Justice, the Death Penalty, and Holmgång
Ancient History, Modern Politics
Today many men throw around the word justice quite quickly without thinking of its true meaning and its deeper consequences. A group of Athenians once tried tackling such a monumental task, deciphering the meaning of justice. Before Plato, Socrates, and the other early Socratics spoke on the meaning of justice, the men of the previous age spoke of something further reaching than the simple discussions of right and wrong, justice and unjust. I speak of the the ancient battle between phusis (nature) vs nomos (custom or law).
In the ancient world before the laws of man corralled, confined, and controlled the strong, the beautiful, and the intelligent, the laws of nature elevated the supreme men of the age to act with impunity. When a man was transgressed, he sought restitution with his own hands, proving himself the worthy owner of respect, property, and admiraton. Now when a man is wronged he seeks the protection of the law to right the transgression he has received and relieves himself of the burden of restitution.
This transference of power from phusis to nomos has been the basis of laws for several millenia now, and the consequences have run their course, slowly changing man by the slow state sanctioned execution and dethroning of the superior. This has become the slow selection process that has weeded out the truly wild unconquered powerful man and left us with completely docile domesticated counterparts. Allow me to explain.
The notion of justice has blinded man, and the consequences of state sanctioned execution has slowly morphed the genepool of man by cutting short the lives of those deemed too violent to exist within society. In time, those who would never have obtained power and prosperity overturned the rule of nature and benefitted from their weakness and protection under the law. Those weak men would go on to have more offspring than ever before, altering the state of man forever and for the worse.
If one is to be issued a death penalty, it should not be at the hands of headless entity like the state, but rather by those who are willing to take what is owed to them. This process of domestication through state sanctioned death selected for the weak and it has created more weakness. Surely there is an alternative, a way to discourage aggression amongst a society while simultaneously weeding out the weak and ineffectual men that parasitically attach themselves to the benefits of the strong and beautiful?
Holmgång, a word with its roots in old Norse, and its origins in the prehistory of man. In times of old, when a man was transgressed he deserved the right of challenging the transgressor regardless of class or rank to a duel. The duel was prepared for, and within the week the men would be observed to fight to the death on a small rocky outcrop called a holm where no others could disturb their fight to the death. To the victor went the spoils, be it property or honor, ensuring that the most worthy man would prevail.
There were consequences to refusing the right to holmgång beyond losing one’s honor and pride. If one was to refuse holmgång they would become outlaws, and not in the modern sense of being pursued by the law, but of the ancient sense. An outlaw was a man banished from the right of the protections of common law, and as such, any man could lawfully kill the outlaw with impunity, in effect amounting to a death sentence towards the coward who refused the request to fight for his honor.
In England a similar consequence existed until only a few centuries ago called Caput Lupinum, literally meaning wolf’s head, in which any man had the right to steal, murder, or do with the outlaw as they saw fit. This law existed for those who refused their court summons three times, and by evading the law of the land were brought to the fear of the common man. The outlaw became an unwanted wolf amongst a society of hunters who wished to take their trophy.
Few men will agree with the holmgång because the remnants of those men have been removed overtime through the power of state execution, and most men would prefer the protection of the state because they are biproducts of its protection. The consequences are clear, that under the rule of law the weak shall prevail and the strong shall be removed from society. The greater concern here is not of the individual transgression, but of the slow degradation of society through the proliferation of victim blood. This message is harsh, but consequences of the truth are worse and too burdensome to bear for society. The right of the duel must be brought back if we wish to undomesticated ourselves and return to a natural state of stronger more brilliant men.
Dueling has existed in many forms and in many places, sometimes with two men even bound together in one hand with a rope, ensuring that no one would run away from the battle to the death. The rules are simple. Fight to the death, and do not try to escape the duel for fear of death. To the victor, restitution of honor. To the loser, death. This tradition has been revived several times and squelched many more times throughout history as the powers of government has increased. It may one day be revived again, and when it does the strong shall be revived with it.