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.
That's all we get out of the courts to start with. Only, under the current system, the cowardly lawyers play the tournaments in a way that gives them a win even when they lose.
Zounds like you are proposing more of the same.
The current system is that of a nation-state. LP is a revolutionary party that seeks to subvert the system. In this particular instance I agree with LP. You cannot use LP's platfrom to describe the current system. Their proposal is radical; so is appreciation of the feudalism that I advocate.
I assume that you are talking about ultimate justice or justice of last resort also.
I am not sure what that really entails. The Middle Ages had a distributed system of justice, -- not merely hierarchical like ours, but distributed, so that the Divine Law operates across political boundaries, and self-government prevailed in local matters.
how a feudalism or monarchy, can possibly create a system of collective defense that is not based upon state monopoly
The feudal system was that a village or an individual could contract out their defense, offering their services or resources in consideration. This, -- not designations like "France" or "Spain", -- determined the perimeter of collective defense. That is superior.
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.
True, they failed. They did so because they did not look into the other component of feudalism: the permeation of Divine Law through the supranational church. Anarchism alone is not a workable system. Anarchism coupled with common culture of objective truth is.
It was states that first instituted free markets.
You call yourself libertarian? The state helps a free market by providing a system of contract law. But contract law does not necessarily mean the state. We have successful system of international trade which by definition operates outside of any one state, even today.
Where [hereditary rights] 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
Any right has that effect. If you inherit a farm today, you are restricted to be a farmer, or you sell it. The common avenue for advancement was religious orders and military careers. They were then a way to abandon what was secured by birthright in favor of something risky, and also potentially more rewarding. I don't ses much difference between that and the limitations the working class kids have in choosing their career today. The good thing about rights is that they secure benefits; one who wants to venture outside of the secure perimeter find little value in rights, today or a thousand years ago. However, a medieval man knew that his birthright could not be taken away legally. today, we don't have that knowledge, because of the democratic system of right distribution.
Hereditary rights were complemented with privileges, just as today. Some rights had a democratic origin -- for example, the early Germanic kings wer elected. So, it is perhaps true that the hereditary system was fluid, but the underlying system of birthright afforded greater security to the individual.