[Houghton M.]

“It is about a system where there is no ability for the peons to reliably address grievance.”

This shows that you do not know what you are talking about.

Medieval peasants did have a system for redress of grievances and it did function, so did nobles, so did bishops, so did kings. Peasant redress was subject to abuse just as our system of redress of grievances is subject to abuse. It is categorically different from totalitarianism (no possibility of redress—except on paper) as was typical of the USSR or Nazi Germany.

You don’t know anything about law, peasants, nobles, grievances, government in the Middle Ages except what you’ve picked up from Enlightenment and Marxist self-serving caricatures of the Middle Ages.

And when I say that the problem is abuse of power and loss of honor and virtue, I have Adams, Hamilton, Washington, de Tocqueville on my side. When you insist that a “noble system” is systemically evil (no redress of grievance) you are going against everything the American Founders believed. They understood that some systems are better than others but they understood that no system free of abuse. They rejected nobility of birth but they assumed nobility as crucial but also as subject to abuse. In common with those who believed in nobility of birth they believed that any elite, of birth or otherwise, could either act nobly or ignobly, faithfully or abusively.

[TalonDJ]

“It is about a system where there is no ability for the peons to reliably address grievance.”

This shows that you do not know what you are talking about.

Read it again. I said RELIABLY.

Medieval peasants did have a system for redress of grievances and it did function, so did nobles, so did bishops, so did kings. Peasant redress was subject to abuse just as our system of redress of grievances is subject to abuse. It is categorically different from totalitarianism (no possibility of redress—except on paper) as was typical of the USSR or Nazi Germany.

Yes I did already know all that.

You don’t know anything about law, peasants, nobles, grievances, government in the Middle Ages except what you’ve picked up from Enlightenment and Marxist self-serving caricatures of the Middle Ages.

You know nothing about where I got my history. I read you the dictionary definition of the word and evaluated its use based on the wide usage of the term. Get the ship off your shoulder and take up your issues with society's use of the word.

And when I say that the problem is abuse of power and loss of honor and virtue, I have Adams, Hamilton, Washington, de Tocqueville on my side.

I have read their writings and Blackstone besides. You are vastly oversimplifying what they said. If that was all the thought there was too it then they would not have set up a system where 'all men are create equal'.

When you insist that a “noble system” is systemically evil (no redress of grievance) you are going against everything the American Founders believed.

I never said it was 'systematically evil'.

They understood that some systems are better than others but they understood that no system free of abuse. They rejected nobility of birth but they assumed nobility as crucial but also as subject to abuse. In common with those who believed in nobility of birth they believed that any elite, of birth or otherwise, could either act nobly or ignobly, faithfully or abusively.


You, sir, have some massive confusion about what I do and don't believe. The necessity of honor-ability, virtue and faith in those with power is something I am not questioning. You are arguing apples and oranges.