It’s a fine answer and I agree with it, except: sometimes one community wrongs another, and in precolonial Southeast Asia, those wrongs were rectified by headhunters. Now, two communities might mutually agree to allow headhunters jurisdiction, but: maybe it makes more sense for communities to agree to use an adversarial court system and a network of bar associations. At the very least, unlike the justice of headhunters, it separates the legal advocate for community justice (the prosecutor) from the walking beatstick (the cop)
that requires laws, and as an anarchist, I oppose laws. it’s one thing to have a council of judges, but it’s another to have immutable laws written by people who weren’t involved with the circumstances at hand deciding for those people what justice is.
It’s a fine answer and I agree with it, except: sometimes one community wrongs another, and in precolonial Southeast Asia, those wrongs were rectified by headhunters. Now, two communities might mutually agree to allow headhunters jurisdiction, but: maybe it makes more sense for communities to agree to use an adversarial court system and a network of bar associations. At the very least, unlike the justice of headhunters, it separates the legal advocate for community justice (the prosecutor) from the walking beatstick (the cop)
that requires laws, and as an anarchist, I oppose laws. it’s one thing to have a council of judges, but it’s another to have immutable laws written by people who weren’t involved with the circumstances at hand deciding for those people what justice is.