[extropy-chat] A Stateless Civilization?

[Technotranscendence]

On Sunday, December 04, 2005 12:04 PM Joseph Bloch
transhumanist at goldenfuture.net wrote:
>> When one points to Medieval Iceland, one problem
>> is, of course, that even though the stateless period
>> lasted about three centuries, Icelandic society
>> during that time never formed cities -- it was an
>> essential non-urban or pre-urban society.
>
> Another problem would be that medieval Iceland
> was not really "stateless", despite what David
> Friedman might maintain. It maintained a complex
> (and written) system of laws (see, for example, Grágas)
> and courts (þing and alþing) in which to pursue those
> laws,

None of which defines a state, especially since all these relied on
consensus and there were no centers of power as such.  I.e., nothing
like a state.  Law does not a state make and even a complex set of laws
can exist without a state.  (How the heck would international law come
about without an overarching state to enforce it?:)

> and was enough of a state to be able to engage in
> foreign relations with other states (Norway being a
> prime example, with which treaties were undertaken).

IIRC, one treaty was mainly about how Icelanders would be treated in
Norway and was agreed not by someone in Iceland acting as a state or
representative of an Icelandic state, but by representatives of all the
chiefs there.

> Power was very carefully and formally concentrated
> in the hands of a few leaders (the goðar), and the
> island itself was divided into various well-defined
> districts which determined which court one took one's
> cases to.

Not exactly.  The leaders depended on making decisions that would be
accepted by those they were laid upon and until after the Christian
conversion, there was nothing to stop someone from going to a rival
leader -- meaning there was no regional monopoly of legal authority.  At
least, I got this from reading one of the books you've cited below -- as
well as from reading stuff by Friedman and Roderick Long.*

> The very fact that the entire island could officially
> convert from paganism to Christianity by an act of
> the alþing should dispell the idea as well (I am well
> aware of the nuances and the period of dual faith,
> but the essential fact remains).

Well, the process seems to have been voluntary, though not without
ramifications when the tithe was adopted.  See the second essay by Long
cited in my footnote below.

> Some of the work
> of Jesse Byock ("Viking Age Iceland" and "Feud
> in the Icelandic Saga" in particular) should be
> helpful in this regard.

I've only read the former and even Byock seems to agree more with me
than you.  E.g., on page 28 he states, "From the start, Icelandic
society operated with well-developed concepts of private property and
law, but, in an unusual combination, it lacked most of the formal
institutions of government which normally protect ownership and enforce
judicial decisions."

> I should point out that it's usually referred to as
> "The Commonwealth Period" by scholars; "The
> Stateless Period" is certainly not in the
> mainstream among scholars in the field.

While true, I think this is perhaps because of the reluctance to call it
what it is or because it had some features that look like a state.
E.g., a few works I've read -- and they have been few -- seem to think
that the "alþing" was basically like a modern parliament, when it seems
more to me like a flea market for law.  :)  Also, there is work out
there that shows that the concepts are not mutually exclusive -- the
concepts of stateless and commonwealth -- such as Birgir T. Runolfsson
Solvason's dissertation "Ordered Anarchy, State, and Rent-Seeking: The
Icelandic Commonwealth."

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/

*  Two of Long's works of note in this area are: "Privatization, Viking
Style: Model or Misfortune?" at
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/long1.html and "The Decline and Fall of
Private Law in Iceland" at http://www.libertariannation.org/a/f13l1.html