Review of Austrian Economics - The Ludwig von Mises Institute

Benson: Evolutionary Contractarian Primitive Law 53
The crossers' judgment was enforceable because there was an
effective threat of total ostracism by the entire community of tribes.
In the case of this Northern California society, if someone failed to
pay the fine he automatically became the plaintiff's wage slave. If he
refused to submit to this he became an outlaw which meant that
anyone could kill him without any liability for the killing. In particular,
if an offender became an outlaw, the offended individual's
sweathouse group would back his effort for physical retribution. The
rest of the "community" would not interfere, again through reciprocal
recognition that any member of the society might at some time
require such community support in ostracizing a law breaker. Fear
of this severe boycott sanction meant that the crossers'judgment
tended to be accepted, of course. As in other societies, then, obeying
the Yurok's laws led to relatively predictable consequences. Disobeying,
and the resulting ostracism by the community, meant
living outside the social order, and the added uncertainty that
entailed provided strong incentives to obey the laws, or yield to
whatever punishment the crossers' proposed in the case of a violation.
Recognition of the authority of Yurok law and support of the
adjudication procedure that they developed was, therefore at least
in part, a consequence of the reduced uncertainty that legal system
provided.
If a victim chose not to follow the formal adjudicative procedures,
then he violated the law and was liable for damages. Consider an
example involving ownership rights to a beach. Owners had to allow
seal hunters access to the water, but in exchange the land owner was
to receive the flippers of all sea lions caught on his beach. A case which
took place during the 1860s involved a wealthy and powerful individual
who owned about four miles of beach around his village (see
Hoebel 1954, pp. 54-55; or Spott and Kroeber 1943, pp. 182-99). A
particular seal hunter disregarded the owner's property rights on
several occasions by failing to give him the sea lion flippers he had a
right to, but rather than follow the formal procedures of law, the
beach owner took revenge by assaulting the hunter's father and
wounding him. The hunter's support group, consisting of members of
his family in this case, then instituted a suit against the beach owner
for damages. The crossers ruled that the assault damages were
slightly less than the original damages that the beach owner could
have claimed against the hunter, but under the circumstances both
legal claims were nullified. Nonetheless, the hunter remained antagonistic
against the beach owner, and two days later he cursed the
beach owner. This was a violation of Yurok law, and the beach owner
entered a legal claim. While the crossers were at work, however, a