the timboucher experience

9 Comments

1. Julia
   Posted January 14, 2008 at 9:24 pm | Permalink

   Small and bad I think the odds are good. There are some decent people out there who happen to work for the gov’t. Big and bad, no.

2. Tim Boucher
   Posted January 14, 2008 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

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

   In British common law, an outlaw was a person who had defied the laws of the realm, by such acts as ignoring a summons to court, or fleeing instead of appearing to plead when charged with a crime. In the earlier law of Anglo-Saxon England, outlawry was also declared when a person committed a homicide and could not pay the weregild, the blood-money, due to the victim’s kin. Outlawry also existed in other legal codes of the time, such as the ancient Norse and Icelandic legal code.

   To be declared an outlaw was to suffer a form of civil death. The outlaw was debarred from all civilized society. No one was allowed to give him food, shelter, or any other sort of support — to do so was to commit the crime of aiding and abetting, and to be in danger of the ban oneself. An outlaw might be killed with impunity; and it was not only lawful but meritorious to kill a thief flying from justice — to do so was not murder. A man who slew a thief was expected to declare the fact without delay, otherwise the dead man’s kindred might clear his name by their oath and require the slayer to pay weregild as for a true man[2] Because the outlaw has defied civil society, that society was quit of any obligations to the outlaw —outlaws had no civil rights, could not sue in any court on any cause of action, though they were themselves personally liable.

3. Tim Boucher
   Posted January 14, 2008 at 9:32 pm | Permalink

   I’m doing research for my next article, the follow-up to the Knights piece:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_law

   Maegth

   The more ancient documents of Anglo-Saxon law show us the individual not merely as the subject and citizen of a certain commonwealth, but also as a member of some group, all the fellows of which are closely allied in claims and responsibilities. The most elementary of these groups is the maegth, the association of agnatic and cognatic relations. Personal protection and revenge, oaths, marriage, wardship, succession, supervision over settlement, and good behaviour, are regulated by the law of kinship. A man’s actions are considered not as exertions of his individual will, but as acts of the kindred, and all the fellows of the maegth are held responsible for them. What began as a natural alliance was used later as a means of enforcing responsibility and keeping lawless individuals in order. When the association of kinsmen failed, the voluntary associations—guilds—appeared as substitutes. The guild brothers associated in mutual defence and support, and they had to share in the payment of fines. The township and the hundred came also in for certain forms of collective responsibility, because they presented groups of people associated in their economic and legal interests.

   There’s also a really good Geto Boys song called, I think, “The G-Code” about this subject, if I’m not mistaken.

4. Julia
   Posted January 14, 2008 at 9:58 pm | Permalink

   “To be declared an outlaw was to suffer a form of civil death.”

   After the passage of the Homeland Security Act it became almost impossible for some people to get proper identification documents. You needed ID to get ID. People I work with, who have just been released from Federal prison, were in a bind. Some would be out on the street w/o means to cash a paycheck if they were able to get a job. The Illinois Sec. of State, along with several other State Secs., implored the Fed. gov’t to ease the restrictions. (Say there are four adults in a home and only one can get a utility bill in his name, so the rest wait until their credit improves to be able to work?) It did some good. Now they only get turned away 50% of the time.

   What I’m reading here, and it has more to do with my biases, is that were switching from a culture where your fellow man decided if you are a ‘real person’ to one where the gov’t does.

   Hurricane Katrina-not real people so it’s ok that Blackwater is patrolling the streets. California forest fires-real people.

5. alistair
   Posted January 15, 2008 at 1:11 am | Permalink

   hmm. it should become obvious that we only become valued in society based on what we produce.

   the weregild was a way of compensating the family for the loss, not of life, but of production.

   i have never felt that law, police or government was going to operate in my personal best interest, and as with human rights in general, i realised that police, law and government operate in the best interest of groups……generally them.

   recently i entrusted the law and it`s agents regarding the equitable prosecution of the seperation from the mother of my children.

   i have managed in this process to relinquish a large sum of money to a lawyer to have her merrily use that money to search for new business and mishandle my case.

   in the new year i fired my lawyer and approached my ex with the intention that we come to an equitable agreement in the near future and get on with our seperate lives.

   my expectation that the “law” would at least act in a reasonable way to look at this case and stop lawyers enriching themselves fell hard.

   i realise that judges are lawyers and lawyers from both sides slap eachother on the backs over the feast of our personal disputes.

   and i did always know this.

   http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com

   but what alternative did i have?

6. Tim Boucher
   Posted January 15, 2008 at 1:20 am | Permalink

   the weregild was a way of compensating the family for the loss, not of life, but of production.

   Not unlike the dowry or the bride price, or that in Leviticus a man who rapes a woman has to pay her family or marry her (I think) because she can’t be “sold” anymore.

   i realised that police, law and government operate in the best interest of groups……generally them.

   And the essence of political power is making sure that you are on the inside of those groups, and selling your membership privileges to outsiders.

   recently i entrusted the law and it`s agents regarding the equitable prosecution of the seperation from the mother of my children.

   Interesting how the state almost seems to have ownership over human lives which you’re responsible for, no?

7. speedbird
   Posted January 15, 2008 at 8:59 am | Permalink

   What keeps the electricity flowing? When I was young I knew that my elected representatives had agreed that electricity distribution would be a Good Thing that would keep the nation strong, rather like decent sewers or other aspects of public health provision. Now I am older I worry that only ever-increaing economic activity will provide an incentive for the private utilities to keep pumping the juice. Something ‘bad’ happens? Sometimes I think it’s 50:50 whether government would do anything more than just deregulate those industries with a vested interest in the disaster.

8. Julia
   Posted January 15, 2008 at 10:48 am | Permalink

   Interesting how the state almost seems to have ownership over human lives which you’re responsible for, no?

   When I was a kid (in the late 70’s) this was understood by radical Christians. They advocated not filing Birth Certificates for children and only having church based marriages, not civil and homeschooling your children. I was homeschooled, which benefitted me, but I think some of this stuff is cutting off your nose to spite your face but I like the sentiment. Except for homeschooling these ideas were mostly overtaken by the Aryan Nations types and we were very happy when they stopped sending us literature so I don’t how this has evolved since then.

9. Ted Heistman
   Posted January 15, 2008 at 10:52 am | Permalink

   I read that The Vikings were outlaws of Scandanavia. So they went “a-viking”

   They were also called “sea kings” because they couldn’t own land in Scandanavia, so they basically became pirates. Its funny that Scandanavians are so proud of their “viking heritage” when really these were the rejects of society of the day.

   My two favorite North American outlaws are “Claud Dallas” and “the Mad trapper of Rat River” but these guys were loners and fighting the law alone ultimately didn’t pay off. Still I admire their spirit.

   I was just re-reading “the Final Frontiersman” and it mentions some historical references to “mountian men” and the attitudes of the Native people towards them. They were considered kind of anti-social because they went off into the wilderness alone. Which the natives were very sociable with each other. There was no dicotimy between living in the midst of society and living off the land.

   I think to be an outlaw you need some type of wilderness to wander off into.