3 ms·

If you’ve left your town without your landlords permission, you enjoy a freedom that medieval peasants didn’t have. If your apartment changed hands without you

If you’ve left your town without your landlords permission, you enjoy a freedom that medieval peasants didn’t have. If your apartment changed hands without you suddenly becoming someone’s property, you’ve enjoyed a freedom peasants didn’t have. If you’ve been involved in a legal process that wasn’t adjudicated by your land lord then you’ve enjoyed a freedom peasants didn’t have. I can’t believe I need to explain this, but democracy is nothing like feudalism.

remarkEon 6y ago
Do you think I’m making an argument in favor of feudalism? I’m sorry that pointing out that our current structures of government aren’t exactly performing at their presumed capacity is a troubling idea.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  You’re getting downvoted because our current system of government, no matter how flawed, is very different from feudalism. The comparison is poor for all the reasons I listed and more. There are better ways to critique our current system without such hamfisted comparisons.
masswerk 6y ago
Actually, most parts of medieval society were astoundingly mobile. Not everyone was tenant or serf, many, as in the trades and crafts, workers of all kind and everyone involved in moving goods, were often travelling and surprisingly mobile, as were the ruling class. Mind that this was before settled living became the standard model. (Which happened in continental Europe only in the 18th century.)
rowanG077 6y ago
In fact you aren't allowed to leave the country if the state doesn't allow it. You equate two concepts together because the words are similar (lord and landlord) but that's childish. It's obvious a lord back in the is much closet to a governments then a landlord.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  You’re not the literal and legal property of your government. The comparison is still not apt.
  - rowanG077 6y ago
    You were also not the literal and legal property of your lord. It wasn't slavery.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      Most serfs weren’t slaves[0], true. But in many areas serfs were legally bound to the land that they occupied. If that land changed hands, so did the serfs legally. That’s no slavery, but it’s also far worse than being a freeman. In all areas they had fewer rights and more obligations than freemen; there’s a reason why being reduced to serfdom was often done out of economic need, and why freedom often had to be bought. 0 - Some types of serfs were literally slaves and could be traded as such. See Russian Kholops.

remarkEon 6y ago

Do you think I’m making an argument in favor of feudalism? I’m sorry that pointing out that our current structures of government aren’t exactly performing at their presumed capacity is a troubling idea.

ashtonkem 6y ago
You’re getting downvoted because our current system of government, no matter how flawed, is very different from feudalism. The comparison is poor for all the reasons I listed and more. There are better ways to critique our current system without such hamfisted comparisons.

masswerk 6y ago

Actually, most parts of medieval society were astoundingly mobile. Not everyone was tenant or serf, many, as in the trades and crafts, workers of all kind and everyone involved in moving goods, were often travelling and surprisingly mobile, as were the ruling class. Mind that this was before settled living became the standard model. (Which happened in continental Europe only in the 18th century.)

rowanG077 6y ago

In fact you aren't allowed to leave the country if the state doesn't allow it. You equate two concepts together because the words are similar (lord and landlord) but that's childish. It's obvious a lord back in the is much closet to a governments then a landlord.

ashtonkem 6y ago
You’re not the literal and legal property of your government. The comparison is still not apt.
- rowanG077 6y ago
  You were also not the literal and legal property of your lord. It wasn't slavery.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    Most serfs weren’t slaves[0], true. But in many areas serfs were legally bound to the land that they occupied. If that land changed hands, so did the serfs legally. That’s no slavery, but it’s also far worse than being a freeman. In all areas they had fewer rights and more obligations than freemen; there’s a reason why being reduced to serfdom was often done out of economic need, and why freedom often had to be bought. 0 - Some types of serfs were literally slaves and could be traded as such. See Russian Kholops.