3 ms·

> federated/feudalist network organization, etc. it turns my gears when people describe urbit as 'feudalist'. feudalism is what we have now, where we're serfs

> federated/feudalist network organization, etc. it turns my gears when people describe urbit as 'feudalist'. feudalism is what we have now, where we're serfs on facebook's manor and can't pack our stuff and leave.

centimeter 7y ago
That's not feudalism - serfs/peasants generally had freedom of movement. Urbit is pretty close to feudalism. It's also not putting words in Yarvin's mouth - he's been pretty supportive of feudalism in the past. (Some people have a bad reaction to that, but I don't really care.)
- EthanHeilman 7y ago
  Many serfs could not legally leave the land they were attached to and did not have freedom of movement. Part of the value of that land when it was sold or traded was the serfs bonded to it. This shouldn't be particularly surprising because even some knights were owned by Lords and could be traded or given as gifts to other Lords.
- davidgerard 6y ago
  Urbit was literally designed as feudalism. This is how Yarvin was discussing it in 2010, before multiple passes of bowdlerisation: https://github.com/mbrubeck/urbit/blob/1bc9086a3fd62594e8bd631744cb9bf804f6a43b/Spec/urbit/3-intro.txt#L84-L94 https://github.com/mbrubeck/urbit/blob/1bc9086a3fd62594e8bd6... 3. Fort allocation - digital feudalism Lords are only one class of fort. A fort is always an atom. It is classified by the size of that atom: >= 2^64, < 2^128 : wolf (wild fort) >= 2^32, < 2^64 : pawn (civil fort) >= 2^16, < 2^32 : lord (civil fort) >= 2^8, < 2^16 : earl (civil fort) >= 1, < 256 : duke (civil fort) == 0 : pope (trivial fort)
kragen 7y ago
Urbit's stars, galaxies, etc., were originally called "czar", "duke", "earl", "king", and "pawn". Your issue is not with "people"; it's with Mencius Moldbug, who wrote Urbit. https://github.com/urbit/urbit/blob/cb9977c735f199e143ff58eea93f59e201016f5b/urb/zod/pub/doc/arvo/ames/commentary.md#gcos-identity-description https://github.com/urbit/urbit/blob/cb9977c735f199e143ff58ee...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- nyolfen 7y ago
  is america feudalist for having a drug czar?

centimeter 7y ago

That's not feudalism - serfs/peasants generally had freedom of movement. Urbit is pretty close to feudalism. It's also not putting words in Yarvin's mouth - he's been pretty supportive of feudalism in the past. (Some people have a bad reaction to that, but I don't really care.)

EthanHeilman 7y ago
Many serfs could not legally leave the land they were attached to and did not have freedom of movement. Part of the value of that land when it was sold or traded was the serfs bonded to it. This shouldn't be particularly surprising because even some knights were owned by Lords and could be traded or given as gifts to other Lords.
davidgerard 6y ago
Urbit was literally designed as feudalism. This is how Yarvin was discussing it in 2010, before multiple passes of bowdlerisation: https://github.com/mbrubeck/urbit/blob/1bc9086a3fd62594e8bd631744cb9bf804f6a43b/Spec/urbit/3-intro.txt#L84-L94 https://github.com/mbrubeck/urbit/blob/1bc9086a3fd62594e8bd6... 3. Fort allocation - digital feudalism Lords are only one class of fort. A fort is always an atom. It is classified by the size of that atom: >= 2^64, < 2^128 : wolf (wild fort) >= 2^32, < 2^64 : pawn (civil fort) >= 2^16, < 2^32 : lord (civil fort) >= 2^8, < 2^16 : earl (civil fort) >= 1, < 256 : duke (civil fort) == 0 : pope (trivial fort)

kragen 7y ago

Urbit's stars, galaxies, etc., were originally called "czar", "duke", "earl", "king", and "pawn". Your issue is not with "people"; it's with Mencius Moldbug, who wrote Urbit. https://github.com/urbit/urbit/blob/cb9977c735f199e143ff58eea93f59e201016f5b/urb/zod/pub/doc/arvo/ames/commentary.md#gcos-identity-description https://github.com/urbit/urbit/blob/cb9977c735f199e143ff58ee...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
nyolfen 7y ago
is america feudalist for having a drug czar?