Peter J Hill's silly 'Judaeo-Christian' exceptionalism

This is the abstract of a new paper by Prof Peter Hill

The background conditions for the emergence of the rule of law are important but underdeveloped.

This is not the case for Anglo Saxon Jurisprudence. The Common Law derives from immemorial custom. Coke did suggest, it is true, that Greek speaking Druids played a part in this but the fact remains that Judicial historicism in England and America discounts any Religious contribution save to Canon Law. But during the course of the Nineteenth Century that type of law ceased to be separate.

The fact of the matter is that Judaism was Hellenized by conquest and Greek speaking Jewish scholars changed the nature of the Religion, as far as Christians are concerned, at least partly on the basis of a 'homonoia' which had a commercial and administrative character and which was embodied in the ideal of a cosmopolitan Empire.

This paper traces more fully the relationship between the concept of human equality and the development of the rule of law.

Judaism and Christianity rejected human equality. Women were inferior as were 'barbarian' slaves. The Law is a service industry which seeks monopoly status but which has to adapt because of jurisdiction shopping. This may curb the degree to which it  can engage in price and service provision discrimination. It is only relatively recently that 'equality before the law' has become a shibboleth. The first majority Labour Government abolished the right of members of the House of Lords to trial by their peers. Previously, 'blue blood' entitled you to special treatment. Earlier still there was 'benefit of clergy' and ethnic discrimination- e.g. 'presentment of Englishry'.

It presents evidence that the Jewish and Christian concept of all human beings as God’s image bearers is an important contributor to the rule of law in Western civilization.

The reverse is the case. Changes in the Law caused Religions to change how they conceived of human beings. But this was and is quite a painful struggle.

The formulation of universal human equality was not, however, a sufficient condition for the emergence of the rule of law.

Nor was it a necessary condition. Indeed, the thing was wholly irrelevant. Positive law arises from the efficacy of command. But there may be a civil law independent of the command of the Despot.

It took centuries of articulation in different institutions and social settings.

But this articulation had absolutely no practical effect unless the Despot so wished.

It only reached full fruition when it was joined with an understanding of appropriate political systems as expressed by political theorists such as Locke, Montesquieu, and Madison.

Who abolished slavery, right? Wrong. Madison had some political power. The other two were mere scribblers.

Prof Hill quotes outdated research of a type we all recognize as foolish

World Bank research indicates that a one standard deviation increase in the rule of law index increases GDP by 300 percent (Kaufman et al 2007). And Carothers (2010, 19) asserts “The degree of apparent international consensus on the value and importance of the rule of law is striking. . . . almost no leader anywhere is openly against the rule of law or will publicly mount an argument that the rule of law is a bad idea for their society.”

That was then. Now we have Chairman Xi and the Saudi Crown Prince predicating their countries' economic rise on ignoring the law to force even the wealthiest and most privileged to hand over assets or use them solely for a National purpose. Traditionally, economists had accepted that Command Economies could do more rapid 'catch up' growth- if they were ruthless enough. We have gone back to that way of thinking after a brief period of euphoria consequent upon Soviet collapse and China's sneaky rise. Even in Europe, we see 'populist' Administrations, which gave the voters more secure or higher material standards of living, rolling back the Rule of Law. Post Brexit Britain may increase 'executive privilege' or 'political question doctrine'. It may even get rid of the Supreme Court which Brussels forced it to institute.

Black Lives Matter has raised the issue of 'qualified immunity' for public servants guilty of the most heinous crimes. But this is linked to the fact that Developed Capitalist countries have 'Baumol Cost disease' in their Legal sectors such that access to judicial remedies has fallen, not risen.

 North, Wallis and Weingast (2009, xii) suggest that only about 15 percent of the world’s population live in what they call open access societies, where the rule of law exists. Weingast (2010) discusses the difficulty of achieving and sustaining the rule of law in developing countries. 

The truth is the one percent may have plenty of 'open access'- unless like Jeffery Epstein there is public pushback and the guy is found hanging in his jail cell- but the 99 % feel they are increasingly cut off from legal remedies. Developing countries, with lots of cheap labor, may be better at upholding the rule of law but Baumol Cost disease can set in very quickly if 'woke' nutters keep passing new unimplementable laws and creating new 'checks and balances' with plenty of loopholes for those with money or the ability to kill your wife and children.

 In the discussion that follows I will use what is called a “thick” conception of the rule of law, where procedural rights and substantive protections of individual rights exist.

The conception does not matter. What matters is whether there is an incentive compatible mechanism to provide remedies for rights-holders. Such mechanisms can collapse while Professors talk bollocks. It is foolish to assume that the Law is frictionless and that it uses up no resources. The truth is it has always been a scarce commodity.  Philosophy, because it is useless, is welcome to gas on about conceptions and say mean things about how thick or thin they are. But the Law is not useless. Shitheads who want to continually expand its scope while ignoring its supply side constraints render it less and less worthy of public support.

 In contrast, a “thin” definition focuses on procedures, rather than on justice or rights. A society with a thin rule of law could have slavery or other substantial rights violations so long as the rules were clearly articulated and well understood.

So could a thick rule of law. No doubt, the slaves might be referred to in some other terms, but they would still exist unless the resources were made available to liberate them.

Most arguments for the importance of the rule of law for economic growth and for justice are using the thick definition, where there is substantive protection of fundamental rights.

Arguments for the importance of X are not themselves important at all. What matters is whether X 'pays for itself' or rather whether there is an incentive compatible mechanism for this to happen.

Prof Hill comes from a country with an Anglo Saxon legal system. Yet he writes-

 Despite the general recognition of the importance of the rule of law, there is little agreement about the historical process by which it came into existence.

This is utterly false. America is founded as much on Sir Edward Coke's Institutes as it is on the Bible. Ours is a historicist jurisprudence. On the Continent, there is a greater pretence that a Roman 'Natural Law' tradition has valency. But their Jurisprudence remains historicist. Germany's relative backwardness meant that Professors had more of a role in a Nationalist reawakening but Germany did not turn out well. It was only after the country was conquered and occupied that its 'ordoliberalism' could flourish.

It did become at least a partial institutional reality in certain Western economies in the late 18th century, with political philosophers articulating early expressions of a rule of law, articulations that were further developed and implemented over the next century.

But articulations can be any old shite. Carl Schmitt sure was an articulate guy. Thankfully, British and American and French troops occupied Western Germany and allowed its decent and hardworking people to rise by their own efforts.

In this paper I argue that the primary factor in understanding the development of the rule of law is a particular belief structure, a set of norms about universal human dignity that is necessary for such a legal framework.

Unlike Europe, America remains a deeply Religious country. Norms haven't changed that much. But the Laws have. Why? Technology changed the 'Supply Side'. The economic substructure changed so drastically that the superstructure, kicking and screaming, had to follow suit. Pedants may wish to glorify themselves by saying that they contributed to this by instilling new norms. But if Professors really have the power to get us to accept 'universal human dignity' why don't they get us to larn tu spill gud? I took courses in Math at Colidge. But I can't count past 69.

Greif and Tabellini (2017) provide an interesting study of the importance of beliefs in their discussion of the corporation and the clan in High Medieval Europe and China. They find that Europe was influenced by a system of generalized morality grounded in Christian doctrine.

But Europe was a shit-show where priests sold indulgences to gullible fools anxious to escape hell-fire. Islam was gobbling up Christian territory. It was only the daring of the fisherfolk on the Atlantic littoral who opened up the Americas and the Indies for European enrichment. But, as the Jesuits found, China was better ordered. The 'Chinese Rites' controversy harmed the Catholic Church. The urbane Chinese were clearly able to live virtuously without any need for a Christianity which had made itself ridiculous by its irrational internecine conflicts. Deism and belief in 'natural' not prophetic religion was influenced in some part by European acknowledgement of Chinese virtue and sophistication. But China was bound to fall behind because it had turned its back on oceanic trade.

This belief structure led to institutional innovations, in particular the corporation, which were based on non-kinship relationships.

The Chinese had guilds and 'brotherhoods' which were not kinship based. These functioned like Corporations and had a wide geographical reach.

In contrast China had a system of limited morality, where moral obligations did not extend much beyond the extended family. This meant that major social connections were formed through the clan.

But clans were subject to Imperial law. There was a degree of 'collective responsibility'. Moreover, class or caste distinctions declined in China earlier than they did in Europe precisely because of greater commercial development.

This essay builds on the insights of Greif and Mokyr and Grief and Tabellini and provides a historical narrative for the North, Wallis, and Weingast argument that a belief in human equality became instantiated in an institutional framework they call the open access order.

Clearly there was no belief in human equality at a time when slavery and genocide of indigenous people was considered a good and salutary thing.

The narrative also attempts to answer Weingast’s question as to “Why 1800?” for the formation of institutions (especially the rule of law) that could sustain liberty and equality 

The answer is that the American and French Revolutions- themselves inspired by the British Glorious Revolution- had made the notion of a Nation State with 'careers open to talent' attractive and compelling. This meant disintermediating the 'blue bloods'. Sadly Napoleon made himself an Emperor and his worthless brothers Kings. But, this was why he fell. Germany did unite itself but came to grief because the Kaiser was kray kray. Italy did unite but its Kings were no great shakes. American blood and treasure saved both countries from themselves.

 Viewed in a broad historical and philosophical context the concept of universal human dignity is unusual.

Yet, it is the essence of Upanishadic teaching. All humans have an 'atma', a soul, of the same type. This 'atma' is divine. Those who gain this 'madhuvidhya' though of humble birth and occupation, yet are fitted to be the spiritual preceptors of Priests and Kings of the most exalted lineage. It is a separate matter that some of them become very rich or gain power by founding their own Kingdoms or Empires.

Almost all societies before the beginning of the first millennium operated under the assumption that people were fundamentally different in their moral standing.

This is still true. Baby bites my nose and throws away my glasses. I am delighted. Why? Coz babies have a different moral standing. If they poop on you, you don't feel obliged to retaliate in like terms.

At the more practical level, almost every organized human group operated with exclusionary principles in terms of any form of rights, privileges, or access to power.

Unlike today, when I could wander into the White House and take over the leadership of the Free World.

The major exception was ancient Israel.

Nonsense! Israel, according to the Bible, was similar to its neighbors. True, an Iranian Emperor helped them as he helped other Nations. But, later on, Israel was Hellenized. 2 Maccabees was written in Greek. Aristobulus of Alexandria sought to harmonize Greek philosophy with the Jewish Religion in the second century B.C. He laid the foundation for the view that 'Plato is Moses speaking Attic Greek'.

Joshua Berman, a noted Jewish scholar, argues that metaphysical legitimation was an essential part of the ordering of every Near Eastern society. In Israel, however, the hierarchical structure of ancient Near Eastern society was rejected on theological grounds.

Yet David founded a Dynasty and Solomon, after marrying Pharaoh's daughter and erecting a great Temple,  raised Israel to its highest point. Kingship may have departed but, to this day, a separate 'Kohain' priestly caste continues to exist. If a Kohain wishes to marry a divorcee or a convert he will have to leave Israel to do it.

The quality of the members of the Israelite polity stems from their collective covenantal relationship with God, in which each member is endowed with the status of subordinate king before the sovereign King of Kings.

Half of Jews are women. Are they 'subordinate kings'?

This is the metaphysical basis on which the notion of equality is founded (2008, 169).

The Aish Rabbi writes ' A Kohen is forbidden to marry these women, not because she is a bad person, but because there is metaphysical reality that is created which prevents a Kohen from being able to create the proper bond. Consider that H2O is water, and H2O2 is Hydrogen Peroxide. The difference may seem negligible, but is actually the difference is between life and death.' In other words, this 'metaphysics' has a physical foundation of a theurgic type. Kohains are different from other Jews. No doubt, this rule is not meant to harm or humiliate anyone but rather to protect the pure transmission of the Religion. However, it is foolish to say that Judaism is exceptional when this is not the case. Some are more equal than others.

Because of the equality inherent in the creation narrative, that all humans were made in the image of God, universal human dignity had a strong metaphysical grounding.

One could equally well say Hinduism establishes universal human dignity because every soul is consubstantial with God. Yes, outwardly there is 'karma', but the end result is univocity for an eternity compared to which 'samsara' is a blink of the eye.

The Israel society was the first social order to recognize this basic human equality.

To say this is to imply that Noah was not a Prophet as the Bible teaches. Thus this statement is contrary to the fundamental teachings of Judaism.

Christ, we firmly believe, was a Jewish Rabbi. We may be violating Jewish law by considering Him Divine. But we are simple people. No one grudges us our love and veneration for the Being who rescues us from Sin and an infernal type of Life. But we should not either vilify or distort Judaism. It gives the highest place to Prophets, not Pedants. It may, like every other living Institution, have some facets which appear unfair. But, we all recognize that this is a Religion which has been persecuted and which only survived because of the Virtue and steadfastness of successive generations of its adherents. Even so, it has all but disappeared from many places where it was at home for millenia. There are scarcely any Jews left in Iraq or Iran or, I believe, even Yemen or, more sadly for me, my ancestral South India- though in that case the exodus was purely voluntary and for a pure and spiritual motive.

Luc Ferry, a French philosopher, says

To conclude we could say that Christianity is the first universalist ethos; universalism meaning the doctrine or belief in universal salvation

Buddhism, Jainism and Vedanta predate Christianity. They affirm universal salvation for all sentient beings on the basis of the absolute equality, indeed univocity, of, either the soul or the 'cetana' consciousness.

 One of the most significant influences of the idea of universal dignity was with respect to the standing of the poor. Harper (2016, 139-141) argues that there was not even a social category called the “poor” in antiquity. The Christian message of the responsibility to care for the poor led to a radical rethinking of the concept of charity and was also manifested in the institutions of hospitals and orphanages. “’Charities’ ran hospitals, ministered to the poor in numberless ways, gave alms, sheltered travelers, ran leper houses, and cared comprehensively for the destitute and deprived” (Madigan 2015, 314)

 Ashoka did all these things across the length and breadth of the sub-continent long before Christ was born.

Christian monasteries also embodied a doctrine of human equality unusual for societies that were heavily influenced by Greek and Roman understandings of social class. Around 300 religious orders open to both men and women sprang up across the Mediterranean world. These organizations represented a radical break from the usual understanding of the importance of social origins since anyone willing to take the vows of the order could join, regardless of family or class background (Siedentop 2014, 95, 160). 

This is false. Admission to higher monastic or priestly orders was a matter of supply and demand. True, exceptional ability might make a path for itself. Otherwise, birth and lineage, or the 'dowry' a nun could bring with her, determined admission to wealthy or powerful orders. Canonnesses were almost always of noble or royal descent. Till about thirty years ago, you had to prove blue blood on both sides for several generations before you could become a Knight of Malta. Supply and 'effective' Demand (i.e. money) have equalized things- but that's how markets work.

Prof Hill speaks of the 'natural law' movement within the medieval Church. But this has its origins in the early Christian 'appropriation' or oikeiosis of Cicero. In other words, this is the Church re-Romanizing itself. But Roman Law was important because it permitted commercial flourishing. It was not till the second half of the Nineteenth Century that most European Cities could point to achievements in Civil Engineering that could match those of the Romans. To read Petronius was to enter a richer, more connected, world where a vulgar Levantine could rise by his own efforts to the level of a Maecenas. Christianity- in its more repulsively Anti-Semitic aspect- sought to combat this levelling tendency of Capitalist Industry. That is why Pound liked Petronius so much. 'In Usura hath no man a house'- coz Jews all be Shylocks right?

Prof Hill is not a historian. But surely he has enough general knowledge not to say anything quite as absurd as-

Martin Luther, in Freedom of a Christian (1520), did not develop a complete concept of political rights, but his case for the fundamental freedom of conscience became an important component in later formulations of rule of law arguments (Witte, 2006, 55-58)

 This is nonsense. We can look up that work on the internet and read it for ourselves. Luther was only speaking of Christians as having Lordship. Jews should fuck off or get killed. They are damned for all eternity in either case. Initially, no doubt, Luther was hopeful of converting the Jews. But he saw that even the convert Pfefferkorn was having no success in that department. So he adopted his hate ideology and demanded Jewish books be burnt.
Indeed, he went further-

 "What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews":^[1]

• "First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools … This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians …"
• "Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed."
• "Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them."
• "Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb …"
• "Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside …"
• "Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them …"
• "Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow … But if we are afraid that they might harm us or our wives, children, servants, cattle, etc., … then let us emulate the common sense of other nations such as France, Spain, Bohemia, etc., … then eject them forever from the country …"

Hill appears to rely on the following, utterly foolish, theory-

North, Wallis, and Weingast (2009) 15 provide a useful framework of understanding how solutions to the problem of violence lead to a particular type of political and economic structure.

Political and economic structures generate resources for violence. That is why they exist. Otherwise, the solution to the problem of violence is to run away and go hide yourself in some mountain redoubt.

They describe in some detail this system, which they call a limited access order, where a “dominant coalition contains members who specialize in a range of military, political, religious, political, and economic activities” 

So, there is division of labour paid for by extracting the greater portion of the 'gains from trade'. But this is all that currently exists. You move to a more developed area to better yourself and suddenly you are paying a greater portion of your Income in taxation. You now support a type of violence which you will seek to protect yourself from by joining or rising within the 'ruling coalition'. Yes, there is 'Tiebout sorting' but there are also 'Tiebout manorial rents' of a contestable type.

The members of the coalition maintain their position by offering benefits to each other.

This is a 'Pirate's game' whose Muth rational solution is to let 'Shapley values' determine relative shares.

Often the political rulers provide only limited access to particular forms of production.

No. They extract rents from production.

This produces rents for the economic elites in the form of monopoly profits, and in turn those elites support the political rulers.

No. Economic elites have high elasticity of supply and demand. That is what makes them elite. They have alternatives. There is rent contestation between economic and political elites. If production is inefficient, then economic elites try to buy political rents at home while trading offshore.

Religious elites offer legitimacy to the political order and in return they are able to use the coercive power of the state to further their ends.

Again, there is rent contestation with a similar result. Cardinals have never spurned the chance to exercise a Regent's power.

The authors also use the term the natural state to describe this social ordering because it has been the usual form of organization for most of recorded history. It evolves and is relatively stable because it mitigates the problem of violence.

Nonsense! It evolves because of external and internal threats. It is not stable. It doesn't mitigate shit. Look at Spain from the 1830's to the 1950s. Look at Lebanon now.

Economic growth is unlikely in such a system because of

incentive incompatible mechanisms- but this also means massive amounts of violence. Sell up and run away while the going is good.

the limits on economic opportunity and the lack of clear and enforceable property rights for everyone.

Only enforceability ('control rights') matters. Title can be completely opaque- as it often is in Japan.

This brings me to the obvious rejoinder to Hill's thesis. How come Japan is fifty percent richer than deeply Christian Portugal, which was unscathed by two World Wars? Why is Singapore twice as rich as Japan? How come Communist China has greatly overtaken Islamic Pakistan or deeply Spiritual India? Will Brazil under the soi disant Christian Bolsanor really do very much better than it did under the Socialist Lula?

Why did some countries achieve rapid economic growth while others stagnated? One important reason had to do with Religion being told to shut the fuck up and go stand in a corner drooling incontinently. Religious nutters are bad Economists. They are also shit at Science or anything else which is useful. They should spend their time praying with lunatics. When one such says 'the Nicaraguan horcrux of my neighbor's cat is compelling me to shit on the floor', they should reply 'The Metanoiac Tetragrammaton of my Charismatic Diakonia compels that Nicraguan horcrux to fuck off back to Hell. Please don't shit on the floor. The Arch-Bishop did so just the other day and the place still stinks. '

I am not saying that Socioproctology should not be considered a bona fide Religion or that I myself should not be venerated as a Prophet. However Religious nutters should be disintermediated from any utile discourse. Of course, this is also true of academic mathematical economists and other such oxymoronic creatures. But they should simply be micturated on periodically. One must not micturate on Priests. The do a great job expelling demons- my parents sent me to a Catholic school after watching the Exorcist- and tackling the growing Vampire epidemic. I may add, COVID is a hoax. The Vampires are using face-masks to hide their fangs. Yea, unto you I say, verily, the oceans shall dry up and the Sun will go visit its Sister in Australia- the one everybody says was knocked up by the Milk Man- and lo! Mike Pence will publicly sodomize Trump and the Heaven's will open and the Dead shall rise from their graves like in the Netflix series Zombie Apocalypse.'