Rule of honor vs rule of law

Imagine pol trapped on 2 islands.

On Island A, each job is divided up by skill; someone eventually overtakes the role of "leader" because someone's sense of "Leadership" is greater than someone else; and while they all originally have equal skill fishing, one person becomes "The fisherman", and one person becomes "The carpenter", and so on for all duties and roles.

On Island B, pol elects a leader who forms a constitution with a non-aggression principle. Similarly to Island A, Island B's residents land jobs and duties.


Problems arise when greed takes hold.
The fishermen of both islands catches more fish than he needs, but isn't willing to give fish too willingly.

On Island A, it's seen as an injustice, and the man is forced to pay compensation.

On Island B, people mope and whine, but the man gets to keep his fish because of the non-aggression principle.


Which is better, pol? The island where honor and morality is valued, or the one where law is valued?

He's the only fisherman on the island? And the job was designated as his by the islands leader?

The man is entitled to his fish. Ideally, he could trade some fish for, say, service from the carpenter, but he shouldn't be forced to hand over a portion of his fish, simply because he is a good fisherman. This would provide the greatest incentive not to be a good fisherman and not to work as hard.

Being assigned the job by a leader implies that the fish is not the workers. It belongs to the society that asked him to do that. Of course, everyone else must do their job for the benefit of everyone as well. But as the society grows larger, and you know less of the people, helping some jackass you've never met isn't enough incentive anymore. Any controlled economy relies entirely on the willingness of the people.

Rule of law, not rule of men.

...

No, as per honor would suggest, the guy who is known for fishing becomes "The fisherman" naturally. It's like going to a party where every one is a stranger; eventually, a hierarchy is established, and we find out who the popular kid is, who the unpopular kids are, who the hoes are, who the bitches are, etc.

He will work hard regardless, because that's his purpose and honor in society. By reducing his job to a "lifestyle choice", he is no longer a fisherman but a "Man who fishes", and the carpenter is not a carpenter but a a "man who builds".

I live on the eastern coast of Canada; people where I live do work, even if they don't get paid. Fishing, working on a boat, it can be very hard, but some people go just because it fulfills them, not expecting to get paid, because it's their honor. By reducing it to a market choice, a transaction, you're creating anxiety of debt, making people more materialistic and less honorable; then the people are only willing to work as long as they get something out of it. Sometimes I find myself working, not because I have to or am compelled by my current situation, but because it fulfills me; it brings meaning to my life, a purpose, an honor.

That makes no sense though, if the job of the fishermen is to get fish then it was definitely intended to be for all people, not just for himself. So why would he have more fish than others (become greedy) in the first place?

Fuck this. I'm going to start island C with hookers and blackjack.

Cop here, that is how I feel everyday I put on my uniform. The I remember I live and work in the middle of no where and the hottest call I answer all day is moving cattle out of the roadway. I am the law.

Directions please.

I support this motion.

Watch out, that sounds like the description of a horror movie cop, they always die in the first ten minutes

That's interesting. But what happens to the fish that these men catch? Don't they get to choose between keeping them or selling them?

Then he's free to charge for it. It's not his fault everyone else is too stupid to catch their own food.

Shit you're right

Could be for many reasons. A lot of trained professionals withhold their services ,to be stubborn. In a free market, it's inevitable, because some people get greedy and take all their assets with them.

A monarch, for example, is born to lead a country. That is the honor of a monarch, a purpose in life; that's why they are good leaders, because they're not simply elected into it; every once in a while, there will be a bad monarch, a tyrant who does harm to his people. That's the psychopathic risk; it can't be avoided, because a psychopath is eventually born.

Considering this is more or less a survival situation, Island A is better desu.

>It's not his fault everyone else is too stupid to catch their own food.
So you grow your own food, harvest your own electricity, and build your own electronics?
I let someone do all that for me, because I'm normal. The farmer farms, the engineer engineers, and I do my own thing.
Point is, there's no need to turn the air conditioner on when we can just turn the heat down.

Rule of honor is obviously superior, the only problem is that it requires honorable people and to many cultures honor is meaningless. Most people in America don't even understand what honor is.

Yes I buy all of it. I've never expected them to give it to me for free like the people in this hypothetical do though. And I understand they can change the price at any time. They generally don't because they're making bank now though.

This. In a closed system with a very small population, the principle of free enterprise has to be sacrificed in order to prevent mass starvation. However, the world is an open system and our resources are not insufficient to produce a surplus while keeping everyone alive.

On island B that man can then use his fish to obtain other things from those who specialize in other fields, no only goods but services which having no concrete physical from can't simply be distributed to all on island A as they do with goods.