Territorial loyalty is a must in the modernt nation-state, and comes on top of individual loyalties we might have. Indeed it is apples and oranges, and I like oranges. I understand that the feudal society had severe limitations and so territory mattered in the practical sense a lot. But the principles of society were that land is something to be owned, and security arrangements is something pursued between individuals. It is the same merit many anarchists see in the capitalist model of corporate loyalty. If the state went away, we would be freer, and we would exchange labor and goods for security that corporate entities (like Securitas in your mall or your employer) provide professionally on the free market. That system would follow the feudal model in the modern world.
these [political] rights that afford the greatest quality of life to all
Our quality of life is afforded by the technological advances, not by the political system. Besides my thesis is not that feudalism had quality of life but that feudals were freer than citizens.
what "the church" is, was not explained
I am talking exclusively about Medieval Europe, so the church would be Catholic. The system of law in the Middle Ages was very complex and included fundamental divine law promulgated by the church and overlapping jurisdictions of the manor law and the king's court. It was a well balanced system. I don't think abuses like the juducial diktat of the Supreme Court in the abortion legislation, or like the Schiavo case when sloppy discovery of fact by an incompetent judge of lower jurisdiction would be impossible to overturn no matter how gross the injustice, -- would have been possible if moral considerations were built into the system as they were in the Middle Ages.
It becomes clear from the rest of your post that you are a minarchist libertarian and have the same problem with anarcho-capitalism as you would with feudalism. Perhaps we should simply be discussing the scepticism toward democratic state as expressed by H.H. Hoppe rather than attempting the greater challenge of discussing feudalism.
Who says? The Libertarian Party Statement of Principles clearly denies this by implication. The national platform of the Libertarian Party specifically denies this. While it is true that the United States government has operated as you say at least since the forming of the old House Committee on UnAmerican Activities, that does not make your assumption philosophically accurate. This is fundamental error in your premise.
Another fundamental error is that "quality of life is afforded by the technological advances, not by the political system." While technological advances have immensely improved our quality of life, there is plenty of history to show that political systems have more than equally effected our over all quality of life even more so. Moreover, it was changes and improvements in the political systems, that increased the rate of technology advancements.
Your claim that "feudals" were more free, runs counter to everything I've read in history. Even if we make a peculiar definition for "feudals" (which you did not define), as being only the lords, we will find that their freedom was much less than what a commoner has in a modern nation state. I even go as far as to claim that the Royals did not have the freedom that commoners of today have, even after accounting for the technological differences.
Your suggestion that the overlapping jurisdictions of the Catholic Church law, kings courts and manor law, were a well balanced system is only as true as viewing the total chaos of its lack of continuity, lack of fairness, and uncertainty of outcome, could be called balanced. There is nothing bad that our legislatures or courts have done today that would not have been quite likely and common place in that system, where all pretense to popular involvement in decision making are discarded, and almost all decisions are based on favoritism and power plays.
Now I'm not saying that there were not some golden decades in particular jurisdictions during feudalism. But all those were short lived, rarely ever lasting even two decades. Feudalism brought order and security to a chaos that was unendurable, much the same as the Taliban brought security and order to the chaos of Afghanistan. Beyond that, there is little else worthy of consideration that came out of it, relates to the politics of human relations.
Woops. There is a concept of sovereign and protected classes of people, that I think is worthy of consideration in as far as defining the rights of children, handicapped, the aged, and anyone else desiring trade decision making rights for certain kinds of security that may be afforded a protected class.