[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
I like it!

Seriously, one of the best posts I've ever read. Good not only because I agree with it, but because it offers a logical alternative.

But I wonder how this would play out when it comes to gangs or crime syndicates. They harm or kill someone, that someone gets to harm or kill them, etc., etc. The problem here is that gangs and crime syndicates have the resources to make this a never ending cycle. Although, I guess that's the way it is now too. It's just that if the first aggressor is more heavily backed, I'm not sure this system of yours would work. People would be too afraid of further retaliation.

Otherwise, I really like your thoughts on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lestat,

You need to understand why gangs and "organized crime" is so systematicly violent. This occurs whenever groups are prevented from solving disputes peacefully (the far less risky and costly way to do it). Because rival gangs cannot bring suit in the state's monopoly courts, they turn to violent dispute resolution. The same thing happened in the so-called "Range Wars" of the American west, when Federal courts refused to recognize or enforce the claims of ranchers. Vilence inevitably ensued.

In fact, the very existance of organized crime and gangs are responses to state momopolizations, market interventions, and exlusion from access to state monopolized services. Government reserves certain markets for violent criminals by outlawing them (drugs, prostitution, alcohol, gambling, free labor, etc). Gangs arise as mutual defense collectives because the state monopoly police and courts not only so not protect or serve those in question, the largely make their livings persecuting them and effectively carrying out ongoing war against them.