The proposal is for a system to replace karma, defined by the ability to spend the karma you have. The goal is to allow a person publicly to punish another person publicly. Paying someone to break into their bank account is worthless, because no one on the forum would know. Further, if it was not clear to the other party why they were being punished, it would defeat the purpose.
That being said, the answer you provide for why a system of laws is good fails to satisfy:
People do not know what the rules are. They navigate mostly by it not occurring to them to do obviously bad things, like murder or arson. Any interaction with the legal system requires hiring people whose job is specifically to know the law: lawyers.
The rules do a bad job of being consistent, varying wildly in their application depending on the details of interaction with law enforcement and how good your lawyer is.
Third parties do not reduce bias, they introduce it; there’s sense in which two people or groups having a fight being biased toward themselves is meaningful.
This last point is the best one, but there is no confusion about why: it is because we give enforcers greater powers of violence than any of the subject groups.
I feel about the rule of law the way Churchill did about democracy: it is the very worst form of conflict resolution, except for every other form.
In the broader case, the reason directly reimporting honor culture fails is because honor is about regulating relationships; in the modern world most of our interaction is one-offs with strangers or with agents of a party. In the cases where honor culture works, any random person is not a phenomenon that occurs with any frequency.
The proposal is for a system to replace karma, defined by the ability to spend the karma you have. The goal is to allow a person publicly to punish another person publicly. Paying someone to break into their bank account is worthless, because no one on the forum would know. Further, if it was not clear to the other party why they were being punished, it would defeat the purpose.
That being said, the answer you provide for why a system of laws is good fails to satisfy:
People do not know what the rules are. They navigate mostly by it not occurring to them to do obviously bad things, like murder or arson. Any interaction with the legal system requires hiring people whose job is specifically to know the law: lawyers.
The rules do a bad job of being consistent, varying wildly in their application depending on the details of interaction with law enforcement and how good your lawyer is.
Third parties do not reduce bias, they introduce it; there’s sense in which two people or groups having a fight being biased toward themselves is meaningful.
This last point is the best one, but there is no confusion about why: it is because we give enforcers greater powers of violence than any of the subject groups.
I feel about the rule of law the way Churchill did about democracy: it is the very worst form of conflict resolution, except for every other form.
In the broader case, the reason directly reimporting honor culture fails is because honor is about regulating relationships; in the modern world most of our interaction is one-offs with strangers or with agents of a party. In the cases where honor culture works, any random person is not a phenomenon that occurs with any frequency.