the 15 items rules up for the real Americans to follow.

I know it is just a rule or store policy, but we as a country are encouraging them to bring their rule of law flouting behaviors to the U.S. where it will infest everything more than it has already.

This is why people say "Send them back!".

Anonymous BBGKB April 15, 2017 12:00 PM  

The reason jews hate the Boy Scouts so much is that someone who follows the scouting oath is the worst thing you could be in Israel, even lower than a Pedo is a Frier
http://jewishstudies.washington.edu/israel-hebrew/dont-be-a-sucker/

Somewhere between Spain and Switzerland there is a happy medium

A gypsy fortune teller that just ripped someone off.

The courts make a lot of shit up and it is premised on feelings.

Jew juuudge feels for jew lawyer

Blogger Balázs Varga April 15, 2017 12:02 PM  

An interesting thing is, civic goverment holds no respect in Hungary due it being invented and put in place by the Habsburgs during their rule over the land.

Thus opposing civic laws like taxes and such were not only seen as all right, but as a patriot's duty and pride to do.

This attitude has never really went away. Civic goverment is not just not respected, it is not considered really hungarian to begin with. It is a foreigner idea.

Interestingly enough, laws about things like murder or theft that date back to older times are not held in this contempt and are generally upheld without trouble.

Blogger Benjamin Kraft April 15, 2017 12:06 PM  

@12. Vox, what grasp? Now if we're talking their reach, on the other hand...

Anonymous EH April 15, 2017 12:07 PM  

"..and then I thought, 'wait a minute, I'm in Spain. As if anyone is going to care.'"

M. Python Cardinal: "Everyone accepts the Spanish imposition!"

Anonymous Jeff April 15, 2017 12:12 PM  

This book by John Robson on the history of the Magna Carta and the development of English Law is worth a read.

https://www.amazon.ca/Magna-Carta-Shared-Legacy-Liberty/dp/0978170636

Blogger pyrrhus April 15, 2017 12:12 PM  

As a longtime practicing attorney, I find the really annoying and destructive aspect of modern government is its complete disrespect for law with regards to the powerful, like Hillary Clinton. Meanwhile, the "little people" can suffer draconian punishment for minuscule violations of our vast network of malum prohibitum laws, many of which are unknown to the people.

Anonymous Jeff April 15, 2017 12:25 PM  

@1 - I was walking the wrong direction on a one-way sidewalk.

Never heard of a one-way sidewalk but I love the idea. There absolutely should be pedestrian laws in busy cities. Two in particular:

1) Keep right.
2) Stand back at a red light to let those pedestrians through who are on the green.

Blogger Desillusionerad April 15, 2017 12:33 PM  

I don't see how it qualifies with 'theoretical' but yes, Absolutism runs strong here, Limited government not so much.
On the other hand, some national laws are almost a millennia old, and even during absolutism respected, whereas the UK does not have a constitution to this day, so the government is essentially unlimited.
Oh as an off topic @herenvardo
The EU commission is as elected as Boris Johnson, if you don't like it because its supranational, fine, but that does not magically make it unelected, no more than any government minister is unelected.

Anonymous kfg April 15, 2017 12:34 PM  

" . . . it appears that this was a concept particularly peculiar to the English."

Its origins traditionally ascribed to Alfred the Great.

Anonymous a deplorable rubberducky April 15, 2017 12:41 PM  

CK wrote:We have a grocery store in Texas that changed its policy regarding the 15 items or less aisle to not offend the New-americans. Their policy is to not tell them anything but to leave the 15 items rules up for the real Americans to follow.

Same here in Virginia. I was in the "15 Item Or Less" express lane behind a mamacita chola with an overflowing shopping cart and her litter of screaming babies one time, and I cracked. Decided to let her and the cashier in a hebab know that this was wrong, that's not how we do stuff in America. Of course I was the dastardly villain, the manager was called. Escalated to quite the little scene! They called the police on me, it was incredible. I was in jeopardy of disturbing the peace because I insisted on following the rules.

Nothing's changed. You go in there today and the express lanes are full of Not Americans with brimming shopping carts, getting disapproving looks from all the Americans. They know they are technically in the wrong. They don't care. They have to go back.

But the worst thing are our own American tyrants in the courts. You get to court these days and I feel for you, that's a crapshoot. Stories of getting railroaded, like what happened to Vox's father, are legion more and more. Check out an example of the latest outrage:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/04/the_trial_of_cliven_bundy_a_travesty_of_justice.html

My buddy got amazingly screwed in divorce court, that one really took the cake. He wound up with an activist feminist judge looking to fight the patriarchy. It was bad. And I'm sure very many of us have a similar shocking tale of how badly a husband and father can get absolutely nailed to the wall in this area. That stunning imbalance of justice is a major impetus behind the MGTOW movement, and why more and more fathers such as myself are teaching our sons to be very, very, very wary when it comes to the other sex and marriage. The courts are undermining not only our civic cohesion but even our familial cohesion with absolute gusto.

And SCOTUS? Sheesh. The few sessions of the court are just shameful. They have decreed that the 14th Amendment compels all states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. They have decreed that Congress couldn't have actually meant what it quite intentionally wrote wrt Obamacare subsidies, and re-wrote the law.

It's becoming not only a crapshoot, but the dice are loaded against you, tradition and what we used to call the Rule of Law.

And then we have the new age of "prosecutorial discretion" which is got abused to hell and expanded as a theory by Obama, so now the LE is more and more set against the Rule of Law. Exhibit A: James Comey on July 6th, 2016, letting Hillary Clinton walk for crimes that would put anybody else in Leavenworth. So she could RUN FOR PRESIDENT, no less.



Anonymous Brick Hardslab April 15, 2017 12:44 PM  

How much do you think that English common law was influenced by Danelaw? I have been thinking about the parallels to the Thing and Moots and how free men got their say in the presence of their betters.

Blogger Dave Narby April 15, 2017 12:47 PM  

TTOMK, the reason the concept was peculiar to the English was because English Common Law prevailed through much of it's history, to be replaced by statutory/code law.

Again TTBOMK, in English Common Law, the magistrate oversaw the orderly proceedings of the court, the plaintiff was the defendant, the wronged party was the prosecutor, and the *jury* decided the case. There was no appeal. If the jury found in favor of the wronged, they were made whole. If the jury found in favor of the plaintiff, triple (reverse) damages were typically awarded as a penalty for making a false claim.

English Common Law was essentially used in the US for much of it's early history as well, with a similar outcome to England.

Over time, the lawyers, legislators and bureaucrats corrupted the most equitable way of peacefully settling controversy in favor of the travesty we have today.

Anonymous Northern Observer April 15, 2017 12:52 PM  

"No other people shared the Englishman's view of the law. The Northern Europeans didn't grasp the concept of its theoretical limits."

This is the problem that I have with 'American Nationalism' if defined as 'white Americans'. Even if the US does splinter and reform into autonomous proto-states with some being expressly white, they are still going to be of overwhelmingly non-English decent. Even most modern Englishmen have very different ideas about rights, freedoms and the law, much less the Protestant Northern Europeans or Catholic Southern Europeans.

Of course masses of non-Christian non-European decent will pull away from those ideals further and faster, but 'white America' will end up in the same place eventually.

I suspect that religion is going to have a to play a larger role than race for any meaningful course correcting.

Blogger Dave Narby April 15, 2017 12:54 PM  

Brick Hardslab wrote:How much do you think that English common law was influenced by Danelaw? I have been thinking about the parallels to the Thing and Moots and how free men got their say in the presence of their betters.

I would bet quite a bit, what with all those Danes going a-Viking on the English for all those years. A lot of their customs would have been adopted.

Blogger Nate April 15, 2017 12:55 PM  

"At first, I started to drive past them, and then I thought, "wait a minute, I'm in Spain. As if anyone is going to care." So, I drove into the taxi space and was able to wait there as long as I required without anyone paying even the slightest attention."

yes well you are a red skinned barbarian. we should expect such from a half-savage.

I mean you're practically still a cave man.

Blogger Desillusionerad April 15, 2017 12:58 PM  

Brick Hardslab wrote:How much do you think that English common law was influenced by Danelaw? I have been thinking about the parallels to the Thing and Moots and how free men got their say in the presence of their betters.

I might be completely taken in by a falsehood, but i do believe the reason there are 12 jurors is from Danelaw, where the first man to get 12 to speak for him, was judged to be right (speak in this context should be understood as including fight the other guys 12 if necessary)
but that could e wrong as i said.

Blogger The Remnant April 15, 2017 1:01 PM  

A working rule of law depends on a population that understands the concept of self-restraint and is capable of practicing it. The stereotypical WASP who is ridiculed for being uptight and square is, in fact, the linchpin of political liberty.

As Edmund Burke noted: "Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains on their own appetites. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there is without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters."

And yes, observing how a population drives cars sheds a great deal of light on how capable it is of achieving the rule of law. When Americans drive almost as haphazardly as Italians or Latin Americans, it comes as no surprise that government spirals even further out of control.

Anonymous Hesiod April 15, 2017 1:03 PM  

Derbyshire proves if you must miscegenate, go east Asian. Rots of rove!

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein April 15, 2017 1:14 PM  

Nate wrote:"At first, I started to drive past them, and then I thought, "wait a minute, I'm in Spain. As if anyone is going to care." So, I drove into the taxi space and was able to wait there as long as I required without anyone paying even the slightest attention."

yes well you are a red skinned barbarian. we should expect such from a half-savage.

I mean you're practically still a cave man.


VD was very fortunate that Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

Blogger Ezekiel April 15, 2017 1:14 PM  

>>This is why it was never possible for the USA to survive as Constitutional nation respecting the Rights of Englishmen once non-English people were permitted to become citizens. No other people shared the Englishman's view of the law. The Northern Europeans didn't grasp the concept of its theoretical limits. The Southern Europeans saw it as a racket to benefit the powerful and the well-connected. The Jews and Irish saw it as a game to be exploited for the benefit of their tribes.


So what's the deal with Slavs when it comes to English civilization? Too authoritarian like the Germanics, too untrusting like the latins, too stupid like the blacks? Little bit of all three? Something else entirely?

Anonymous Loki7 April 15, 2017 1:16 PM  

@No Shit. I`ve been watching US Gulf Coast Negros grab their junk and yell at white women. And this is how one reacts to Emmett Till`s `victim` admitting that he did nothing to her?

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein April 15, 2017 1:17 PM  

Somewhere between Spain and Switzerland there is a happy medium

A diminutive Roma seer that escaped custody....

Small Medium at Large!

Anonymous Trimegistus April 15, 2017 1:17 PM  

I don't know why everyone fetishizes "English" ancestry. Look at what a shithole the English turned England into.

Blogger VD April 15, 2017 1:18 PM  

How much do you think that English common law was influenced by Danelaw?

Not much. There are virtually no Danish genes in the English population. They were wiped out over time, presumably in the Harrowing of the North.

Blogger Ezekiel April 15, 2017 1:19 PM  

Nate wrote:"At first, I started to drive past them, and then I thought, "wait a minute, I'm in Spain. As if anyone is going to care." So, I drove into the taxi space and was able to wait there as long as I required without anyone paying even the slightest attention."

yes well you are a red skinned barbarian. we should expect such from a half-savage.

I mean you're practically still a cave man.

Not true. Cave men knew enough about fire and ventilation that they didn't suffocate themselves every time it snowed.

At least he was probably sober at the time, which puts him head and shoulders above the kind who live in my area.

Blogger seeingsights April 15, 2017 1:28 PM  

Thomas Sowell pointed out the differences among ethnic groups. One ethnic group would be different from another ethnic group in terms of educational level, crime rate, per capital income, even in specific occupations.
Another difference among ethnic groups would be attitudes toward the law. One group might view the law as an impartial arbitrator. Another group might view the law as a game, where a measure of dishonesty is expected and tolerated.
Another difference among groups is attitudes to what the law can do. Lately, I've been reading about German immigration to the US in the 19th Century. It just so happens that in the areas that got German immigration, e.g. Wisconsin, politics became more socialist. I think that is more than a coincidence.

Blogger Weouro April 15, 2017 1:31 PM  

Italians will sometimes self-police. I was in Milan with an Italian girl who parked like an Italian and another Italian twisted her windshield wipers into corkscrews parking where she did.

Anonymous Mathias April 15, 2017 1:39 PM  

@43,

That depends on which Germany is doing the donating. Texas, for instance, was settled by "Germans", but it's Southeastern Germans/Central Europe (lots from the Czech part of Europe), so they tend to be more conservative like their Czech counterparts in Europe.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 15, 2017 1:40 PM  

The Northern Europeans didn't grasp the concept of its theoretical limits. The Southern Europeans saw it as a racket to benefit the powerful and the well-connected. The Jews and Irish saw it as a game to be exploited for the benefit of their tribes.

The Northern tribe elites were generally much more concerned with external threats than internal. As essentially a collection of city-states and relatively small ethnic tribes, in the absence of an effective national government, they couldn't afford to alienate their subjects, and the subjects could not afford to upset any applecarts.

Southerners were essentially subject to a racket. Their elites made no pretence of giving the tiniest bit of concern about the peasants.

For both Irish and Jews, the elite was a foreign tribe, making the gamesplaying and arbitrary use of power even more enervating.

And finally, I'm surprised it's been left up to Papist boy to say it, but while both Protestant and Catholic theology teach that there are inherent limits on the power of civic authorities, Protestantism seems to make those limits more practical, more immediate and more actionable.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 15, 2017 1:52 PM  

seeingsights wrote:Another difference among groups is attitudes to what the law can do. Lately, I've been reading about German immigration to the US in the 19th Century. It just so happens that in the areas that got German immigration, e.g. Wisconsin, politics became more socialist. I think that is more than a coincidence.
Most of the German as opposed to other ethnics subject to German rule) immigrants of the 19th century were political refugees, the largest part of which were communists of one stripe or another fleeing either Austrian or Prussian persecution.
The came here as full-fledged Socialists.

Lincoln would never have won without their votes and logistical support.

Blogger Nate April 15, 2017 1:56 PM  

"Not true. Cave men knew enough about fire and ventilation that they didn't suffocate themselves every time it snowed"

and people wonder why VD is immune to the attacks of his enemies.

When you take this sort of abuse from your friends what other outcome is possible?

Blogger Servant of the Chief April 15, 2017 2:03 PM  

"And finally, I'm surprised it's been left up to Papist boy to say it, but while both Protestant and Catholic theology teach that there are inherent limits on the power of civic authorities, Protestantism seems to make those limits more practical, more immediate and more actionable."

Historically no, it hasn't, if we go by the Absolutist monarchies of the continent post Renaissance and post-reformation, the protestant kingdoms were just as bad as France when it came to Absolutism. Sweden being a prime example with the German Empire coming much later. Before that All the Little Germanies were all bad at that sort of thing, they just preferred their small kings to the Emperor.

Blogger praetorian April 15, 2017 2:03 PM  

so they tend to be more conservative like their Czech counterparts in Europe

It is interesting that the Hussite revolution (in some tellings, the initial protestant and/or judaizing revolution, according to tastes) came out of that area as well. The swabian/czech axle appears to be a significant one around which western intellectual history turns.

Blogger Zeroh Tollrants April 15, 2017 2:07 PM  

Everyone's male relative or"buddy," that's been to divorce court, says the woman who believes in firing squads for these people.

Anonymous Mathias April 15, 2017 2:31 PM  

@50,

Funny you should say that, my surname is Czech for "Wheelwright". It is also interesting is the the Texan Czech population tends Catholic and Anti-Socialist/Communist specifically. As I understand it, there were two big waves: the one where the Mexican government recruited European Catholics specifically, so there was bias inherent there, and a second wave of old Czech nobility following the first wave in the late 1800's, coming to escape the rise of communism. These two waves hit the incoming ethnic Prussian, English and Irish migrants coming south during the reconstruction days, and here we are today.

Blogger seeingsights April 15, 2017 2:46 PM  

Another point on ethnic groups and the rule of law: it strikes me that the Nordic peoples are pretty much honest, and I say that as someone who has zero Nordic ancestry. When I think of corrupt politicians and businessmen in Europe, Nordics do NOT come to mind.

Blogger Phat Repat April 15, 2017 2:48 PM  

Too bad "When in Rome (or Spain)..." doesn't work for those invading the US. But then again, the mistaken belief and mantra the US is a multi-culti society doesn't help. By design.

Anonymous Mathias April 15, 2017 2:53 PM  

@54,

The reason that saying exists is because of what the Roman Prefects would do to you if you didn't do as the Romans did while in Rome. (Hint: they preferred grievous assault to imprisonment.)

Blogger Dave Narby April 15, 2017 2:56 PM  

seeingsights wrote:Another point on ethnic groups and the rule of law: it strikes me that the Nordic peoples are pretty much honest, and I say that as someone who has zero Nordic ancestry. When I think of corrupt politicians and businessmen in Europe, Nordics do NOT come to mind.

My suspicion is that Nordics evolved high-trust tendencies because conditions were hostile. As a result, we tend to be honest, and naive.

John De Nugent https://www.jdnmirror.com claims that an alternate definition of "blue-eyed" in several Northern European languages is "naive". I tend to agree with him, as my own experience is that it has taken 50 years for me to override my innate tendency to trust people until they prove untrustworthy.

I still find it uncomfortable to require people earn trust first, but it's simply too expensive to operate otherwise.

Plus I'm pissed off at most of them, which helps.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents April 15, 2017 3:03 PM  


My suspicion is that Nordics evolved high-trust tendencies because conditions were hostile. As a result, we tend to be honest, and naive.


Hajnal line.

Great grandfather would say, "Blood will tell".
HBD says the same thing only in a more sciencey way.

Blogger Dave Narby April 15, 2017 3:11 PM  

A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents wrote:

My suspicion is that Nordics evolved high-trust tendencies because conditions were hostile. As a result, we tend to be honest, and naive.



HBD says the same thing only in a more sciencey way.


HDB?

Blogger VFM #7634 April 15, 2017 3:33 PM  

And finally, I'm surprised it's been left up to Papist boy to say it, but while both Protestant and Catholic theology teach that there are inherent limits on the power of civic authorities, Protestantism seems to make those limits more practical, more immediate and more actionable.

@46 Snidely Whiplash
Not so sure. The pre-Vatican II Catholic Church, if it had any say in American law whatsoever, would likely have come down like a ton of bricks on that gay marriage bullshit, let alone the latest homo tactic of persecuting Christians who don't want to bake gay wedding cakes for "bigotry".

English Common Law predated the Reformation anyway. England became Protestant, which by itself might give the impression that Catholics are inherently more statist and collectivist, but I'm pretty sure Common Law and Protestantism are a classic case of "correlation does not necessarily mean causation".

And you can't really consider the Irish as "what English would be like if they were Catholics", any more than you could with Poles or Italians. The Irish are from a different Indo-European branch. From what I understand, in fact, the Celts were most closely related to the Italic peoples, not to the Teutons. (The Flemish might be a better analog.)

Blogger VFM #7634 April 15, 2017 3:41 PM  

So what's the deal with Slavs when it comes to English civilization? Too authoritarian like the Germanics, too untrusting like the latins, too stupid like the blacks? Little bit of all three? Something else entirely?

@37 Ezekiel
My impression is "a little bit of all three". Although I wouldn't necessarily say "stupid", more "corrupt slackers". Sort of like Latin Americans. Think of Russia as a cold white version of Mexico.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 15, 2017 3:45 PM  

VFM #7634 wrote:And you can't really consider the Irish as "what English would be like if they were Catholics", any more than you could with Poles or Italians. The Irish are from a different Indo-European branch.
No, by-and-large, genetically the English are largely the same population, with a relatively thin veneer of Germanic on top.
But, you are right about them being fundamentally different on a cultural basis. As Chesterton said "What the English never seem to understand is that the Irish are not, and do not want to be, English."
The English adopted whatever culture conquered them, from Roman to Anglo-Saxon to Norman.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents April 15, 2017 3:52 PM  

No, by-and-large, genetically the English are largely the same population, with a relatively thin veneer of Germanic on top.

We don't know that for sure. Since Ireland is outside of the Hajnal line while England is inside it, and the Irish are much more tribal than the English, a more likely statement is "the English and Irish have many genes in common due to shared Celtic bloodlines, but there are differences we have not detected yet".

This isn't just hand wavey theory stuff. It has explanatory and predictive uses, if there are Irish-descended people in your family, social circle, or work circles.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents April 15, 2017 3:55 PM  

Go and read Conan Doyle's stories from 100 years ago.
Yeah, it's fiction, but fiction includes the popular culture of the time.

Pay attention to cases of Sherlock Holmes that involve Irish, Scottish or Welsh vs. English. Any story that involves India or the Andaman Islands is worth detailed reading.

100+ years ago genetic science was stuck at Mendel, but intelligent people had no problem Noticing reality.

Anonymous Erik April 15, 2017 4:14 PM  

@56
John De Nugent claims that an alternate definition of "blue-eyed" in several Northern European languages is "naive". I tend to agree with him, as my own experience is that it has taken 50 years for me to override my innate tendency to trust people until they prove untrustworthy.

Well, the definition certainly exists in Norwegian. The etymology is a little sketchy, though. My Norwegian reference book on that point claims that 'blåøyd' (blue-eyed) for 'naive, trusting' is a back-formation form the expression for an act of attempted deceit, "kaste blår i øynene på...", which can be read as "throw blues in the eyes of..." with a charitable interpretation, but its original meaning is supposedly from throwing a kind of fine straw in someone's eyes.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 15, 2017 4:22 PM  

I'm not saying there are no differences. I'm saying that the Irish are the same genetic stock, without the admixture of a small (single-digit) percentage of germanic heritage from the Anglo-Saxons. Hell, the Irish have about the same percentage of Viking and Norman blood as the English. Dublin was at one time one of the largest Viking cities in the world.

I think the difference is the English experience of the Roman conquest. At first the Britons fought, the same way the Irish did when they were conquered, but the difference in standard of living and prosperity was so great that rather quickly the entire culture adopted the Roman economy and the Roman culture. It was literally devastating to the local population when the empire pulled out. In many places, the economy and technology devolved to not just pre-Roman levels, but to pre-iron-age levels. Large area of Britain were unable to even make pottery in the Dark Age, a skill that had been common in Britain for a millenium.
When the Angles and Saxons showed up, they and their material culture were rather enthusiastically embraced.

Ireland never had that. To the Irish, conquest under the Normans and Tudors meant only subjugation, persecution, starvation, slavery and even, under Cromwell, genocide.

And that history is the key to understanding the difference between the Irish and the English.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents April 15, 2017 4:28 PM  

This is not quite off topic.

Trump's threat to separate mothers and children deters immivasion

Let's be specific:
For months, Central Americans had heard about Trump’s get-tough policies. And public service announcements on radio and television presented bleak pictures of what awaited those who traveled north. Some of the ads were funded by the US, others by UN agencies and regional governments.

One radio ad in Honduras featured a mother, saying, “It’s been a year and I don’t know if she is alive or dead. I’d do anything to have her here with me. Curse the day I sent her north.”


That's rhetoric at work. Pay attention, cuckservatives.

The possibility that mothers and children might be separated at the border caused particular alarm, Honduran Deputy Foreign Minister Maria Andrea Matamoros told Reuters

“That worries any mother that wants to go to the US with their kid, and being separated drastically changes their plans,” she said.


That's a persuader at work. Is there a payoff?

The victory was announced last week by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which released figures showing a 93% drop since December of parents and children caught trying to cross the Mexico border illegally.

Yes. This is good.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents April 15, 2017 4:29 PM  

Snidely, what year was it that the Normans invaded Ireland?

Anonymous kfg April 15, 2017 4:36 PM  

Blue blår, hemp fiber for spinning yarn:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Hennepvezel_Cannabis_sativa_fibre.jpg/220px-Hennepvezel_Cannabis_sativa_fibre.jpg

English idiomatic equivalent: Pull the wool over eyes.

Anonymous BBGKB April 15, 2017 5:23 PM  

Same here in Virginia. I was in the "15 Item Or Less" express lane behind a mamacita chola with an overflowing shopping cart

I do the same thing sometimes "Look I know we have low expectations for _______ but she will never learn to count that high if no one points it out to her"

One radio ad in Honduras featured a mother, saying, “It’s been a year and I don’t know if she is alive or dead. I’d do anything to have her here with me. Curse the day I sent her north.”

Next radio ad "I just got a letter from my son, he is staying with a man named Anderson Cooper_____"

Blogger Noah B The MacroAggressor April 15, 2017 5:26 PM  

The Genetic Map of Europe.

Lots of genetic similarity between English, Irish, Norwegians, and Dutch.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 15, 2017 5:31 PM  

A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents wrote:Snidely, what year was it that the Normans invaded Ireland?Beginning in 1167 and lasting for about 10 years.
"The Norman invasion was a watershed in the history of Ireland, marking the beginning of more than 700 years of direct English and, later, British involvement in Ireland."

Seriously, learn your history. How did you think the English came to exercise sovereignty?

Anonymous CharlieB April 15, 2017 5:41 PM  

"This is why it was never possible for the USA to survive as Constitutional nation respecting the Rights of Englishmen once non-English people were permitted to become citizens"

Yeah...that I-Talia's Scalia and Blackie Thomas...they are hopeless.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents April 15, 2017 5:56 PM  

@71 Snidely

Good first step, although Henry II was an English king, and the notion of labeling that as a "Norman" invasion is quite open to debate.

Next question: Did the English impose their version of manor system on Ireland? Or was the invasion mainly about tribute / territory?

When did Ireland have its equivalent to the Magna Carta of 1215?

Blogger VFM #7634 April 15, 2017 6:07 PM  

I'm not saying there are no differences. I'm saying that the Irish are the same genetic stock, without the admixture of a small (single-digit) percentage of germanic heritage from the Anglo-Saxons.

@65 Snidely Whiplash
The problem is, the Anglo-Saxons themselves pre-invasion undoubtedly shared a lot of their own genes already with the Britannic Celts, and the single-digit percentage would actually be much higher if shared genes were accounted for.

I mean, on the flip side of the "English are indigenous Britons who adopted Anglo-Saxon language", we have this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-396406/Were-Germans--1-600-years.html

Heck, Mexicans are about half Spanish and half indigenous. With two white indigenous European groups, it would be much more difficult, but I wouldn't be surprised if the English are also about half Anglo-Saxon.

Of course, there's one relatively easy method to find out if people are related: look at the average facial characteristics in each country:

https://pmsol3.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/world-of-averages-europeave/

The thing is, the average national characteristics of the English vs. the Irish are too different to be able to really argue that they're the same basic stock, and I can't really buy that it's only because the Romans let civilization collapse in Britain when they pulled out.

Blogger VFM #7634 April 15, 2017 6:08 PM  

Or, come to think of it, consider the differences between the English and the Welsh.

Anonymous Johnathan Blood April 15, 2017 6:28 PM  

I guess you're right, a constitutional republic requires a healthy respect for the law. Like this guy:

http://infoweb.newsbank.com/resources/doc/nb/news/1208DFF3621D75A0?p=AWNB

Anonymous kfg April 15, 2017 6:51 PM  

". . .the English vs. the Irish are too different to be able to really argue that they're the same basic stock . . ."

Walked up to a waitress in upstate NY and asked, "Are you Scottish?"

"Yes," she said. "Clan MacDonald as a matter of fact. Why do you ask?"

"Because you looked Scottish and I just wanted to confirm my impression."

Never entered my mind that she might be Irish, even though the Scots and Irish are, without question, of the same basic stock, the current Scots being Irish who invaded by colonization.

Take two sets of cousins and make them isolated breeding groups and it won't be too many generations before you can tell them apart by sight and they have divergent culture.

Blogger Lazarus April 15, 2017 7:10 PM  

CharlieB wrote:Yeah...that I-Talia's Scalia and Blackie Thomas...they are hopeless.

Did they stop homosexual marriage? Abortion on demand? Anchor babies?

Then ya, they WERE hopeless.

Anonymous james@wpc April 15, 2017 7:23 PM  

VD wrote, "The Jews and Irish saw it as a game to be exploited for the benefit of their tribes".

I think that most people here will know why the Jews saw it as a game, but I'm curious as to why the Irish might have seen the law as a game.

Anonymous Millenium April 15, 2017 7:41 PM  

@16 I disagree...I blame judges

You are not disgreeing with Vox at all. (((Judges))) today are not the same race as judges in ye olde England

Blogger Dire Badger April 15, 2017 7:58 PM  

The Irish do not say "Never forget."

They simply state "Everyone wants to kill us." and prepare themselves accordingly.

What the Jews do out of greed, the Irish do out of terror. Cromwell was not the sort of myth that Auschwitz was.

Blogger Dire Badger April 15, 2017 8:00 PM  

@KFG-

Us poor bastard Scotts Gaelics are the worst of both worlds... but we can outwrestle, outfight, and outdrink any highlander or Gael that dares stick his muzzle in our lands, by gum!

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable April 15, 2017 8:32 PM  

VFM #7634 wrote:So what's the deal with Slavs when it comes to English civilization? Too authoritarian like the Germanics, too untrusting like the latins, too stupid like the blacks? Little bit of all three? Something else entirely?

@37 Ezekiel

My impression is "a little bit of all three". Although I wouldn't necessarily say "stupid", more "corrupt slackers". Sort of like Latin Americans. Think of Russia as a cold white version of Mexico.


I don't entirely disagree, but that doesn't seem quite right to me. For the Slavs I would put "clannish" in the third place. And for the Russians I would say "drunks" instead of "slackers".

(I've heard that they have so few sober men that literally, if a guy comes in to the factory too drunk to work, they will tell him to go home and come back tomorrow.)

Blogger Robert Paxton April 15, 2017 8:35 PM  

-the notion of labeling that as a "Norman" invasion is quite open to debate.-

No, it is not open to debate. Henry II was king of England but he was not English. The English royalty are not English. They are Norman and German.

Anonymous Crew April 15, 2017 8:45 PM  

So what's the deal with Slavs when it comes to English civilization? Too authoritarian like the Germanics, too untrusting like the latins, too stupid like the blacks? Little bit of all three? Something else entirely?

A people who can survive in the Russian winter are not going to be all that stupid.

Blogger Deadmau5 Patton April 15, 2017 8:56 PM  

It's interesting to see here in the midwest how even the unspoken laws begin to fade along with immigration and immigrants flagrant disregard for written law.

All of us from Norwegian backgrounds were almost like Japanese people, answering the phone saying "sorry, are you busy" and all that excessive politeness. Now as Somalis and whoever else move in and can't be bothered to even throw garbage in the trash can, I'm noticing the locals becoming ever so slowly ruder and less likely to follow traffic laws themselves. Sometimes people even raise their voices. THE HORROR!

I personally hate the diminishing order of life here, but possibly this is just a first sign of hardening hearts and will be good if things get too bad or a more serious war breaks out.

We'll have no time to apologize for bothering people with our phone calls or saying thank you every time someone does anything at all if we're fighting off aggressive dindus.

Anonymous Jack Amok April 15, 2017 9:18 PM  

I'm not saying there are no differences. I'm saying that the Irish are the same genetic stock, without the admixture of a small (single-digit) percentage of germanic heritage from the Anglo-Saxons.

I strongly disagree Snidely. I can tell the average Mick from the average Limey by looking at them (and I have both in my family tree). Whether the genetic difference between the two is large or small, it is significant. They look different and they act different.

Blogger Dave Narby April 15, 2017 9:27 PM  

A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents wrote:@71 Snidely

Good first step, although Henry II was an English king, and the notion of labeling that as a "Norman" invasion is quite open to debate.

Next question: Did the English impose their version of manor system on Ireland? Or was the invasion mainly about tribute / territory?

When did Ireland have its equivalent to the Magna Carta of 1215?


You may find this of interest:

"The legal system that prevailed in Ireland for thousands of years was radically different from what we are familiar with today, with our monopoly judges and emphasis on retribution over restitution. But if you were to ask the average American about any of this, the result would be a blank stare. Hence today’s episode."

http://tomwoods.com/ep-878-anarchism-in-ireland-the-history-nobody-knows/

Blogger Dave Narby April 15, 2017 9:35 PM  

james@wpc wrote:VD wrote, "The Jews and Irish saw it as a game to be exploited for the benefit of their tribes".

I think that most people here will know why the Jews saw it as a game, but I'm curious as to why the Irish might have seen the law as a game.


I hope an Irishman will chime in, but I would guess they would say "The bloody fookin' English, that's why".

Anonymous Jack Amok April 15, 2017 9:41 PM  

I might be completely taken in by a falsehood, but i do believe the reason there are 12 jurors is from Danelaw...

I don't know where the 12 came from - it could have been Danelaw - but the concept of a jury predates there being 12 men on it by a couple of centuries at least. The original English juries were not convened for trials, they were convened from the responsible locals to do things like verify under oath the surveys done for Domesday Book. A Grand Jury is a closer modern approximation to what the original English jury was than your typical trial jury. It was a representative group of the leading local commoners providing local knowledge under oath to the King's agents so said agents could do the King's will with accurate information.

The practice may have been Norman to begin with, so perhaps Viking in origin.

Anyway, if we're never forgetting, we should never forget that the English as we know them today are really two people - Anglo-Saxon commoners and Norman (Viking) nobles who worked out a mutually agreeable system that ended up ruling the planet for a brief time from one relatively small, resource-constrained island.

Anonymous Crew April 15, 2017 9:52 PM  

Speaking of strong female characters, if someone were to publish a Science Fiction book with strong male characters doing what strong male characters do I would buy it.

Anonymous Jack Amok April 15, 2017 10:01 PM  

I hope an Irishman will chime in, but I would guess they would say "The bloody fookin' English, that's why".

I'm around a quarter Mick and I'll try to answer without running afoul of the new profanity rules, but it ain't got nothin' t'do with the bloody English. Read Irish mythology. Plenty of raiding, trickery and deception. I don't think it was an accident James Joyce picked the most devious and sly Greek hero as the framing device for his book.

Blogger Buybuydandavis April 15, 2017 10:38 PM  

Trimegistus wrote:I don't know why everyone fetishizes "English" ancestry. Look at what a shithole the English turned England into.

Anglosphere is practically synonymous with long term freedom, prosperity, and stability.

Anonymous CharlieB April 15, 2017 11:21 PM  

"CharlieB wrote:Yeah...that I-Talia's Scalia and Blackie Thomas...they are hopeless.

Did they stop homosexual marriage? Abortion on demand? Anchor babies?"

What would you have had them do?

Blogger Lazarus April 15, 2017 11:38 PM  

CharlieB wrote:What would you have had them do?

Convince other judges they were wrong using legal arguements, i.e., win.

Didn't do that, ergo, hopeless.

Blogger Lazarus April 15, 2017 11:40 PM  

Buybuydandavis wrote:Anglosphere is practically synonymous with long term freedom, prosperity, and stability.

Whereas, Anglo-zionism = tyranny, war, and financial and cultural ruin.

Anonymous CharlieB April 16, 2017 12:05 AM  

"LazarusApril 15, 2017 11:38 PM
CharlieB wrote:What would you have had them do?

Convince other judges they were wrong using legal arguements, i.e., win.

Didn't do that, ergo, hopeless."

Surely their inability to do so is the fact they were not Englishman. /s

Blogger JP April 16, 2017 1:18 AM  

They understood limited government! Their governments were limited by how far their armies could march.

Blogger jaakkeli April 16, 2017 1:24 AM  

A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents wrote:

Hajnal line.


John Hajnal identified a pattern in the age of marriage with some Western European ethnic groups marrying rather old by world standards.

The Hajnal line has absolutely nothing to do with honesty, corruption or work ethic or whatever. That is just an invention of the HBD blog echo chamber which is 10 % insights and 90 % bullshit that consists only of "one of the bloggers made up this claim that X might have something to do with Y and we all started repeating it as HBD fact".

Anonymous Rocklea April 16, 2017 1:58 AM  

Identity>Culture>Politics, the Dane were there, and probably had their effect on culture, consistent with the premises of the post.

Blogger losemoneyfast April 16, 2017 2:07 AM  

This is so true. I lived in the Philippines for 6 years while my mostly English blood was driven nuts by "jeeps" driving on the opposite side of the road at night with no freakin lights! etc. Then when Hillary skated on several Federal crimes in plain sight of everyone and basically laughed in our faces the whole way, I was forced to realize that American rule of law is no more.
Now I rarely signal, and occasionally park illegally.

Anonymous Millenium April 16, 2017 2:14 AM  

Convince other judges they were wrong using legal arguements

You are supposing the leftist judges and (((judges))) were not just trying to fabricate reasons, however thin, to justify an agenda they wanted to push.

Anonymous Rocklea April 16, 2017 3:25 AM  

A deplorable rubberducky said:
"Same here in Virginia. I was in the "15 Item Or Less" express lane behind a mamacita chola with an overflowing shopping cart and her litter of screaming babies one time, and I cracked. Decided to let her and the cashier in a hebab know that this was wrong, that's not how we do stuff in America. Of course I was the dastardly villain, the manager was called. Escalated to quite the little scene! They called the police on me, it was incredible. I was in jeopardy of disturbing the peace because I insisted on following the rules."

Ostracism fails through lack of homogeneity which leads to,

pyrrhus said:
"As a longtime practicing attorney, I find the really annoying and destructive aspect of modern government is its complete disrespect for law with regards to the powerful, like Hillary Clinton. Meanwhile, the "little people" can suffer draconian punishment for minuscule violations of our vast network of malum prohibitum laws, many of which are unknown to the people."

Malum prohibitum laws, rather than being Law, can be custom, socially enforced through mutual respect. Impossible in a multicultural society. Furthermore when Hillary engages in action that is malum in se, she benefits for the same reason that you can't tell immigrants that they have too much in their trolley. Double standards.

Blogger VD April 16, 2017 3:37 AM  

Hell, the Irish have about the same percentage of Viking and Norman blood as the English. Dublin was at one time one of the largest Viking cities in the world.

You're wrong, Snidely. The Irish have Viking blood. The English don't.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 16, 2017 3:52 AM  

VD wrote:You're wrong, Snidely. The Irish have Viking blood. The English don't.
Fair enough.

Blogger Martin April 16, 2017 6:08 AM  

As a north european ive lately become convinced that the only good defence against the abuses of the state is the corruption mentality of southern Europe. The center bellows "Jump!" but once that reach the local policeman in a town it is so distorted and diluted that it is no longer intelligeble. Because my country is terribly corrupt as well. But only for the rich. I dream of a world where the state is corrupt down to its most humble servant.

Blogger stevo April 16, 2017 7:43 AM  

We'll need to hire some crone enforcers

OpenID aew51183 April 16, 2017 8:13 AM  

Regarding "gaming the law" and the people's mentioned having been conquered....

It would make sense for those who operated expecting honest application of the law to have been either outright killed by the machinations of a conqueror's deliberately unjust law or to have been impacted negatively enough to be "selected out" of the gene pool in favor of the one whose "gaming" made them more prosperous.

Anonymous james@wpc April 16, 2017 8:16 AM  

Thanks to Dire Badger #81 and Dave Narby #89 for your replies. And also to Dave Narby again #88 for the link to the talk on Irish traditional law - brilliant! Thank you.
http://tomwoods.com/ep-878-anarchism-in-ireland-the-history-nobody-knows/

Perhaps differing races had differing views on English Law because they had differing experiences of it!
"It's funny how things look different depending on where you sit - right?" Noah Vosun

The Irish Brehon Law is Natural Law (i.e. God's Law written in nature and in human nature)- tribal law for countless millennia - the Law of Restitution.

The English Common Law was supposed to be based on Natural Law but is now what is left after 400 years of massaging the law by lawyers for lawyers. It is now the Law of Retribution which does not serve victims of crime at all but serves lawyers and the state very well.

Perhaps different cultural/racial responses to English Law would include differing levels of naiveté (amongst other considerations).

Anonymous Just another commenter April 16, 2017 1:54 PM  

THIS! So much, this. This fundamental outlook on the law, outlooks which are mutually incompatible, I've had a very hard time explaining to people. A sees B doing something illegal, and calls B a low-life scofflaw. B sees A as a chump for following such a stupid law that was so easy to game. You see it with welfare issues, where one side claims to want to help widows and orphans, another sees an opportunity to claim to be a widow or orphan, and a third see a club to morally browbeat a fourth group with guilt into passing more laws to tie down and tie up another group. Each one things the other a fool or a scum. And they can't see why welfare doesn't work.

Fundamental view of the law: an excellent binary selector on who should be let it, or not (and most people in the world will fail the test, if it's a good one).

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 16, 2017 9:22 PM  

Just another commenter wrote:Fundamental view of the law: an excellent binary selector on who should be let it, or not (and most people in the world will fail the test, if it's a good one).
And would be fundamentally biased towards those who cheat at epic levels. Might just as well give the place to the Chinese and Hindi to fight over.

Blogger DonReynolds April 17, 2017 1:49 AM  

I must have been 14 years old and in 9th grade civics class when I found out the only way to challenge a law, was by breaking it. Of course, a law can be changed at the ballot box (sometimes) or by lobbying the legislative body, but the challenge the law as contrary to my rights as a citizen, I would have to break the law and plead my case to a judge. Not really a good method.

But I do not remember the first time that I decided I was willing to take my chances (of getting caught) and be willing to simply pay the penalty, when that happens. I am sure it was in the military, where there was no shortage of rules and regulations. My home was only 70 miles from the base and for two dollars and 75 cents, I could buy a one-way bus ticket to Nashville and spend the weekend doing other things. If I was anywhere around the barracks over the weekend one of the NCOs would volunteer me for all kinds of activities. So every Friday, I would slip off to the bus station and be back by Sunday night. I was absent without leave and had I ever been caught at it, I would have been inconvenienced even more. Only one time, was I almost caught by a pair of MPs. After a while, my absence on weekends was not noticed at all.

Blogger DonReynolds April 17, 2017 2:51 AM  

@90 Jack Amok
"I don't know where the 12 came from - it could have been Danelaw - but the concept of a jury predates there being 12 men on it by a couple of centuries at least."

King Henry II is one of the more overlooked of monarchs, in my opinion, because he essentially created the administration of local government, most especially county government. Yes, it was King Henry II who introduced the use of jury trial by "12 free men". He also created the Grand Jury system and the Justices of the Peace.

The RIGHT of trial by 12 was later part of the Magna Carta (Article 39). Of course, the Magna Carta did not apply to common people at the time, but only to the nobles.

While Henry II was unusually gifted in terms of administration, he did not create English Common Law. That gift was brought to the island by the Romans. The Roman gift to Western Civilization was not the stony roads or cement construction, it was common law. The Normans who invaded England in 1066 would not have found common law to be foreign since Gaul was also a Roman province.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2017 9:21 AM  

That (perhaps formerly) English respect for law, which I grant is or was generally theirs, alone, is unlikely to have a primarily English-genetic basis. Why? Well, because it isn’t especially English.
English law was settled in very nearly its recent form (though not its present form; they’ve been screwing around with it these last hundred or so years…a LOT) very shortly after the advent of William the Bastard, by him, his successors, and their underlings. The law was not created by the native Saxons but imposed by the Norman-French (and, one supposes, the odd non-Norman who joined William’s army for the presumptive eventual feudal land grant).
Given the recent circumstances – William’s bare win at Hastings and that largely though a) luck, and b) the exhaustion of Harold the Saxon’s army by its recent actions, including forced marching to intercept Harald Hadrada at Fulford, near York, battling him to destruction, and then forced marching south again to Hastings – coupled with a majority population of Saxons, tough-minded and gutsy, as well as armed and trained to arms, probably led to the creation of a body of law that was not seen as a racket because it wasn’t a racket, because if it had been a racket the Normans would have seen, in Kipling’s words on the subject, “the whole brood round your ears.” Machiavelli phrased it a little differently, but to good effect: “Where the arms are good the laws cannot possibly be bad” (because armed people will rise up if the laws are bad and seen as bad and change them, along with changing law makers after putting to death the current brood).
Now, could that body of law have eventually bred a law-abiding people? Possibly; although the law was broadly fair, it was harsh and grew progressively harsher, generally, for centuries. Capital punishment can be an excellent tool for eugenics. There have, however, been other very harsh bodies of law in human history, in existence for longer, that failed to create a law-abiding people, so I am inclined to doubt that. Perhaps if Chinese law had been fair…but it never was; people could presume it never would be; and so they learned to evade and avoid it, to respect its power but not its higher qualities, to break it where they could, and so were never successfully bred to follow it.
The difference could be in genetics but, again, that law was imposed on the Saxons, not created by them, while genetic trickle down was from the imposers. Moreover, the Welsh are definitely not Saxons, and the law was only applied to them with Henry VIII, beginning in 1535. They appear to have had broadly similar rates of lawlessness in the past. (It’s no longer possible easily to determine relative rates of lawlessness, if it ever was, because of the advent of the Third World in the UK).
Thus, lacking a genetic basis, the obvious suggests itself: The law was seen as fair and trusted in because it was trustworthy, while the threat of private arms kept it from becoming anything else. This, however, is memetic not genetic.
So why doesn’t it work anymore? Again, the obvious suggests itself; the same suicidal urge that has opened the gates to the barbarians also seeks to ruin the law…and has been…both in the US and the Commonwealth…for a long time. That urge, however, is no stranger to the descendants of once British Americans; they’ve been at the forefront of bringing it to pass for a very long time.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2017 9:23 AM  

"The Irish have Viking blood. The English don't."

I think Danes were counted as Vikings, too, while the Normans were "Norsemen."

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts