Your idea that it was secularism that brought us oppressive government does not measure up with history. While it is true that since the secularists pretty much won out politically over the the Christians by the early mid 19th Century, the matter did not end. Since then both pseudo liberal and pseudo conservative Christians alike, have been continually attempting (often quite successfully), to make their various Christian doctrines a part of our secular laws. They have often done so by joining forces with specific secular forces on an issue by issue basis. Thus, blame does not lie particularly with either the Christians or Secularists.
Your idea that one could be a Jew or a Muslim in Medieval France, is only periodically and circumstantially true under very restrictive conditions, and thereby can also be said to be quite wrong. Your idea that feudal allegiances were voluntary, takes the word voluntary to such a new level of understanding, as to render it a whole new meaning.
...libertarians should study the Middle Ages as their model, rather than assume that the French or American republics were their models.
I do not agree that either should be studied as "their model." But both do need to be studied as "a model." As I have viewed it, one or a combination of several varying models of the former, as well as various forms of corporate models (both feudal and non feudal), are far more likely than any of the later two models. But those are not the only models.
It is however, my opinion that the current popular libertarian visions (if accepted, adopted or applied), would result in something much different than intended. I say shame on the Libertarian Party for brushing such considerations and studies under the rug in its rush to gain quick easy conservative votes. The route of least resistance, is not the route of greatest advantage.
Well, this is why feudalism is fundamentally a society of free men (excepting instances of serfdom).
1. Civil allegiance was based on an oath of loyalty between two men. Loyalties could shift for a good reason. A choice of loyalties was available often without travel. Contrast that with territorial loyalty to the transcendent state.
2. Rights were hereditary. Contrast that with our nominally inalienable rights subject to court interpretation and legislation.
3. Morality and law was understood to be inseparable and to come from the universal teaching of the church. In other words, the fundamental law was separate from the feudal lord, while the local law of the manor was changeable with the change of the manor, and appeals to the universal law. Contrast that with the state as source of all law that we have.
I do not deny that feudalism had many dark sides. We would not enjoy it. But the above principles are common to all feudal societies and are superior to ours. Of course, this is a political system that survived for over 1000 years across many lands, while ours shows old age dementia after 200 years, and was only stable in the British cultural sphere.
I agree that the corporate anarcho-capitalist model is an attractive goal. I also think that it very closely approximates feudalism. My doubts regarding the anarcap model are that it forgets about the universal church and therefore its success will depend on the success with which the universal church will assert itself in the anarcap world. I see a successful technological society of the future as a form of Christian monarchy.
I am pinging our monarchist master of ceremonies since our conversation took a turn he would, I think, enjoy.