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.
You cannot use LP's platfrom to describe the current system.
But I did not use it to describe the current system. What I said, that you seemed to miss, was that "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 that system." That is not the same as using the platform to describe the system.
Speaking about ultimate or highest justice (the justice of last resort), you say you are "not sure what that really entails." I brought it in as I said for "clarity." This I thought was necessary, as you were speaking of a "system of collective defense" Since I pointed out that we already have such systems (plural) independently existing with in the current state system, as they also exists independently in all types of governmental systems, and you were using the the phrase "a system" (in a singular and not plural sense), I felt clarity was needed. I brought it up in relationship to your statement in reply #381 that a "...system of collective defense not based on the state monopoly of justice is also possible, we just don't have it." But we do have it. As you so elegantly pointed it out when you cited "Securitas" in your reply #279. I was thus left to conclude that the system you spoke of (in the singular) was a system based upon a highest justice, which would be a state monopoly of the highest justice, as opposed to all other levels of justice that are not monopolized. In other words, a court of last resort.
Your claim that 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," clearly sounds like a hierarchical super state monopoly to me. At any rate as far as this actually existing in a consistent and meaningful manner, so as to provide basic rights of any kind, to any one, in the middle ages, I cannot agree with in any respect. My disagreement here is so total, that with out further specificity as to when, where, and what it is you are talking about, my answer could go on for volumes and still not deal directly with what you are saying. Quite possibly, it might be in order here, for you to be specific as to a couple of neighboring regions, a particular 3 decade period of time, so as we may be able to more precisely discuss it.
I raised the question of "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." You replied by quoting my question out of context, leaving off the last phrase of it. In doing so, you enabled a switch from the singular to the plural, and then gave an answer that could quite easily apply to the current state system, as it would to a feudal system. Again I refer you to your own example of "Securitas."
Then you returned to the singular concept of state monopoly justice when quoting my statement that Rothbard failed, by agreeing with me for all together different reasons. Here you quite specifically put a "supernational" church up as having the monopoly on justice in a single state system, as the final authority on law. Further stating that Anarchism coupled with common culture of objective truth (that is church authority on law) is workable. I don't agree. But more importantly, a church ran state is not anarchy in any sense of the word.
You quote me saying "it was states that first instituted free markets." But you left out that I also went on to say that they (the states) were "also those who often restricted and eliminated them" (the free markets). Leaving this out, made it easy for you to come back with the question: "You call yourself libertarian?" You then went on to concede that "the state helps a free market by providing a system of contract law." States did a lot more than that. It may be worth noting here, that the few free markets that ever existed in history, it was a banding together of the people into a state that made it possible in almost all cases. No pure monarchy that I know of ever allowed a free market. England never actually had a free market, as many believe it did.
Of course I agree that contract law does not necessarily mean the state. But your example of international trade operating out side any one state by definition, does not exclude the state(s) from making it possible. International trade also does not necessarily have anything to do with a free market by definition. State imposed franchise trade arrangements and other barriers have always dominated international trade, even to this day.
Finally, your contention that restrictions in live that were common place during feudalism were not that much different from todays restrictions, except that hereditary rights were somehow more secure, just is not true in any respect.
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.
First off, if one inherits a farm today, they need not sell it or become a farmer, to pursue a different vocation. Today a lower middle class or working class person can pursue several vocations simultaneously, and need never settle on any one or two vocations. They can even become a bit of a jack of all trades and do so just about any where in the world they want to, and still be welcome back into the community they started out from as a visitor or to conduct business on a part time or full time basis. This was not possible during any of the unspecified medieval times you speak of. Further more the rights you speak of were not even close to being as common place as you think, but all the restrictions were.