Replies

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.

I agree that the corporate anarcho-capitalist model is an attractive goal.

"I agree..." was not appropriate to what I said. I did not say that I saw any corporate anarcho-capitalist model as an attractive goal. I'd rather stay with the current mess. The rest of your reply I'll answer later or tomorrow.

I don't have time at the moment to study and respond to this thread, but I'll ping the crew and take a look at it later. Glory of Altar and Throne ping for the “Crown Crew”

FReepmail me to get on or off this list

In your reply #267 to me you state (in the present tense) "why feudalism is fundamentally a society of free men..." Then you go on to list three reasons (in the past tense) indicating a continuity with your prior historical replies, which I had already challenged. Your first reason implies that civil allegiances were based upon "oath of loyalty between two men," that were "was available often without travel." To this you say: "Contrast that with territorial loyalty to the transcendent state." This is first off an apple and orange comparison, as the latter does not deny the former. It also implies that loyalty requirements of the feudal period were not territorial, where as for the most part they were. It also overlooks the fact that cross territory loyalties are far more available and less restrictive under what you call the "transcendent state," than they could ever be in a feudal system.

In your second reason you state "rights were hereditary." That was only true when they were enforced as such. But in either case, your suggestion to contrast those rights with "our nominally inalienable rights subject to court interpretation and legislation," is a good question. I've done so, as did many others a little more than two hundred years ago. Though not perfect, and in need of many improvements, it is these later rights that afford the greatest quality of life to all (except of course to those who view the only worthy quality of life exists in some long lost desire to kill others in pursuit of some valoric tradition or honor).

The third reason you gave proposes some kind of unexplained virtue in having morality and law inseparable, and coming from some "universal teaching of the church." Of course what "the church" is, was not explained. Again, you ask: "Contrast that with the state as source of all law that we have." Again, recognizing a need for continued improvements, as well as exceptions, the latter has given us much better and stabler law, than the former ever did.

You then went on to say that the principles you cited "are common to all feudal societies and are superior to ours." I can't imagine what was superior about it to ours. Your claim that it was a "political system that survived for over 1000 years across many lands," also is not true. It actually was a grouping of many systems, with the various forms quite often being more different from each other, than many of them are different from the North Korean feudal system.

I agree that the corporate anarcho-capitalist model "very closely approximates feudalism," especially if carried to full term. That to me is the number one draw back or fault with anarcho-capitalistism. Furthermore, much of libertarianism, including many of the more popular minarchist models lead directly to feudal monarchist systems as well. But those are not the only libertarian minarchist models.

At any rate, hiding these calculations of the effect of libertarian policy is wrong, and actually hurts the LP over the long run. Thus I welcome the shining of light on these bugs and will continue to do so myself until they have all been completely exposed and worked out.

And I am a Libertarian.