What do you think?
Rate this book
Legal Systems Very Different From Ours
This book looks at thirteen different legal systems, ranging from Imperial China to modern how they worked, what problems they faced, how they dealt with them. Some chapters deal with a single legal system, others with topics relevant to several, such as problems with law based on divine revelation or how systems work in which law enforcement is private and decentralized. The book’s underlying assumption is that all human societies face the same problems, deal with them in an interesting variety of different ways, are all the work of grown-ups, hence should all be taken seriously. It ends with a chapter on features of past legal systems that a modern system might want to borrow.
ebook
First published January 9, 2019
153 people are currently reading
1232 people want to read
About the author
David D. Friedman
20 books144 followersfrom amazon.com:
I am an academic economist currently employed as a law professor, although I have never taken a course for credit in either field. My specialty, insofar as I have one, is the economic analysis of law, the subject of my book _Law's Order_.
In recent years I have created and taught two new law school seminars at Santa Clara University. One was on legal issues of the 21st century, discussing revolutions that might occur as a result of technological change over the next few decades. Interested readers can find its contents in the manuscript of _Future Imperfect_, linked to my web page. Topics included encryption, genetic engineering, surveillance, and many others. The other seminar, which I am currently teaching, is on legal systems very different from ours. Its topics included the legal systems of modern gypsies, Imperial China, Ancient Athens, the Cheyenne Indians, ... . My web page has a link to the seminar web page.
I have been involved in recreational medievalism, via the Society for Creative Anachronism, for over thirty years. My interests there include cooking from medieval cookbooks, making medieval jewelery, telling medieval stories around a campfire creating a believable medieval islamic persona and fighting with sword and shield.
My involvement with libertarianism goes back even further. Among other things I have written on the possibility of replacing government with private institutions to enforce rights and settle disputes, a project sometimes labelled "anarcho-capitalism" and explored in my first book, _The Machinery of Freedom_, published in 1972 and still in print.
My most recent writing project is my first novel, _Harald_. Most of my interests feed into it in one way or another, but it is intended as a story, not a tract on political philosophy, law or economics. It is not exactly a fantasy, since there is no magic, nor quite a historical novel, since the history and geography are invented. The technology and social institutions are based on medieval and classical examples, with one notable exception.
I am an academic economist currently employed as a law professor, although I have never taken a course for credit in either field. My specialty, insofar as I have one, is the economic analysis of law, the subject of my book _Law's Order_.
In recent years I have created and taught two new law school seminars at Santa Clara University. One was on legal issues of the 21st century, discussing revolutions that might occur as a result of technological change over the next few decades. Interested readers can find its contents in the manuscript of _Future Imperfect_, linked to my web page. Topics included encryption, genetic engineering, surveillance, and many others. The other seminar, which I am currently teaching, is on legal systems very different from ours. Its topics included the legal systems of modern gypsies, Imperial China, Ancient Athens, the Cheyenne Indians, ... . My web page has a link to the seminar web page.
I have been involved in recreational medievalism, via the Society for Creative Anachronism, for over thirty years. My interests there include cooking from medieval cookbooks, making medieval jewelery, telling medieval stories around a campfire creating a believable medieval islamic persona and fighting with sword and shield.
My involvement with libertarianism goes back even further. Among other things I have written on the possibility of replacing government with private institutions to enforce rights and settle disputes, a project sometimes labelled "anarcho-capitalism" and explored in my first book, _The Machinery of Freedom_, published in 1972 and still in print.
My most recent writing project is my first novel, _Harald_. Most of my interests feed into it in one way or another, but it is intended as a story, not a tract on political philosophy, law or economics. It is not exactly a fantasy, since there is no magic, nor quite a historical novel, since the history and geography are invented. The technology and social institutions are based on medieval and classical examples, with one notable exception.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews
September 7, 2019
1. Chinese Law - the entry of people into government service sounds insane. They have to study all sorts of subjects and pass with good grades, but none of the subjects have the slightest thing to do with government or anything related. But it's the same as our own system. People go into government having a degree in, say, Philosophy and then a Masters in Medieval English Literature. The author says there are better ways of finding out if people are capable of studying and understanding concepts and sticking with them than insisting on five or more years of studying irrelevant to the job subjects.
2. Romani Law has nothing in common with our sort of law. It's very rough and ready and has one concept that is very alien to us. Lying and cheating is perfectly fine, admirable if it is to a non-Romani and if it is to a fellow Romani and the liar gets caught, no problem, have a laugh. The purity laws are like 'Islam on steroids'. Mens' and womens' clothes cannot even be washed together. Girls cannot be educated with boys after the age of 12 and rather than having separate schools, the Romani having fallen foul of one school district's laws just move to another sure in the knowledge it will take a long time for the issue to actually get as far as court. Strangely the girls can wear as sexy an outfit as they choose. This is the bait that leads to an early marriage.
3. The Amish. A legal system that depends entirely on one person's interpretation of the religion. If you don't like that Bishop's ruling, either move to another district or go Mennonite (they are a little more in tune with the times).
4. Jewish Law and Islamic Law. They are not really related but are extremely detailed and an exercise in how many words can be used to explain any concept. Neither religion goes in for brevity or transparency and interpretation is a major part of the administration of the law. Islam does have Imams whose word is law, but Judaism does not. Anyone is free to seek a Rabbi or Beth Din (court) of their choosing.
5. Pirate Law. This is the form of law that led to the development of free enterprise and democracy fairly closely in the US, but also other Western countries. The Captain rules at the will, the vote, of the sailors. The spoils are divided according to rank and ability.
6. Prisoners' Law. We see this all too much on tv documentarie. Us against them, don't snitch, if you are a gang member threats and violence are the norm.
There were a number of legal systems that I found less interesting - Saga-Period Iceland, Somali, Early Irish (really boring), Comanche, Kiowa, Cheyenne and Plains Indians, Feud, English 18thC and Athenian. The best thing about the chapter on Athenian law was the subtitle, "The work of a mad economist." Actually Athenian law was all about litigation for which you needed money then as now, and supporters who will help you in your case, help extract any fine, and no doubt might lie, coerce and possibly assault anyone on your behalf. Supporters would then depend on you to support them in this very litigious society.
All in all an interesting book, but not all inclusive. I'm very interested in Bedouin law - it isn't written, it isn't Islamic in the sense of Qu'ranic, it is entirely ad hoc for each group and works brilliantly. I'm also interested in the law of anarchic societies big and small having been on Kibbutzim in Israel in my youth and seen that it is very much small-town, we-all-know-each-other-here law. It doesn't reference either Israeli or Jewish law at all.
Kibbutz law is sometimes brutal. I got thrown off one kibbutz for throwing about 50 milk jugs at the head of the kitchen. He said I didn't wash them properly. I had. The kibbutz was upset because I wouldn't marry my bf who was one of the few single men there. Anyway the jugs were only light aluminium and most of them missed. (I got thrown off two others as well, but those are other stories). I think I'm a bit anarchic for these utopian communist societies in action.
The book is defintely worth reading. The systems are all so different. At base though, like religion, are old guys who are most concerned about the use and misuse of property, whether land, possessions, money or women. And also control of the social hierarchy so that they and their families benefit and those that work for them probably do not. I do not include control of women in this because women are by and large property.
2. Romani Law has nothing in common with our sort of law. It's very rough and ready and has one concept that is very alien to us. Lying and cheating is perfectly fine, admirable if it is to a non-Romani and if it is to a fellow Romani and the liar gets caught, no problem, have a laugh. The purity laws are like 'Islam on steroids'. Mens' and womens' clothes cannot even be washed together. Girls cannot be educated with boys after the age of 12 and rather than having separate schools, the Romani having fallen foul of one school district's laws just move to another sure in the knowledge it will take a long time for the issue to actually get as far as court. Strangely the girls can wear as sexy an outfit as they choose. This is the bait that leads to an early marriage.
3. The Amish. A legal system that depends entirely on one person's interpretation of the religion. If you don't like that Bishop's ruling, either move to another district or go Mennonite (they are a little more in tune with the times).
4. Jewish Law and Islamic Law. They are not really related but are extremely detailed and an exercise in how many words can be used to explain any concept. Neither religion goes in for brevity or transparency and interpretation is a major part of the administration of the law. Islam does have Imams whose word is law, but Judaism does not. Anyone is free to seek a Rabbi or Beth Din (court) of their choosing.
5. Pirate Law. This is the form of law that led to the development of free enterprise and democracy fairly closely in the US, but also other Western countries. The Captain rules at the will, the vote, of the sailors. The spoils are divided according to rank and ability.
6. Prisoners' Law. We see this all too much on tv documentarie. Us against them, don't snitch, if you are a gang member threats and violence are the norm.
There were a number of legal systems that I found less interesting - Saga-Period Iceland, Somali, Early Irish (really boring), Comanche, Kiowa, Cheyenne and Plains Indians, Feud, English 18thC and Athenian. The best thing about the chapter on Athenian law was the subtitle, "The work of a mad economist." Actually Athenian law was all about litigation for which you needed money then as now, and supporters who will help you in your case, help extract any fine, and no doubt might lie, coerce and possibly assault anyone on your behalf. Supporters would then depend on you to support them in this very litigious society.
All in all an interesting book, but not all inclusive. I'm very interested in Bedouin law - it isn't written, it isn't Islamic in the sense of Qu'ranic, it is entirely ad hoc for each group and works brilliantly. I'm also interested in the law of anarchic societies big and small having been on Kibbutzim in Israel in my youth and seen that it is very much small-town, we-all-know-each-other-here law. It doesn't reference either Israeli or Jewish law at all.
Kibbutz law is sometimes brutal. I got thrown off one kibbutz for throwing about 50 milk jugs at the head of the kitchen. He said I didn't wash them properly. I had. The kibbutz was upset because I wouldn't marry my bf who was one of the few single men there. Anyway the jugs were only light aluminium and most of them missed. (I got thrown off two others as well, but those are other stories). I think I'm a bit anarchic for these utopian communist societies in action.
The book is defintely worth reading. The systems are all so different. At base though, like religion, are old guys who are most concerned about the use and misuse of property, whether land, possessions, money or women. And also control of the social hierarchy so that they and their families benefit and those that work for them probably do not. I do not include control of women in this because women are by and large property.
February 27, 2025
I enjoyed this far more than I expected! A few highlights:
+ Most of all he shows vividly that legal systems *can* be very different from "our own" (which he assumes, more or less, to be the US-California legal system, since that's where he lives). It was great to read about things as varied as the old Icelandic legal system, the code internal to prison gangs, the Romany (gypsy) legal system, and many many more. Incredible and fascinating diversity! And also some really interesting and surprising overlaps.
+ I hadn't previously understood how much *dynamism* is a very desirable property for legal systems. And how much effort goes into making static systems more dynamic. This turns out to be a significant disadvantage for legal systems based on religion - you can't change the word of God, so a common pattern across many religions is to engage in creative reinterpretation (see, e.g., eruv.nyc for an example that was new to me!)
+ In general, this made me understand the parallels between government and organized religion better.
+ Did a great job illustrating the ways different societies privatize law in differing ways. Unsurprisingly, given what I know of his politics (he's Milton's son, so you can guess), he's quite keen on more privatization, and not so keen on government force. But he's evenhanded not ideological in an annoying way, so you certainly don't need to be libertarian to enjoy the book.
+ The only real downsides are that it's not especially well written, mostly a recitation of facts. But the facts are well-selected, and the language is at least quite readable, if not inspired. It left me interested to learn more!
+ Most of all he shows vividly that legal systems *can* be very different from "our own" (which he assumes, more or less, to be the US-California legal system, since that's where he lives). It was great to read about things as varied as the old Icelandic legal system, the code internal to prison gangs, the Romany (gypsy) legal system, and many many more. Incredible and fascinating diversity! And also some really interesting and surprising overlaps.
+ I hadn't previously understood how much *dynamism* is a very desirable property for legal systems. And how much effort goes into making static systems more dynamic. This turns out to be a significant disadvantage for legal systems based on religion - you can't change the word of God, so a common pattern across many religions is to engage in creative reinterpretation (see, e.g., eruv.nyc for an example that was new to me!)
+ In general, this made me understand the parallels between government and organized religion better.
+ Did a great job illustrating the ways different societies privatize law in differing ways. Unsurprisingly, given what I know of his politics (he's Milton's son, so you can guess), he's quite keen on more privatization, and not so keen on government force. But he's evenhanded not ideological in an annoying way, so you certainly don't need to be libertarian to enjoy the book.
+ The only real downsides are that it's not especially well written, mostly a recitation of facts. But the facts are well-selected, and the language is at least quite readable, if not inspired. It left me interested to learn more!
October 23, 2024
Очень хорошо как широкий взгляд на область и содержит достаточно неожиданных открытий для читателя, не погруженного в специфику.
Я, разве что, не слишком бы полагался на точность индивидуальных элементов: несмотря на приглашенных экспертов, это всё-таки два десятка собранных воедино текстов о разных обществах, каждое из которых заслуживает отдельного кропотливого исследования.
Я, разве что, не слишком бы полагался на точность индивидуальных элементов: несмотря на приглашенных экспертов, это всё-таки два десятка собранных воедино текстов о разных обществах, каждое из которых заслуживает отдельного кропотливого исследования.
November 19, 2017
Very interesting, but frequently dry, and the big ideas can be summarized in shorter form. If you think you might want to read it, start with this review, and see if the subject interests you enough to keep going.
June 18, 2019
As expected, David Friedman details lot of interesting information on various unique legal systems and customs. His comprehension of such a wide, and often bizarre, subject matter is truly impressive. Where the book suffers is it's readability. There's no consistent chapter format that would make it easy for the reader to process and compare cultures, and many chapters seem to drag along with uninteresting information. The two most coherent chapters happen to be the two not written by Friedman (Pirate Law and Prison Law by Peter T. Leeson and David Skarbek respectively). I wish I could rate this book higher, but it will be a pager-turner only to those highly interested in the subject matter.
April 25, 2019
Very interesting subject matter, but the book is very rough around the edges - needed better editing I think.
March 27, 2020
I've classified this book into a variety of shelves. To be fair to the author and the book, it doesn't really fit in any of them. Yes, this book explores societies, policy, psychology and even economics to a small extent, but it doesn't really focus entirely on any one. A book dealing with legal systems rarely does. Ideally I should have classified this into a "legal" bookshelf, but I don't want that shelf on my profile and I don't think it fits there either.
This book explores the legal systems of various different cultures. Some of them exist today, many of them don't. It goes into the details of Jewish Law, Sharia, laws of California prisons, Amish Laws, and many others. But it doesn't merely explain what those laws are. The key insight of this book is understanding where all those laws come from. What does tort have in common with Icelandic Law? Criminal Law with Chinese Law? What do all these disparate legal systems have in common with each other? What is Feud Law?
This book explores all those things. The best thing about it is that you're being guided by the hands of an expert. Prof. Friedman is not a busybody who's read a few papers and believes he's an expert. He's published several academic articles in this area and is a fairly respected voice on alternative legal systems. In this book he shows us he's a fantastic author in possession of a fantastically terrific dry wit. I've made more highlights in this book than I care to remember merely because of a turn of phrase, or the way a sentence was structured. I might not go as far as to call it a literary masterpiece as I might "The Name of the Wind", but I would inch towards placing the prose in that category. Entertaining, informative and not the last bit boring, this book is an amazing exercise in education. Legal scholars note: this is how you make your stuff interesting.
5/5 because plain awesomeness.
This book explores the legal systems of various different cultures. Some of them exist today, many of them don't. It goes into the details of Jewish Law, Sharia, laws of California prisons, Amish Laws, and many others. But it doesn't merely explain what those laws are. The key insight of this book is understanding where all those laws come from. What does tort have in common with Icelandic Law? Criminal Law with Chinese Law? What do all these disparate legal systems have in common with each other? What is Feud Law?
This book explores all those things. The best thing about it is that you're being guided by the hands of an expert. Prof. Friedman is not a busybody who's read a few papers and believes he's an expert. He's published several academic articles in this area and is a fairly respected voice on alternative legal systems. In this book he shows us he's a fantastic author in possession of a fantastically terrific dry wit. I've made more highlights in this book than I care to remember merely because of a turn of phrase, or the way a sentence was structured. I might not go as far as to call it a literary masterpiece as I might "The Name of the Wind", but I would inch towards placing the prose in that category. Entertaining, informative and not the last bit boring, this book is an amazing exercise in education. Legal scholars note: this is how you make your stuff interesting.
5/5 because plain awesomeness.
Currently reading
January 23, 2019An older draft is found here:
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academi...
Professor Friedman has kindly informed me that the finished book has recently been published and is available from various internet booksellers.
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academi...
Professor Friedman has kindly informed me that the finished book has recently been published and is available from various internet booksellers.
September 1, 2019
Most history books will teach you about the standard aspects of a culture: it's kings and it's wars. Seldom do we get real insight into how a culture actually functioned. Having lived in England my entire life, I was still largely oblivios to much of what was within the chapter on the legal system of 19th century england. When thinking about political/legal/systems it can be very hard to imagine how a system could function differently: this book really helps solve that.
The chapter about 19th century England was particularly interesting, in part because it is close enough that it can be easily understood. The main points as I recall them were:
- There were no public police or prosecutors, the punishment of crime was privatised
- The wealthy and businesses subscribed to insurance companies which guarenteed to prosecute crime (and membership of theses insurance companies was publicised in newspapers to create a deterant effect)
- When the government did want to encourage prosecution of crime they would offer rewards for succesful prosecution. Often these rewards would up being shared with witnesses and investigators, creating incentives to get succesful prosecutions. This created an industry around crime prevention. It encouraged practises such as entrapment (because some people would specialise in entrapment as a career) reducing the trust between potential criminals.
- Punishments after succesful prosecutions were very harsh (i.e. hanging) but it is likely that criminals often paid prosecutors to drop the charges (or present a bad case). This was presented as a key part of the system, albeit one that is not written down in any law texts. These payments created an incentive to prosecture, for people who otherwise would have found it a great struggle to fund.
The book also spent much time on polylegal systems (i.e. the gypsy's and the Amish). These societies live within other societies, but maintain their own legal systems within them. When trying to understand medieval europe, especially the Holy Roman Empire, it can be hard for us to grasp it's real mechanisms of governance, because we are so used to centralised legal systems, whereas then legal systems were very much devolved. He notes that the Gypsy's developed their legal system initially by claiming to have permission from the holy roman empire to use their own gypsy courts. The key feature for both the Amish and Gypsy's seems to be based on them having very coherant cultures, with high levels of social interaction: as such, their harshest punishments are based on exclusion from society. What can we learn from this about modern societies? We have largely become a society with low social interaction, whereby this could not be effective? Perhaps such a system could (and does) function within academia. Academia is a large social network, whereby your position within the social network also determines your salary, and members are uninterested in outside life amongst the 'Gaje'. Traditionally, universities had their own courts and the right to try their own members: perhaps now they can just socially exclude people who break the rules?
Some sections (for instance, that on iceland) can be a bit hard to get through, but having done so you understand why it was important at the end of the book, where it all comes together for an analysis of why certain legal features come together in the way they do. The reflections of the author on what we can learn from other systems is also very interesting.
The chapter about 19th century England was particularly interesting, in part because it is close enough that it can be easily understood. The main points as I recall them were:
- There were no public police or prosecutors, the punishment of crime was privatised
- The wealthy and businesses subscribed to insurance companies which guarenteed to prosecute crime (and membership of theses insurance companies was publicised in newspapers to create a deterant effect)
- When the government did want to encourage prosecution of crime they would offer rewards for succesful prosecution. Often these rewards would up being shared with witnesses and investigators, creating incentives to get succesful prosecutions. This created an industry around crime prevention. It encouraged practises such as entrapment (because some people would specialise in entrapment as a career) reducing the trust between potential criminals.
- Punishments after succesful prosecutions were very harsh (i.e. hanging) but it is likely that criminals often paid prosecutors to drop the charges (or present a bad case). This was presented as a key part of the system, albeit one that is not written down in any law texts. These payments created an incentive to prosecture, for people who otherwise would have found it a great struggle to fund.
The book also spent much time on polylegal systems (i.e. the gypsy's and the Amish). These societies live within other societies, but maintain their own legal systems within them. When trying to understand medieval europe, especially the Holy Roman Empire, it can be hard for us to grasp it's real mechanisms of governance, because we are so used to centralised legal systems, whereas then legal systems were very much devolved. He notes that the Gypsy's developed their legal system initially by claiming to have permission from the holy roman empire to use their own gypsy courts. The key feature for both the Amish and Gypsy's seems to be based on them having very coherant cultures, with high levels of social interaction: as such, their harshest punishments are based on exclusion from society. What can we learn from this about modern societies? We have largely become a society with low social interaction, whereby this could not be effective? Perhaps such a system could (and does) function within academia. Academia is a large social network, whereby your position within the social network also determines your salary, and members are uninterested in outside life amongst the 'Gaje'. Traditionally, universities had their own courts and the right to try their own members: perhaps now they can just socially exclude people who break the rules?
Some sections (for instance, that on iceland) can be a bit hard to get through, but having done so you understand why it was important at the end of the book, where it all comes together for an analysis of why certain legal features come together in the way they do. The reflections of the author on what we can learn from other systems is also very interesting.
April 19, 2020
An interesting book!
But. Not well written: it was dry, and often not clear.
It seems to me that there is organising left to be done.
I woul like to see a table that organises, for each legal system; who is the juror, who is the judge, who is the prosecutor, ... (and what are their incentives / costs).
Also, I think it might be possible (once these legal systems are more formally characterised) to trace the evolution of legal systems (much like language).
What problem does a legal system solve?
A lot of the book was concerned with how can you reliably find the truth, as testimonies cannot be trusted and evidence can be circumstantial. Interestingly, a god that smites liars is a potent motivator.
Other notes / thoughts
- I want to see analyses of the efficiency of various laws: the benefit a law provides to society vs the cost of implementing it.
- Before literacy was common, how could people be sure that they were behaving in a legal manner? Someone tells them that X is illegal. Should ou believe them?
- One of the crazier policies is of familial piety. You must be loyal to your family first. Thus it is a crime not to help your family to comit a crime.
- Sigh. There have been a lot of laws that controls woman's sex lives. Written into Islamic law is "The wife owes her husband obediance and sexual access".
- Supposedly, all implementations of Shari'a law are considered flawed, as to know the 'true' law is to know the mind of God (which only Moses knew).
- The rule of law is easily subverted. Cutting off a person's hand for theivery was considered excessive, so they redefined theivery...
But. Not well written: it was dry, and often not clear.
It seems to me that there is organising left to be done.
I woul like to see a table that organises, for each legal system; who is the juror, who is the judge, who is the prosecutor, ... (and what are their incentives / costs).
Also, I think it might be possible (once these legal systems are more formally characterised) to trace the evolution of legal systems (much like language).
What problem does a legal system solve?
A lot of the book was concerned with how can you reliably find the truth, as testimonies cannot be trusted and evidence can be circumstantial. Interestingly, a god that smites liars is a potent motivator.
Other notes / thoughts
- I want to see analyses of the efficiency of various laws: the benefit a law provides to society vs the cost of implementing it.
- Before literacy was common, how could people be sure that they were behaving in a legal manner? Someone tells them that X is illegal. Should ou believe them?
- One of the crazier policies is of familial piety. You must be loyal to your family first. Thus it is a crime not to help your family to comit a crime.
- Sigh. There have been a lot of laws that controls woman's sex lives. Written into Islamic law is "The wife owes her husband obediance and sexual access".
- Supposedly, all implementations of Shari'a law are considered flawed, as to know the 'true' law is to know the mind of God (which only Moses knew).
- The rule of law is easily subverted. Cutting off a person's hand for theivery was considered excessive, so they redefined theivery...
February 20, 2020
An amazing book about a variety of legal systems from different places and times, and analysis by a brilliant professor of how they deal with certain universal challenges. Especially interesting when he proposes using some of these elements to solve problems in our current legal system - crimes committed by the government, malicious prosecution, certain crimes and torts which are expensive to prosecute, and patent trolls.
One area he didn’t touch much is the ability to use technology to make some of these ideas real — transferable torts would work great with cryptocurrency, and while he mentioned conventional video surveillance (via David Brin) he didn’t mention how structured agreements could include instrumentation and metrics to either self enforce or make judicial enforcement easier.
One area he didn’t touch much is the ability to use technology to make some of these ideas real — transferable torts would work great with cryptocurrency, and while he mentioned conventional video surveillance (via David Brin) he didn’t mention how structured agreements could include instrumentation and metrics to either self enforce or make judicial enforcement easier.
November 5, 2022
Made me think of law very differently: it's about trade offs and incentives!
Favorite kind of law: Pirate 🏴☠️ law! How do you organize a group of criminals and miscreants to perform in life or death situations?
-set of rules with harsh penalties
-to incentivize fighting: generous reimbursement for lost limbs
-quartermaster and captain are very powerful but are elected democratically and can be removed democratically
-Pirate's offer their victims a simple proposal: surrender or die. Because of this, victims were seldom motivated to fight which reduced the actual occurrence of fights!
-Official punishment for pirates was hanging; except if one was forced to be a pirate. So everyone pretended to have been forced to be a pirate and even issued newspaper ads saying that. Law enforcement grew wise to that with time
Favorite kind of law: Pirate 🏴☠️ law! How do you organize a group of criminals and miscreants to perform in life or death situations?
-set of rules with harsh penalties
-to incentivize fighting: generous reimbursement for lost limbs
-quartermaster and captain are very powerful but are elected democratically and can be removed democratically
-Pirate's offer their victims a simple proposal: surrender or die. Because of this, victims were seldom motivated to fight which reduced the actual occurrence of fights!
-Official punishment for pirates was hanging; except if one was forced to be a pirate. So everyone pretended to have been forced to be a pirate and even issued newspaper ads saying that. Law enforcement grew wise to that with time
April 27, 2022
A single book comparing and contrasting legal system in multiple countries, as well as different centuries, is going to be shallow in its treatment of any particular subject.
The author relies on one or two works as the basis for each chapter. Several chapters highlight legal systems that lack detailed histories or definitive scholarly works. This makes their treatment a bit speculative.
I felt several chapters relied too heavily on stereotypes.
The author evaluates each system using an economic efficiency / public choice theory framework.
A decidedly libertarian perspective is present throughout the work. I found myself reading the work as something of a companion to Robert Nozick’s ‘Anarchy, State, and Utopia.’
The author relies on one or two works as the basis for each chapter. Several chapters highlight legal systems that lack detailed histories or definitive scholarly works. This makes their treatment a bit speculative.
I felt several chapters relied too heavily on stereotypes.
The author evaluates each system using an economic efficiency / public choice theory framework.
A decidedly libertarian perspective is present throughout the work. I found myself reading the work as something of a companion to Robert Nozick’s ‘Anarchy, State, and Utopia.’
May 12, 2019
Friedman covers the legal systems of 13 societies. Each is covered quickly, focusing often on the incentives that allowed the system to work. As the introduction says:
"The underlying idea is simple. All human societies face about the same problems. They deal with them in an interesting variety of different ways. All of them are grownups—there is little reason to believe that the people who created the legal systems of Imperial China, Periclean Athens, or saga-period Iceland were any less intelligent than the creators of the U.S. legal system. All of the systems should be taken seriously, each as one way in which a human society dealt with its legal problems.
There is a bit of repetition amongst chapters but the book is well structured.
For myself (mostly ignorant of _all_ legal systems) it has been a good jumping off place for thinking about the subject, if only by allowing me to realise that our current set of institutions is somewhat arbitrary and not necessarily optimal. In fact there seem to be a lot of different stable sets of incentives that give somewhat similar outcomes (getting from 'here' to 'there' might pass through some rather horrible valleys of course).
For example, I took for granted that prison is the main form of punishment for serious crime, whereas corporal punishment and exile seem to have been the norm in a lot of cases (they are cheap after all).
Also interesting has been thinking about other societies that use unusual forms of law: comedians seem to control joke theft in a similar way to the embedded legal systems discussed in the book: using shunning or physical violence amongst themselves rather than the external legal system (probably too costly and hard to prove guilt!)
(full highlights and notes https://maxjmartin.com/book/Legal%20s...)
"The underlying idea is simple. All human societies face about the same problems. They deal with them in an interesting variety of different ways. All of them are grownups—there is little reason to believe that the people who created the legal systems of Imperial China, Periclean Athens, or saga-period Iceland were any less intelligent than the creators of the U.S. legal system. All of the systems should be taken seriously, each as one way in which a human society dealt with its legal problems.
There is a bit of repetition amongst chapters but the book is well structured.
For myself (mostly ignorant of _all_ legal systems) it has been a good jumping off place for thinking about the subject, if only by allowing me to realise that our current set of institutions is somewhat arbitrary and not necessarily optimal. In fact there seem to be a lot of different stable sets of incentives that give somewhat similar outcomes (getting from 'here' to 'there' might pass through some rather horrible valleys of course).
For example, I took for granted that prison is the main form of punishment for serious crime, whereas corporal punishment and exile seem to have been the norm in a lot of cases (they are cheap after all).
Also interesting has been thinking about other societies that use unusual forms of law: comedians seem to control joke theft in a similar way to the embedded legal systems discussed in the book: using shunning or physical violence amongst themselves rather than the external legal system (probably too costly and hard to prove guilt!)
(full highlights and notes https://maxjmartin.com/book/Legal%20s...)
September 24, 2021
Really fascinating look at how different societies have worked. I read a lot of sci-fi because I love imagining other ways to configure society. This book does the same thing, with the added benefit of looking at how people faced realistic challenges and either surmounted them or failed.
Friedman takes a slightly more abstract view of "legal systems" than modern readers would think of, a priori. In his view, a legal system is anything that lets people resolve disputes without violence. He looks at civilization-scale legal systems, like the early English or Irish systems, Icelandic feuds or Somali kin-insurance, as well as small ethnic/social legal systems embedded in larger civilizations (e.g. Jewish or Romani or Amish law), and even smaller (pirate law, the informal law of prison inmates). They're all different, and their goals, society, and technology all affect how they resolve disputes. I learned a lot and it definitely opened my mind as to other ways we could tweak our society.
Friedman takes a slightly more abstract view of "legal systems" than modern readers would think of, a priori. In his view, a legal system is anything that lets people resolve disputes without violence. He looks at civilization-scale legal systems, like the early English or Irish systems, Icelandic feuds or Somali kin-insurance, as well as small ethnic/social legal systems embedded in larger civilizations (e.g. Jewish or Romani or Amish law), and even smaller (pirate law, the informal law of prison inmates). They're all different, and their goals, society, and technology all affect how they resolve disputes. I learned a lot and it definitely opened my mind as to other ways we could tweak our society.
May 3, 2019
Not really sure what to say about this book. In one sense, I think this book should be much larger since there are many more legal systems to discuss. On the other hand, it's a bit dry to just go through cultures one by one. I think this book has great content, it the evidence behind the theory in the author's other work "machinery of freedom". Yet there is very little exposition and context of the theory in this book. This may not be a problem as such but without a theory, the reader is often lost, you don't know what details are important to focus on and which you can skip. Anyway, I organized a book club around this book, most people seemed to enjoy it, so I recommend it.
December 31, 2018
An interesting delve into a handful of systems that work in ways ranging from odd to horrific to modern sensibilities. A bit dry in places and less complete than I'd like in others, it's nevertheless a fascinating read if you've got an interest in niche topics
July 7, 2020
I found the portion of this book that I read (about 60 pages), so boring I decided to discard the book and move on. I rarely give up on books. But this read like a cross between a government form and the worst-written history book from the 1950s. I can’t recommend it and have no plan to revisit it.
April 20, 2025
Friedman describes unfamiliar legal systems, and then makes sense of them in neat classical econ terms. It's great.
Some of the legal systems examined are administered by a close-knit and mostly self-governing community within a larger society, such as the Amish. These communities cannot themselves threaten the use of state-backed violence, but they can and do threaten ostracism.
Interestingly, to the degree such smaller communities are tolerated by society at large, this makes defection more appealing and the threat of ostracism weaker, and so undermines those communities effective powers to enforce their own laws. Yet —
Also, it's generally prohibited on international law that a state can just exile a citizen because they have broken its laws. I'm glad that's an international norm, but it's interesting to wonder why the line should be drawn at the level of states. The UN affirms the right to a nationality; and most democracies uphold a right to internal freedom of movement (states or provinces typically don't have powers to ‘exile’). But there is typically no legal or political right to belong to an accepting community, which is presumably often just as important.
Most of the legal systems examined are generally more anarchic than “our” own. Typically if Annie commits a tort against Bob, then Bob can bring a civil lawsuit against Annie in the public court system. In practice, most tort cases do not reach as far as a formal trial, because Annie and Bob settle outside of court. That's because the best alternative to a settlement is normally some (high) chance of damages, plus massive legal fees, stress, and time. There's a range of settlements which look better to both Annie and Bob than the best alternative to negotiation, which is waiting for a trial and judgement, so Annie and Bob want to reach a bargain within that range.
This book is supposed to be about unfamiliar legal systems, but it got me thinking how much civil law takes place in private negotiations, with the threat of formal legal proceedings only looming in the background should negotiations fail.
Other legals systems extend this kind of “private law” further, in particular by extending it to criminal law, where defendants effectively have the option to bribe their way out of criminal punishment, and/or injured parties can effectively sue defendants directly for criminal damages. Per Scott Alexander:
Something that makes courts seem pretty damn necessary is the threat of enforcement. PayPal can reimburse fraud victims, but it can't punish fraudsters more than booting them off their platform. But the other useful function of courts is in discovering guilt in the first place, in cases where there's information asymmetry between defendant and plaintiff.
As an aside, I'm curious why this process isn't more privatised, at least initially in the case of low-stakes torts. If Annie (defendant) and Bob (plaintiff) can mutually trust a third party to (cheaply) anticipate the result of a trial, then they should agree to establish common knowledge of the result before going through the expensive process of a genuine trial. If Annie demurs, that is something like an admission of guilt, so she has a reason to cooperate just if there is some settlement better for her than her ultimate damages + legal fees and other costs. Maybe law people can explain this to me.
There's a perverse efficiency to all this, of course. You might reasonably think law isn't the place for efficiency, it's a place for justice. If you're Milton Friedman's son, you'd cheerlead for efficiency too.
Some of the legal systems examined are administered by a close-knit and mostly self-governing community within a larger society, such as the Amish. These communities cannot themselves threaten the use of state-backed violence, but they can and do threaten ostracism.
Interestingly, to the degree such smaller communities are tolerated by society at large, this makes defection more appealing and the threat of ostracism weaker, and so undermines those communities effective powers to enforce their own laws. Yet —
[T]he Amish have maintained their identity, culture, and ordnung, enforcing the latter by the threat of ostracism, despite the lack of any clear barrier to prevent unhappy or excommunicated members from deserting. Such desertion is made easier, in the Amish case, by the existence of Mennonite communities, similar to the Amish but less strict, which Amish defectors can and sometimes do join.
Also, it's generally prohibited on international law that a state can just exile a citizen because they have broken its laws. I'm glad that's an international norm, but it's interesting to wonder why the line should be drawn at the level of states. The UN affirms the right to a nationality; and most democracies uphold a right to internal freedom of movement (states or provinces typically don't have powers to ‘exile’). But there is typically no legal or political right to belong to an accepting community, which is presumably often just as important.
Most of the legal systems examined are generally more anarchic than “our” own. Typically if Annie commits a tort against Bob, then Bob can bring a civil lawsuit against Annie in the public court system. In practice, most tort cases do not reach as far as a formal trial, because Annie and Bob settle outside of court. That's because the best alternative to a settlement is normally some (high) chance of damages, plus massive legal fees, stress, and time. There's a range of settlements which look better to both Annie and Bob than the best alternative to negotiation, which is waiting for a trial and judgement, so Annie and Bob want to reach a bargain within that range.
This book is supposed to be about unfamiliar legal systems, but it got me thinking how much civil law takes place in private negotiations, with the threat of formal legal proceedings only looming in the background should negotiations fail.
Other legals systems extend this kind of “private law” further, in particular by extending it to criminal law, where defendants effectively have the option to bribe their way out of criminal punishment, and/or injured parties can effectively sue defendants directly for criminal damages. Per Scott Alexander:
Medieval Icelandic crime victims would sell the right to pursue a perpetrator to the highest bidder. 18th century English justice replaced fines with criminals bribing prosecutors to drop cases. Somali judges compete on the free market; those who give bad verdicts get a reputation that drives away future customers.
Something that makes courts seem pretty damn necessary is the threat of enforcement. PayPal can reimburse fraud victims, but it can't punish fraudsters more than booting them off their platform. But the other useful function of courts is in discovering guilt in the first place, in cases where there's information asymmetry between defendant and plaintiff.
As an aside, I'm curious why this process isn't more privatised, at least initially in the case of low-stakes torts. If Annie (defendant) and Bob (plaintiff) can mutually trust a third party to (cheaply) anticipate the result of a trial, then they should agree to establish common knowledge of the result before going through the expensive process of a genuine trial. If Annie demurs, that is something like an admission of guilt, so she has a reason to cooperate just if there is some settlement better for her than her ultimate damages + legal fees and other costs. Maybe law people can explain this to me.
There's a perverse efficiency to all this, of course. You might reasonably think law isn't the place for efficiency, it's a place for justice. If you're Milton Friedman's son, you'd cheerlead for efficiency too.
November 4, 2023
While I can't get a clear answer as to when this book was released, the guess ranging from 2012-2019, I can say that the book non the less still reads like a book that's much older than that timeframe.
In both structure and style, Legal Systems Very Different From Ours reads more like one of those 19th century scholarly exploration paper written by a late-age aristocrat in the field of whatever he's studying.
While that does mean that Legal Systems Very Different From Ours can often be kinda dry an long-winded, it also means that its approach to the subject is filled with gusto and personality.
So while I was waiting for the point to arrive at time, I was always entertained by the book.
Or "entertained" might be overselling it a bit.
The book is a very thurough work of comparative legal analysis, comparing legal system separated by time and geography, finding out how they are alike and, more importantly, how they differ.
All of it nicely wrapped up in the end with David D. Friedman specifying what we can learn and possibly adopt from the various legal systems that the book has gone through.
Although, my one major criticism of the book is that the book never really go into legal systems that are radically different from the common- and civil law systems that are foundational in the West. It's true that both saga-era Icelandic and current Somali feud law can seem foreign to Westerners, but at their core, bot the Icelandic and the Somali systems aren't that different. Both, for example, still rely on third-party arbitration, serving a similar role as common courts, and both adhere to a legal tradition.
If only Friedman had bothered to go a bit more south from Somalia he would have encountered East African tribes that rely on bird divinations for their legal procedures. That would have been a interesting point of comparison, contrasting law based on courts, laws and tradition, to a system based on an elder or medicin man reading the patterns or innards of bird with authority.
In both structure and style, Legal Systems Very Different From Ours reads more like one of those 19th century scholarly exploration paper written by a late-age aristocrat in the field of whatever he's studying.
While that does mean that Legal Systems Very Different From Ours can often be kinda dry an long-winded, it also means that its approach to the subject is filled with gusto and personality.
So while I was waiting for the point to arrive at time, I was always entertained by the book.
Or "entertained" might be overselling it a bit.
The book is a very thurough work of comparative legal analysis, comparing legal system separated by time and geography, finding out how they are alike and, more importantly, how they differ.
All of it nicely wrapped up in the end with David D. Friedman specifying what we can learn and possibly adopt from the various legal systems that the book has gone through.
Although, my one major criticism of the book is that the book never really go into legal systems that are radically different from the common- and civil law systems that are foundational in the West. It's true that both saga-era Icelandic and current Somali feud law can seem foreign to Westerners, but at their core, bot the Icelandic and the Somali systems aren't that different. Both, for example, still rely on third-party arbitration, serving a similar role as common courts, and both adhere to a legal tradition.
If only Friedman had bothered to go a bit more south from Somalia he would have encountered East African tribes that rely on bird divinations for their legal procedures. That would have been a interesting point of comparison, contrasting law based on courts, laws and tradition, to a system based on an elder or medicin man reading the patterns or innards of bird with authority.
March 28, 2020
A summary of this book doesn't make sense since this book is a summary of legal systems across space and time. From the Plains Indians to the Gypsies and Saga era Iceland.
With the fool heartedness in mind… This book is a dozen odd case studies of legal systems different from ours - however it is also a primer to different cultures. Like looking at Anabaptist (Amish -> Mennonite) legal practices without a little knowledge of their culture wouldn't make any sense. In many chapters the culture introductions were a lot more interesting than the legal systems.
What I found most interesting about this book is that it makes you realize that very different legal organizations are possible and stable over long periods of time. Like you don't realize that your language has advantages and drawbacks until you start learning a new language. Some legal systems auction off the right to prosecute crimes.
That's also what I found most disappointing. In every chapter the Authors include a (seemingly) very good economics style investigation of the incentives implicit in the system, I wish they'd have had a concluding chapter doing that exact type of analysis for our system.
All the chapters can be read independently and I think the two best chapters were "Amish" and "Athens". The Amish chapter because I'm fascinated by their culture. They adopt technology after careful consideration of how it will affect their family and their community.
The Athens chapter because it's like an economists wet dream. If you were rich you had to pay for a public work every two years. You could either pay, provide proof that you'd paid last year or point to a richer guy who hadn't paid yet. How do you know who is richer? Simple, the other guy would either pay or exchange all this property for yours. LOL!
The reason for the 3 star review is that most of the other chapters could pretty easily be skipped, or read one 'feud law' chapter and one 'embedded legal system' chapter and pretend you're read them all.
With the fool heartedness in mind… This book is a dozen odd case studies of legal systems different from ours - however it is also a primer to different cultures. Like looking at Anabaptist (Amish -> Mennonite) legal practices without a little knowledge of their culture wouldn't make any sense. In many chapters the culture introductions were a lot more interesting than the legal systems.
What I found most interesting about this book is that it makes you realize that very different legal organizations are possible and stable over long periods of time. Like you don't realize that your language has advantages and drawbacks until you start learning a new language. Some legal systems auction off the right to prosecute crimes.
That's also what I found most disappointing. In every chapter the Authors include a (seemingly) very good economics style investigation of the incentives implicit in the system, I wish they'd have had a concluding chapter doing that exact type of analysis for our system.
All the chapters can be read independently and I think the two best chapters were "Amish" and "Athens". The Amish chapter because I'm fascinated by their culture. They adopt technology after careful consideration of how it will affect their family and their community.
The Athens chapter because it's like an economists wet dream. If you were rich you had to pay for a public work every two years. You could either pay, provide proof that you'd paid last year or point to a richer guy who hadn't paid yet. How do you know who is richer? Simple, the other guy would either pay or exchange all this property for yours. LOL!
The reason for the 3 star review is that most of the other chapters could pretty easily be skipped, or read one 'feud law' chapter and one 'embedded legal system' chapter and pretend you're read them all.
April 6, 2025
This was also a fun read. I read it mostly from a worldbuilding perspective, not thinking about the pros and cons of installing various systems as trying to see how the systems worked. I'm guessing Friedman also wrote it from that perspective, as that seems to be his emphasis!
And it's a very rewarding picture. I can see how each of these systems could plausibly have held together enough to have been used, and I can see how each of them have advantages - and how they usually involve very different ways of viewing the world than the default view of modern American culture.
Those different views of the world would complicate any efforts to combine the best bits of any of these given systems. I can see how (say) the Icelandic weregild system would have some advantages, but merely grafting it into the modern American system - let alone (say) the Amish or Romani systems - would lose most of its advantages. And what's more, the disadvantages of many of these systems would probably become more apparent when extended to modern Western culture. At the least, such combinations would require another book... which I'm sure exists somewhere already.
And it's a very rewarding picture. I can see how each of these systems could plausibly have held together enough to have been used, and I can see how each of them have advantages - and how they usually involve very different ways of viewing the world than the default view of modern American culture.
Those different views of the world would complicate any efforts to combine the best bits of any of these given systems. I can see how (say) the Icelandic weregild system would have some advantages, but merely grafting it into the modern American system - let alone (say) the Amish or Romani systems - would lose most of its advantages. And what's more, the disadvantages of many of these systems would probably become more apparent when extended to modern Western culture. At the least, such combinations would require another book... which I'm sure exists somewhere already.
February 29, 2020
A very dry start but worth plodding through. Friedman takes a deep dive into many differing legal systems from across history and across the globe. I felt he was a bit overly focused on English Common Law but that is just likely because there are so very many sources.
The final third is where things get interesting. Friedman first does a more direct compare and contrast between elements of differing legal systems and also contrasting them to modern (mostly North American) systems. He also takes some elements of these ancient systems and tries to theoretically adapt them to modern times as a suggestion of ways to improve those systems. Friedman states there is is no perfect answer. In many cases there isn't even a right answer. Sometimes less bad has to be good enough.
The final third is where things get interesting. Friedman first does a more direct compare and contrast between elements of differing legal systems and also contrasting them to modern (mostly North American) systems. He also takes some elements of these ancient systems and tries to theoretically adapt them to modern times as a suggestion of ways to improve those systems. Friedman states there is is no perfect answer. In many cases there isn't even a right answer. Sometimes less bad has to be good enough.
December 31, 2020
Did not finish. I LOVE the premise of this book, and really enjoyed the exploration of other cultures and ways of thinking about law. My main complaint is that it felt far too verbose for my tastes. I was most interested in understanding the key concepts of the various legal systems and their implications, and instead this dove deep into the details. I found it difficult to skim and get the key points that way, and ultimately gave up
June 9, 2022
Though pretty dry, this is one of the best overview books I've read. I only have greater knowledge of a few of the systems mentioned in this book, but in every case his summaries seemed accurate, so I have general confidence in the others. This is what you'd want in a world jurisprudence book.
That said, I was a bit disappointed that none of the systems were more radically different. That perhaps says something about human nature, though.
That said, I was a bit disappointed that none of the systems were more radically different. That perhaps says something about human nature, though.
May 28, 2023
Ah, The Wheels of Justice.
I saw the book "Legal Systems Very Different From Ours" go around the GRs loop and thought why not read it since I am surrounded by atty's in my family.
My reason for rating this a 4* was to extrapolate knowledge only and not judge it for other criteria.
It is extremely difficult to discuss laws from abroad in comparison to the ones you know.
I think Petra's review adds everything I left out.
I saw the book "Legal Systems Very Different From Ours" go around the GRs loop and thought why not read it since I am surrounded by atty's in my family.
My reason for rating this a 4* was to extrapolate knowledge only and not judge it for other criteria.
It is extremely difficult to discuss laws from abroad in comparison to the ones you know.
I think Petra's review adds everything I left out.
January 3, 2021
I picked this up just because of good word of mouth and found it fascinating. It has extreme relevance to the emerging mechanisms for the interaction of private and government actors in space, where the lack of a sovereign authority will encourage more 'private' dispute resolution. Many useful historical examples have features to serve as inspiration.
August 29, 2021
I loved this book, it is exactly the kind of thing that I like. It is very informative and goes through many different legal systems, including the Amish, Jews, Gypsies, Muslims, etc. It gave a concise overview of each and looked at pros and cons of each. I will have to come back to this and read it again in a few years, I'm sure there some things I could pick up from a second read.
December 27, 2020
Fun read. Sometimes gets repetitive. I found learning about how multiple law codes coexist in one area very interesting, along with the more bizarre law codes (Somali, Roma) that exhibit cultural relativism in its fullest.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews