3 ms·

> The world needs to return to feudalism Traditionally feudal lords have aimed mostly spend the minimal amount possible on welfare for their serfs - staving of

> The world needs to return to feudalism Traditionally feudal lords have aimed mostly spend the minimal amount possible on welfare for their serfs - staving off social unrest but keeping for themselves as much as possible of the GDP subject to that constraint. Are you suggesting that neofeudalism will somehow do better in this respect? Or simply that that would be better than what we have now? > is less likely to turn lawless What's meant by this? It might true in the tautological sense that the despot acts within the law by definition, whatever he does. But I sense that's not what you mean.

clock_tower 10y ago
> Will some sort of neo-feudalism do better than historical feudalism? I think that what I'm groping towards by saying "neo-feudalism" is the existing European social model with the optional addition of ermine capes, as someone else commented below... This discussion has actually taught me a few things, and I don't have a pre-existing opinion here. > Kings and lawlessness A president's timeframe is likely to be "until the end of my term in office," at least if the behaviors of the last few presidents are any indication; a king's timeframe is, at least, "until the end of my life", more likely "forever" since he's handing off the kingdom to his children. (Or she to her children in a queen's case.) This should make it easier to resist panic and opinion polls, and make decisions that pay off in the long term -- like remaining a good country to surrender to. On the other hand, when a king goes wrong it's hard to stop him -- especially in a context where the king has most of the country's military power. (And decentralized military power creates its own problems; the French religious wars, for example, lasted 80 years and ended in autocracy.) A tyrannical elected leader (like Hitler) could secure power just as solidly as a tyrannical king could, so elections are no protection there, but what about an incompetent king versus an incompetent elected leader? Get a president with bad judgement, it'll be over in four or eight years; get a king with bad judgement and your country might be permanently wrecked. So, I'll revise my previous statement: the world needs the European social model, but should probably stay about as democratic as Europe probably is now. But I stand my position that "capitalism is the problem" means that there are multiple other choices that can be looked at, not just communism. Problems with communism don't mean that capitalism is flawless; and problems with capitalism don't mean that we should abolish private property. Or maybe what I'm groping towards is this: if people behave responsibly, things will probably be all right, but if they don't, things will go badly. But that's what Confucius said, and his system ended up as a cloak for autocracy...
- TheCoelacanth 10y ago
  Hitler wasn't actually elected. He was appointed by the elected leader.
- prawn 10y ago
  I'm trying to imagine a system whereby as much power is removed from a corruptible entity as possible. Could the king in your scenario be a set of algorithms? Someone on HN previously pointed me towards this: https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/futarchy.html https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/futarchy.html "Elected representatives would formally define and manage an after-the-fact measurement of national welfare, while market speculators would say which policies they expect to raise national welfare."
  - clock_tower 10y ago
    At least in the Middle Ages, there were algorithms that reigned over the king. A king had an executive role (comparable to a US president, greater than a parliamentary prime minister), but was constrained by customary law -- which is fancy-speak for "the way we've always done things," but even so, it meant there were things a king couldn't do. One of the issues Barbara Tuchman mentions in _A Distant Mirror_ is the way in which the French king could only levy a tax on the whole realm when at war, and even then couldn't continue it after the war ended -- the expectation being that "the king will live of his own," i.e. support himself from his personal estates, at peace. Going forward in history, that's why the Carlists in 19th-century Spain were both pro-autocracy and fighting for their liberties: they preferred a king who was the absolute monarch of a half-dozen countries (Castile, Leon, Navarre, Galicia, Aragon, and Andalusia), instead of a centralized federal government in which none of the kingdoms had special privileges (note that Carlism was strongest in the northern parts of Spain) and all kingdoms' subjects were administered impartially from Madrid.

clock_tower 10y ago

> Will some sort of neo-feudalism do better than historical feudalism? I think that what I'm groping towards by saying "neo-feudalism" is the existing European social model with the optional addition of ermine capes, as someone else commented below... This discussion has actually taught me a few things, and I don't have a pre-existing opinion here. > Kings and lawlessness A president's timeframe is likely to be "until the end of my term in office," at least if the behaviors of the last few presidents are any indication; a king's timeframe is, at least, "until the end of my life", more likely "forever" since he's handing off the kingdom to his children. (Or she to her children in a queen's case.) This should make it easier to resist panic and opinion polls, and make decisions that pay off in the long term -- like remaining a good country to surrender to. On the other hand, when a king goes wrong it's hard to stop him -- especially in a context where the king has most of the country's military power. (And decentralized military power creates its own problems; the French religious wars, for example, lasted 80 years and ended in autocracy.) A tyrannical elected leader (like Hitler) could secure power just as solidly as a tyrannical king could, so elections are no protection there, but what about an incompetent king versus an incompetent elected leader? Get a president with bad judgement, it'll be over in four or eight years; get a king with bad judgement and your country might be permanently wrecked. So, I'll revise my previous statement: the world needs the European social model, but should probably stay about as democratic as Europe probably is now. But I stand my position that "capitalism is the problem" means that there are multiple other choices that can be looked at, not just communism. Problems with communism don't mean that capitalism is flawless; and problems with capitalism don't mean that we should abolish private property. Or maybe what I'm groping towards is this: if people behave responsibly, things will probably be all right, but if they don't, things will go badly. But that's what Confucius said, and his system ended up as a cloak for autocracy...

TheCoelacanth 10y ago
Hitler wasn't actually elected. He was appointed by the elected leader.
prawn 10y ago
I'm trying to imagine a system whereby as much power is removed from a corruptible entity as possible. Could the king in your scenario be a set of algorithms? Someone on HN previously pointed me towards this: https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/futarchy.html https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/futarchy.html "Elected representatives would formally define and manage an after-the-fact measurement of national welfare, while market speculators would say which policies they expect to raise national welfare."
- clock_tower 10y ago
  At least in the Middle Ages, there were algorithms that reigned over the king. A king had an executive role (comparable to a US president, greater than a parliamentary prime minister), but was constrained by customary law -- which is fancy-speak for "the way we've always done things," but even so, it meant there were things a king couldn't do. One of the issues Barbara Tuchman mentions in _A Distant Mirror_ is the way in which the French king could only levy a tax on the whole realm when at war, and even then couldn't continue it after the war ended -- the expectation being that "the king will live of his own," i.e. support himself from his personal estates, at peace. Going forward in history, that's why the Carlists in 19th-century Spain were both pro-autocracy and fighting for their liberties: they preferred a king who was the absolute monarch of a half-dozen countries (Castile, Leon, Navarre, Galicia, Aragon, and Andalusia), instead of a centralized federal government in which none of the kingdoms had special privileges (note that Carlism was strongest in the northern parts of Spain) and all kingdoms' subjects were administered impartially from Madrid.