4 ms·
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'
by centimeter 6y 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 6y agoMany 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 agoUrbit 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)