3 ms·

That's a straw man. We live in a far more complex world today, one that you can't simplify down to "being neighbors with royalty", but I see how attaching to t

by danans 6y ago

That's a straw man. We live in a far more complex world today, one that you can't simplify down to "being neighbors with royalty", but I see how attaching to that one concrete aspect serves the purpose of distracting from the reality that power acts in many dimensions and physical space is only one of them. Human rights, equal opportunity to gain access to a humanistic standard of living, political representation in proportion to your vote, freedom from persecution by the 'royalty' or their security forces, all of those can be achieved without living next to any erstwhile 'king'.

jelliclesfarm 6y ago
I don’t see how it’s a straw man. I was only using your own words. Ok. Rewording: more purchasing power buys a nicer home in a nicer area and lower purchasing power in a less nice area with not as much amenities. It is entirely acceptable and rational. What does human rights have to do with it. Your average start up CEO/founder(‘royalty’)can live in a nicer home than a Walmart greeter(‘peasantry’) Women didn’t have voting rights at one time. Neither did indentured slaves. Is this true anymore?
- danans 6y ago
  > Ok. Rewording: more purchasing power buys a nicer home in a nicer area and lower purchasing power in a less nice area with not as much amenities. It's irrelevant to the question of whether a feudal system of land ownership is the best one. The outcome you are describing - variation in purchasing power of luxuries - is a normal thing in societies that more fairly distribute opportunity. For example, Scandinavian countries do not have complete equality by any stretch of the imagination. That's not the scenario described in the article nor does it describe the magnitude and rigidity of the phenomenon in feudal societies.
  - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
    The article is a record of history. Are we comparing now to centuries ago? It wasn’t a feudal society. Smaller kingdoms had a feudal relationship to empires during that era. There is sufficient historical record of Kautilya’s arthshastra. To be honest, I am confused at this point. I don’t understand the import of your post. Sorry. Maybe it’s my deficit in understanding? I posted the article to discuss land use and management/urban planning of that time. Would you like to comment on that?
    - danans 6y ago
      > I posted the article to discuss land use and management/urban planning of that time Just a few comments back you wrote: > Do you think ‘the peasantry’ should be neighbors with royalty? I don’t see it ever happening. Ever That sure sounds like it is discussing the present and the future. > I posted the article to discuss land use and management/urban planning of that time. Would you like to comment on that? I did. Read my first comment above. Also the article literally concludes by asking the question about how the ancient text is applicable to the present: "How much do we alter the policies for growth of the human settlements, the basic principles are bound to remain constant so long as they address a wholesome development of the human kind. What do we learn from the past surely depends on how we look at it. Kautilya Arthashastra, also commonly known as the Kuta-niti, has been referred mainly for its significance in the political history of India. Hence there is a common misconception that it deals only with the tricks and tactics pertaining to the state politics. Secondly, with the changing face of politics in the modern times it is seen as a great document only for all those in the field of public vote capturing. The few principles discussed above may seem very general but the way they are proposed to be implemented follows the principles for making a cohesive society."
      - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
        I wrote a couple of replies and then I deleted it. I am interested in the urban planning and not the caste bashing. Why? I am a Brahmin. I will not engage in baseless debates about people of my faith and about my ancestors with faceless strangers on the interwebs. I find myself unable to make sweeping and broad generalizations. So this wouldn’t be a fair or valid discussion. Thanks for your input. Take care.
- pkphilip 6y ago
  Except that in India even if you had wealth but if you happened to be in the wrong caste, you couldn't buy a house next to the priest class or royalty.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

by danans 6y ago

jelliclesfarm 6y ago

I don’t see how it’s a straw man. I was only using your own words. Ok. Rewording: more purchasing power buys a nicer home in a nicer area and lower purchasing power in a less nice area with not as much amenities. It is entirely acceptable and rational. What does human rights have to do with it. Your average start up CEO/founder(‘royalty’)can live in a nicer home than a Walmart greeter(‘peasantry’) Women didn’t have voting rights at one time. Neither did indentured slaves. Is this true anymore?

danans 6y ago
> Ok. Rewording: more purchasing power buys a nicer home in a nicer area and lower purchasing power in a less nice area with not as much amenities. It's irrelevant to the question of whether a feudal system of land ownership is the best one. The outcome you are describing - variation in purchasing power of luxuries - is a normal thing in societies that more fairly distribute opportunity. For example, Scandinavian countries do not have complete equality by any stretch of the imagination. That's not the scenario described in the article nor does it describe the magnitude and rigidity of the phenomenon in feudal societies.
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  The article is a record of history. Are we comparing now to centuries ago? It wasn’t a feudal society. Smaller kingdoms had a feudal relationship to empires during that era. There is sufficient historical record of Kautilya’s arthshastra. To be honest, I am confused at this point. I don’t understand the import of your post. Sorry. Maybe it’s my deficit in understanding? I posted the article to discuss land use and management/urban planning of that time. Would you like to comment on that?
  - danans 6y ago
    > I posted the article to discuss land use and management/urban planning of that time Just a few comments back you wrote: > Do you think ‘the peasantry’ should be neighbors with royalty? I don’t see it ever happening. Ever That sure sounds like it is discussing the present and the future. > I posted the article to discuss land use and management/urban planning of that time. Would you like to comment on that? I did. Read my first comment above. Also the article literally concludes by asking the question about how the ancient text is applicable to the present: "How much do we alter the policies for growth of the human settlements, the basic principles are bound to remain constant so long as they address a wholesome development of the human kind. What do we learn from the past surely depends on how we look at it. Kautilya Arthashastra, also commonly known as the Kuta-niti, has been referred mainly for its significance in the political history of India. Hence there is a common misconception that it deals only with the tricks and tactics pertaining to the state politics. Secondly, with the changing face of politics in the modern times it is seen as a great document only for all those in the field of public vote capturing. The few principles discussed above may seem very general but the way they are proposed to be implemented follows the principles for making a cohesive society."
    - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
      I wrote a couple of replies and then I deleted it. I am interested in the urban planning and not the caste bashing. Why? I am a Brahmin. I will not engage in baseless debates about people of my faith and about my ancestors with faceless strangers on the interwebs. I find myself unable to make sweeping and broad generalizations. So this wouldn’t be a fair or valid discussion. Thanks for your input. Take care.
pkphilip 6y ago
Except that in India even if you had wealth but if you happened to be in the wrong caste, you couldn't buy a house next to the priest class or royalty.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]