Very good for them, but we are not arguing over the LP platform. We are arguing over policies currently implemented. For the past 500 years loyalty was to the territorially-defined state. The US Constitution mentions just one crime by name and that is treason. And for a good reason, because the way thew system of defense of individual rights and justice is implemented is through the state. One cannot choose to be judged by French laws and live in Spain. HCUAC has not invented anything new. It is just that, for example, the Communist or Taliban sympathizers were prosecuted by our state, under the political system we have there is no better alternative. But the system of collective defense not based on the state monopoly of justuce is also possible, we just don't have it. It is, I think, coming, and elements of feudalism and monarchy will play a central role in it.
Individual procurement of defense on the free market is not possible unless anarchy is implemented and law is separated from the state. I am glad the LP recognizes it, -- if in fact it does.
political systems have more than equally [a]ffected our over all quality of life
Surely as a libertarian you would agree with me that technological progress is a function of the free market, so the political system affects it inasmuch as it supports the free market. But political constraints on the free market were first imposed by the nation-state.
Even if we make a peculiar definition for "feudals" (which you did not define), as being only the lords
I did mention that I did not speak for the serfs which of course were not free, -- although even they had specific rights. All other members of the feudal society -- the lords, and merchants, the crafstmen, the peasant churls, the clergy -- had well defined hereditary rights which could not be taken away legally, and which could be increased if one upgraded his social class. Those rights were unequal. We might consider that a drawback. But they were also immutable, because they were hereditary. That is something we lost.
I suspect that you go by popular history which makes a caricature of feudalism, and rarely is interested in the principles of the feudal society. It tends to play up the violence, the bizarre customs, and the lack of creature comforts. We should be looking beyond those.
Wrong! While we have definitely not been arguing over the LP platform, what we have been arguing over is replacing a system because of particular short falls in it. My reference to the LP platform was only to give an example of showing that particular short comings in the system are not by definition a part of the system. In other words, the system could just as well exist with out all the particular faults you refer to. It was those faults we were discussing.
But the system of collective defense not based on the state monopoly of justuce is also possible, we just don't have it. It is, I think, coming, and elements of feudalism and monarchy will play a central role in it.
Clarity is need here. By a "system of collective defense," I assume you mean ultimate defense, in other words defense of last or highest resort. I qualify this, as all kinds of collective defenses are allowable under a state monopoly of justice system. Additionally, no state has ever had a monopoly of justice. States only have a monopoly of ultimate justice. Thus I assume that you are talking about ultimate justice or justice of last resort also.
If that be what you mean, then I have to ask just how a feudalism or monarchy, can possibly create a system of collective defense that is not based upon state monopoly, as they have become the state monopoly them selves.
Individual procurement of defense on the free market is not possible unless anarchy is implemented and law is separated from the state. I am glad the LP recognizes it, -- if in fact it does.
I do not agree that the LP recognizes this, only that it currently allows for it. I also do not agree that "individual procurement of defense on the free market is not possible unless anarchy is implemented and law is separated from the state." Unless of course, you are referring to the ultimate I described in my last paragraph. Murrey Rothbard, in his Libertarian Manifesto, attempted to explain how such an anarchist system would work, but in my opinion failed at addressing the ultimate question.
Quite possibly an ultimate lottery system could ultimately provide a solution to Rothbard's failure, but I find that wholly unacceptable. Of course we could have a tournament joust for it I suppose.
...political constraints on the free market were first imposed by the nation-state.
It was states that first instituted free markets. They were also those who often restricted and eliminated them. Nation-states, are only a broader continuation of that which had been going on before.
feudal society... had well defined hereditary rights which could not be taken away legally, and which could be increased if one upgraded his social class. Those rights were unequal. We might consider that a drawback. But they were also immutable, because they were hereditary. That is something we lost.
Hereditary rights were not as all common place in feudal societies as you propose here. Where they were common place, they were also quite restrictive, often keeping people from doing what they could do best, while locking them economically into vocations that were not of their calling. Hereditary rights were a short lived, overall disaster. They were constantly the subject of debate, and were only completely instituted towards the end of feudalism as a last resort by those wanting to hold on to what was already falling into decline.
Even the monarchist system that came out of feudalism was not entirely based upon hereditary rights, and where those rights were propagated, challenges were constant and prevented it from being fully implemented. "The divine right of kings" was more political propaganda of its time, than it was accepted truth, and was also not enforce to the extent that many believe it was.
In short hereditary rights were not universally accepted or in place during the feudal or monarchist periods. Where absolutely put in place, they were quite restrictive and quickly modified so as to make possible enough profitable labor to enable society to survive. They were constantly debated, and never fully accept in Europe. If you think they were, then it is you that has been reading to much popular history.