I've found Hoppe's, and others', description of feudalism as a polycentric anarchy intriguing. What good titles are there that would more fully elaborate on these concepts?
Parsidius:I've found Hoppe's, and others', description of feudalism as a polycentric anarchy intriguing. What good titles are there that would more fully elaborate on these concepts?
How the West Grew Rich by RosenBerg and Birdzell was a good book on that topic.
DBratton: Parsidius: I've found Hoppe's, and others', description of feudalism as a polycentric anarchy intriguing. What good titles are there that would more fully elaborate on these concepts? How the West Grew Rich by RosenBerg and Birdzell was a good book on that topic.
Parsidius: I've found Hoppe's, and others', description of feudalism as a polycentric anarchy intriguing. What good titles are there that would more fully elaborate on these concepts?
It sounds interesting. How much of it have you read, and what does it say of feudalism?
Parsidius:It sounds interesting. How much of it have you read, and what does it say of feudalism?
There is only one chapter that deals with the middle ages. It goes into the economics of that period in a way that I think explains why the political structures were fragmented and overlapping.
Fuedalism? Market Anarchy? The same thing? Since when is fuedalism an example of a free market (wasn't it the developement of the industrial market that broke fuedalism down)? Sounds to me like a sneaky attempt to sell monarchy (one ruler) as being anarchy (no rulers), which simply makes no sense in terms of the literal meanings of the words. I will say that I agree with Hoppe's criticism of democracy, and indeed monarchy (again, one ruler) is preferable to polyarchy (multiple rulers, which is what governmental democracy really is, simply expanding the amount of rulers if anything) but I find that he overlooks the real-life horrors of monarchy, treating it far too lightly and romantically. Life under monarchy was no apple pie.
I will go further and say that while I agree with the benefits of local governance as compared to the distant ivory tower of more centralizaed governance, there are also certain aspects of localized governance that constitute a unique tyranny of its own (in particular, the tyranny of localized governance is more direct, the most direct being familial and the tribal being secondary in the directness of its tyranny). I suppose that I've revised my views on local vs. distant government to see that there are unique disadvantages of both. In either case, I would never confuse localized governance with anarchy.
Hoppe does not advocate feudalism, though he does demonstrate that to a large extent, it, and subsequent monarchies, perhaps until Louis XIV, are more able than democracy to protect property rights. He (rightly) considers both deficient though. It is only natural that life would be harsher in the Middle Ages, however, what with less economic development. Of interest is that Hoppe links Europe's relatively decentralized power structure to its massive subsequent economic development. But feudalism is NOT market anarchism, and one should not take Hoppe as saying such.
For more on feudalism, I suggest following the sources Hoppe referenced. De Jouvenel's works on the matter, the Oxford History of the Middle Ages etc. should all be good sources of information.
Inquisitor: Hoppe does not advocate feudalism, though he does demonstrate that to a large extent, it, and subsequent monarchies, perhaps until Louis XIV, are more able than democracy to protect property rights. He (rightly) considers both deficient though. It is only natural that life would be harsher in the Middle Ages, however, what with less economic development. Of interest is that Hoppe links Europe's relatively decentralized power structure to its massive subsequent economic development. But feudalism is NOT market anarchism, and one should not take Hoppe as saying such. For more on feudalism, I suggest following the sources Hoppe referenced. De Jouvenel's works on the matter, the Oxford History of the Middle Ages etc. should all be good sources of information.
Just to clarify: Sure, I didn't mean to accuse Hoppe of advocating fuedal monarchy or equating it to an anarchy. But I hope you can see how the casual reader could easily get that impression. I still stand by my statement that he treats it far too lightly. And I do think that some people have used Hoppe's works as ammunition for argueing in favor of such systems, even if that was not Hoppe's intent.
Yes, I don't disagree on that. There was this Islamist radical (anti-capitalist, no less) citing his work with much approval. My first thought was, had this individual read the work properly they'd realize that no such conclusions as they inferred flowed from its contents. Too many of Hoppe's critics and fans have misinterpreted his works. I'll stop here though in order to digress no further.
Brainpolice: Inquisitor: Hoppe does not advocate feudalism, though he does demonstrate that to a large extent, it, and subsequent monarchies, perhaps until Louis XIV, are more able than democracy to protect property rights. He (rightly) considers both deficient though. It is only natural that life would be harsher in the Middle Ages, however, what with less economic development. Of interest is that Hoppe links Europe's relatively decentralized power structure to its massive subsequent economic development. But feudalism is NOT market anarchism, and one should not take Hoppe as saying such. For more on feudalism, I suggest following the sources Hoppe referenced. De Jouvenel's works on the matter, the Oxford History of the Middle Ages etc. should all be good sources of information. Just to clarify: Sure, I didn't mean to accuse Hoppe of advocating fuedal monarchy or equating it to an anarchy. But I hope you can see how the casual reader could easily get that impression. I still stand by my statement that he treats it far too lightly. And I do think that some people have used Hoppe's works as ammunition for argueing in favor of such systems, even if that was not Hoppe's intent.
But I am pretty sure that Hoppe described feudalism as being a proximation of natural order in the last chapter of DTGTF, the impossibility of limited government, where he talks about colonial America and compares it to early feudal Europe. (I don't have the page number, as I gave out my copy of the book to someone else.)
Brainpolice:Fuedalism? Market Anarchy? The same thing? Since when is fuedalism an example of a free market (wasn't it the developement of the industrial market that broke fuedalism down)? Sounds to me like a sneaky attempt to sell monarchy (one ruler) as being anarchy (no rulers), which simply makes no sense in terms of the literal meanings of the words. I will say that I agree with Hoppe's criticism of democracy, and indeed monarchy (again, one ruler) is preferable to polyarchy (multiple rulers, which is what governmental democracy really is, simply expanding the amount of rulers if anything) but I find that he overlooks the real-life horrors of monarchy, treating it far too lightly and romantically. Life under monarchy was no apple pie.
Kings were not strictly speaking rulers until the modern age. Under medieval feudalism, the king was only a military executive. He did not have the power to make law, and therefore could not tax. He was chosen as the wealthiest noble for his capacity to raise a large chunk of the army, but he did not himself command an army. The army was the nobility. (This is the origin of the institution of buying military commissions, a privilege reserved to the aristocracy in order to reign in the power of the king to use the army against them.) Feudalism went to hell with the reformation, the French king gaining enormous power during the civil wars, which was then used to fuel the war in Germany that created the patchwork of mini-states there. In England on the other hand the nobility overthrew its king in the Glorious Revolution, but enshrined power in a parliament that eventually became a centralized state of its own.
On Power by Bertrand de Jouvenel and Rise and Decline of the State by Martin van Creveld detail the process of transformation from feudalism to monarchy, but they do not go into detail on the relationships that characterized feudalism. I've always hoped Hoppe would say something about this.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger:Kings were not strictly speaking rulers until the modern age. Under medieval feudalism, the king was only a military executive. He did not have the power to make law, and therefore could not tax. He was chosen as the wealthiest noble for his capacity to raise a large chunk of the army, but he did not himself command an army. The army was the nobility. (This is the origin of the institution of buying military commissions, a privilege reserved to the aristocracy in order to reign in the power of the king to use the army against them.) Feudalism went to hell with the reformation, the French king gaining enormous power during the civil wars, which was then used to fuel the war in Germany that created the patchwork of mini-states there. In England on the other hand the nobility overthrew its king in the Glorious Revolution, but enshrined power in a parliament that eventually became a centralized state of its own.
A king was also the ultimate judge in his realm.
I think the black death had more to do with setting feudalism on the path to destruction than the reformation. It transformed the economy of Europe and led to rebellions against the secular authorities, which in turn led to the reformation. I think the reformatin was in the cause-effect chain, but I don't think it was at the root.
Kings were not strictly speaking rulers until the modern age.
Nonsense. A king is a ruler, no matter how moderate you make kings seem to be in comparison to contemporary rulers.
Under medieval feudalism, the king was only a military executive.
A ruler all the same, no matter how passively so. Medieval fuedalism was not an anarchy. Period.
I even question wether the Icelandic commonwealth truly counts as an anarchy, despite its polycentric nature. It certainly is an interesting thing to study and it certainly counts as a highly polycentric system, but it falls short of anarchy.
Brainpolice:Nonsense. A king is a ruler, no matter how moderate you make kings seem to be in comparison to contemporary rulers.
Even the King of Pop?
Stranger: Brainpolice: Nonsense. A king is a ruler, no matter how moderate you make kings seem to be in comparison to contemporary rulers. Even the King of Pop?
Brainpolice: Nonsense. A king is a ruler, no matter how moderate you make kings seem to be in comparison to contemporary rulers.
Mwahaha. Nah, not a ruler, just a weirdo.
Brainpolice:Kings were not strictly speaking rulers until the modern age. Nonsense. A king is a ruler, no matter how moderate you make kings seem to be in comparison to contemporary rulers. Under medieval feudalism, the king was only a military executive. A ruler all the same, no matter how passively so. Medieval fuedalism was not an anarchy. Period.
The medieval word was filled with independent political and social authorities whose titles were as good as the king's. The church, the guilds, the towns, various political subdivisions all had overlapping and divided sovereignty. They were willing and able to defend their rights against encroachment even by the king. It was not anarchy; but it was a world in which the monarchs were very weak. These guys didn't have the ability to tax. They didn't have standing armies (or police forces), and they didn't have the power of universal conscription.
The word "ruler" just means judge. This is the function that served a usefull purpose to the nobility. It is the reason why societies throughout history have created and then tolerated Kings.
DBratton: The medieval word was filled with independent political and social authorities whose titles were as good as the king's. The church, the guilds, the towns, various political subdivisions all had overlapping and divided sovereignty. They were willing and able to defend their rights against encroachment even by the king. It was not anarchy; but it was a world in which the monarchs were very weak. These guys didn't have the ability to tax. They didn't have standing armies (or police forces), and they didn't have the power of universal conscription. The word "ruler" just means judge. This is the function that served a usefull purpose to the nobility. It is the reason why societies throughout history have created and then tolerated Kings.
I also found some interesting works on the political theory of the middle ages:http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/carlyle/Political Theories of the Middle Age Caspar Bluntschli also touches on the issue:http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/bluntschli/index.htmlCarlyle, Gierke, Bluntschli and some others seem to be interesting authors on this. Augustin Thierry is another one: http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1958&Itemid=28
I can have a look whether I'll find more authors.
A good primer about feudalism can be found in Discovery of Freedom by Rose Wilder Lane.
Its important to understand that Feudalism was eventually crushed by monarchies, except for in England.
Peace
I hate historical romanticism.
Brainpolice: I hate historical romanticism.
Torsten: Brainpolice: I hate historical romanticism. And I hate retardisms
I thought long and hard about the right word to reply to him and I never succeeded at finding a more appropriate quip than retardism. I applaud you.
Seriously, what some of you people are doing is painting a pretty picture of an ugly system and idolizing the past. Romantisizing the past leads in the direction of primitivism. But if you genuinely think that fuedalism was some sort of utopia of freedom, fine, go try to bring it back. But don't complain to me when you find that your attempt fails and that you're wasting your time.
Brainpolice:But if you genuinely think that fuedalism was some sort of utopia of freedom
But if you genuinely think that fuedalism was some sort of utopia of freedom
No one has suggested that.
Brainpolice:Seriously, what some of you people are doing is painting a pretty picture of an ugly system and idolizing the past. Romantisizing the past leads in the direction of primitivism.
The other writers are right in that there is much of disinformation about culture, society and politics of the middle ages - the Dark Ages, if you won't. Actually Dark Ages refers to the period of ~600 to 900 - The reason being the lack of available literature from this time.Well people were rather preoccupied with warfare since the political order had to be reshaped after the Fall of the Roman Empire.
Personally I don't think that feudalism was a more "ugly system" then i.e. our present day democracy. What interests me is the underlying social philosophy and it's inner working. I also get the impression that you are a staunch believer in social progress in the sense that you believe that any era and its social system is always better then the prior eras and their social systems.
Concerning social orders I found an interesting program at econtalk.org: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2007/08/weingast_on_vio.html