That's it, HN is dead to me. "How I Monetized My Passion" is self-parody. When you can't tell the difference between parody and the real thing you're a goner.
People always shoot the messenger for pointing this out, so I'll expect about a million downvotes for it, but in case you case didn't know it already GNXP is the cryptoracist camp along with Charles Murray and Steve Sailer. Seriously, check out some of the comments.
Upvoted. But there's a difference - the arsonist is only allowed to get an insurance policy on buildings he owns.
It's more like an arsonist taking out insurance policies on other people's buildings, THEN burning them down.
Except we don't allow crazy antics like that with insurance. And the insurance companies have to keep money reserved to pay out claims. And it has to go on their balance books.
So what we have here is "a building just burned! Oh crap, who has insurance on that? Who sold it? Who's going to go broke? Who shouldn't we lend money to? Nobody knows!"
Or, while we're on the analogy train, a doctor taking out a $MM life insurance policy on a terminal patient before he performs an operation (which will in no way help the patient live longer), collecting the patient's health insurance dollars along the way.
According to "Viking Age Iceland" the Icelanders mostly settled disputed by tit-for-tat revenge killing of each others' slaves. It was all really grim.
You're probably talking about Njal's Saga. There is a feud that degenerates into exactly that--but it is also clear if you read the story that this is not the normal way disputes get settled. We got a saga out of it precisely because the standard process broke down in spectacular fashion.
You should be able to find a copy of Njal's Saga pretty easily. I recommend reading it for yourself--even apart from the historical/political value, it's just a good story.
Sorry for coming in late when no one reads anymore, but...
Clan societies (that is, most everywhere, before state monopolies on violence) had this kind of revenge for generations. Afghanistan and parts of Iraq are famous present examples.
Afaik (no references, but I think Wikipedia supports this), the research says that old Scandinavia's local ting was a bit more of a negotiating place for feuds than a governing/judging assembly.
Edit: Life on Iceland was certainly even harder than in the rest of Scandinavia. That would probably have left less time over for that time's main sports -- pillage, etc.
I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me or not.
Medieval Iceland was a violent place, and the threat of violence was much more overt than it is now. But it was not a society where disputes were primarily settled by killing.
> the research says that old Scandinavia's local ting was a bit more of a negotiating place for feuds than a governing/judging assembly.
It was a place to negotiate disputes (which sometimes ended up as feuds). It was a place to recite the (complex and sophisticated) law code of the saga period Icelanders. It was also a place to show off your prosperity and the quality of your alliances.
I have to reiterate. If you are at all interested in this stuff, read a saga for yourself. Whatever else you end up concluding, you'll get over the idea that these people were a bunch of doltish brutes.
> Life on Iceland was certainly even harder than in the rest of Scandinavia.
I'm not sure why you're certain of that. Iceland was settled by Scandinavians after all. People don't usually emigrate to a place where life is harder than where they started.
> That would probably have left less time over for that time's main sports -- pillage, etc.
Several times in the sagas you read of young men going off to raid and plunder, sometimes coming back to settle down at the farmstead. They pillaged, just not each other.
b. Check climate data; Iceland was (and is) a hard place for farming, etc. Check population density and add that to that until quite recently, Malthus' description of human deaths/births ruled (the "Essay on the Principle of Population" in itself also answers your theory that people don't generally emigrate to places where life is harder).
Would they have any other significant assets? I would expect land to be pretty worthless without people to work it (and in other countries, "land" meant "land, plus peasants who must farm on it"). So from their perspective, they were settling disputes through a DIY tort system. Sucks for the slaves, except that if they're worth something, they're worth keeping alive. In places where they're worth less, there's less of a reason to keep them alive.
