Feudal Monarchy is a Better System Than Democracy

It seems to me that they gave their union very few powers (i.e. infringements on freedom), as enumerated in article I, section 8. Which would you have eliminated?

 

Have you read G.K Chesterton? I agree my ideal would be everyone owns land to themselves. What we have now is the state owns everything. Dont pay your property tax you will see who owns the land. Further in the feudal system your land was your own. and you could do with your property as you pleased as there was no government regulations. Or a mans home was really his castle.


Men with no lands would be given land to work for a small% of produce. In payment Lords protected the people in their domain who in return would swear an allegiance to the lord. It was a mutual beneficial situation and agreed upon that encouraged Lords to serve his/her people well as he would have more and more loyal men who would willingly fight under his banner. The king could not extract contributions only solicit subsides from loyal subjects who through their own free will supported the king and used it as an opportunity to make deals

 

A feudal Monarchy implies constant warring,something that would turn off most although we have certainly seen more than our fair share of wars since the end of WW2.Certainly far more than any other major world economy.

 

From post 6.



Warfare - Total war or Chivalry?


“Never had war been so harmless.”
--Palmer and Cotton a History of the eastern World quoted in Democracy the God that Failed

“Feudal wars which in no way resembled modern wars....previously war was above all a matter of taking prisoners, now it was an attempt to kill the adversary””
-Regine Pernoud Those Terrible Middle Ages Debunking the Myths Ignatius press San Francisco

All governments tend towards expansion of territory and power. However the monarch has the option to do so through marriage. Nobels would marry other nobles to increase power [also why incest happened to keep power within the family] instead of warfare. The medieval wars were usually disputes over complex inheritance issues and extinct dynasties. Warfare was for the most part guided by the christian principles of chivalry. Wars were the domain of the King and his allied nobles- not of the country as a whole, nor of the people. The typical citizen would not realize a war was going on in either country. The King was responsible to finance the expedition himself and civil life was left alone. If territory expansion was conducted by government [king] it benefits only him and he should pay experiences alone. This made wars very costly and a King would be reluctant to engage in long or large scale disputes.

“definitely regarded as a kind of single combat between two armies, the civil population being merely spectators. Pillage, requisitions, acts of violence against the population were forbidden the home country as well as the enemy country... soldiers being scarce and hard to find...meticulous trained, but as this was costly, it rendered them very valuable, and it was necessary to let as few be killed as possible... generals tried to avoid fighting battles. The object of warfare was the exacustion of skillful maneuvers and not the annihilation of the adversary... war became a kind of game between sovereigns”
-Guglielmo Ferrero Peace and war

Because of the costs to the King directly [does not have ability to steal through tax like a democracy] , limited numbers, and because of decentralization in the political system causalities were far lower. But also wars were far less frequent or total. Further the soldiers under the King were not forced mercenaries/slaves [conscripts] made to fight for a cause that does not benefit them and that they might disagree with or think evil. Instead Lords protected the people in their domain who in return would swear an allegiance to the lord. It was a mutual beneficial situation that encouraged Lords to serve his/her people well as he would have more and more loyal men who would willingly fight under his banner. A much better situation for the people rather than modern democracies forcing men to fight for them or using state power to persecute them for “treason.” The king could not extract contributions only solicit subsides from loyal subjects who through their own free will supported the king and used it as an opportunity to make deals . Often deals were made to save each Lord from continuation of the expensive war and wars were won or lost based on small scale objectives.

“the influence of the spirit of nationalism, that is of democracy, on war was profound... it emotionalized war, and consequentially, brutalized it... wars were largely the occupation of Kings, courtiers and gentlemen. Armies lived on their depots ….soilders were paid out of the kings privy purse they were too costly to be thrown away lighltey on massive attacks. The change came about with the french revolution...armies became more and more institutions of the people, not only did they grow in size but in ferocity.”
-Fuller war and Western Civilization quoted in Democracy the God that Failed


“War became total war, in large part driven by another gift of the Enlightenment, modern democracy. While Lincoln established the precedent fifty years earlier, it was finally in the Great War when war of all against all became generally accepted throughout and within Europe, an event for the nation and not merely the combatants Poison gas, air raids over civilian populations, submarines destroying ships regardless of flag or purpose, the blockade of civilian food and supplies, even peace not leading to relief.And church towers used as observation posts, leading to their destruction; painting a picture of the cost of the Enlightenment”.
-Daniel Ajamian the Cost of the Enlightenment

In a democracy war is the only means of expanding its exploitation [tax] base. Centralization and democracy brought war and nationalism. Wars were now fought far more frequent and were far more devastating seeking submission of the enemy and reconstruction in the winners image. Sherman, Sheridan , and Grant brought total war to the south and than reconstructed it from its decentralized republic to a centralized democracy in the image of the northern republicans. They than went to war on the Indians and expanded the empire west. WW1 and WW2 followed their paths. Today they engage in various wars around the world spreading American “democracy.” Wars are now between the entire nations as all of “we the people” are at war. Now taxes are used to build massive armies with the help of government conscription were losses are easily replaced and battles are now sought to annihilate the enemy and wear them down since the politicians money and men are not used. Soldiers are now slaves of the government forced into conscription to fight a war for their masters [elected officials] weather they agree with the war or not. In the feudal age nobles were expected to not just fight, but lead the armies into battle.

“In 150 years conscription had led the world back to tribal barbarism”
-Fuller conduct of war quoted in Democracy the God that Failed

Solders pillage large scale, attack, steal, rape, confiscate private property on a massive scale since the introduction of democracy. Because war was now total and the “people” against another nation rather than a Kings loyal knights, the whole of the enemy becomes a target an weapons on mass destruction were sought and created such as the machine gun and bombs. In the medieval west, many saw the bow and later the long bow as immoral and cowardly. In WW2 America dropped bombs on the civilian cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing 150,000 to 200,000 men woman and children. Some took weeks or months to die after the bombing. That these were used to save lives seems to come after the war [see Don’t Whitewash the Hiroshima Bombing By Peter Van Buren ] “Harry Truman, in his 1945 annosuncment of the bomb, focused on vengeance, and on the new power to destroy at a button push—“We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city,” The Americans were the “good guys” in this war such is the terror of democracy.


“Chivalry is the christian form of the military profession. The knight is the christian soldier...nor are the religion and the profession at all separate from each other.”
-Leon Gautier Chivalry the Everyday Life of the medieval Knight Tumblar House 2015

“no one could become a knight without first becoming a christian, without having been baptized”
-Leon Gautier Chivalry the Everyday Life of the medieval Knight Tumblar House 2015


The Medieval Knight had its origins in Catholic Europe during the feudal time period. Anyone could become a Knight, it was not only for the nobility. Along with the nobels, the knight was the celberty of the day leading people to christian lifestyels. They would join voluntarily and were free to leave whenever they wanted. The medival Knight was a christian soilder who followed the 10 comandmnets of knighthood as outlined in Leon Gautier book Chivalry the Everyday Life of the medieval Knight. Among them was to obey the church, defend the church, defend the weak such as orpahns, widows, monks, preists, hospitals, charity organizations, to have love the country of their birth, no retreat, perform feudal duties if not contray to the laws of God, never lie, be genrous and donate, and be the chapion of the right aginst injustice and evil. A knights life consited of prayer in the mornings, daily mass, fasting, swearing an oath to the church. Knight were the guardians of the church and those who could not defend themselves. His model knight to imiate were king David, Joshua, Judas Maccabess, Charlemagne, Micheal the archangel, Godfrey of Bouillon and Richard the Lionherted.

“Wherever the church was, there the knight also was to be found to accompany and to protect...the knights mission was to defend all weaknesses”
-Leon Gautier Chivalry the Everyday Life of the medieval Knight Tumblar House 2015

 

Constant warring? Like the "War on Terrorism"?

 

Any system based on divine right or even military might and no codified human rights or non sinecure parliament/representative body is equivalent to despotism regardless of whether the economic system in place is feudalism or whatever. The crown giveth one day and taketh the next and disagreement with that amounts to treason or worse heresy... Despotism, the only regulator of it being the balance of military might. I disagree with the dictionary definition (they are never authoritative sources of anything) and believe it too harsh. Call it totalitarianism or absolutism instead if you don't like "despotism". Amounts to the same thing. No idea what koolaid you are talking about. No need to demonstrate it, there are thousands of historical datapoints, hell we could just make a case on Henry VIII alone. Any system where the sovereign derives absolute power, which may be capricious, corrupt, wise, etc. in various exercises of it, from a metaphysical source instead of law is the equivalent of despotism. Keeps things real simple.


“

 

Not necessarily elimination, but further refinement. For example, they could have placed a limit on the amount of taxes that could be collected.

"General welfare" could have been further refined so we could avoid the welfare state mess we are currently in.

Maybe the "borrow money on the credit of" could have had a limit.

Of course, the above would have been tough to do back then considering they had no idea how taxes would be applied centuries later, they had no idea that people would so easily give up their pride for a welfare check, and they couldn't imagine the debt that would be accrued.

And they could have worded the Second Amendment to remove all doubt in what it meant.

 

In the interest of sound understanding of the fundamentals involved, the difference between 'democracy' and 'a democracy' must be made clear in all discussion with regard to the matter. Meaning the difference in a popular type of government in general versus that of a specific form of government.

 

When studying history it is easy to obtain rose colored glasses on the particular subject that you are studying. Often seeing the best of what you like to study, while ignoring the worst. Even if you know about the worst, those rose colored glasses will dim them and make them appear not quite as bad because you often see the good points in a brighter colored light.

The Feudal system no doubt had its perks. Particularly from the perspective of an authoritarian or someone who believes that doing the "good and right thing" should always be done no matter the cost. Problem being of course is that the "good and right thing" is often subjective.

 

While I might disagree, I was referring once more to feudal monarchies, not the divine rights of kings enlightenment absolute monarchies. Further if you spend time reading my op [post 1-2, 7,8 i think] you will see the state is absolute, it is totalitarian, nothing is safe in a democracy. The government is absolute. They have total power. Not so in the middle ages monarchies.



Feudal Monarchy or Absolute Monarchy?

“The feudal order, in fact, was very different from the monarchial order that replaced it [absolute monarchy] and to witch succeeded, in a still more centralized form, the order of state control that is found today.”
-Regine Pernoud Those Terrible Middle Ages Debunking the Myths Ignatius press San Francisco

“However In the course of many centuries these originally stateless societies [Feudal ] had gradually transformed into absolute – statist- monarchies.”
--Hans- Hermann Hoppe Democracy the God that Failed The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order Routledge 2001

As an important clarification I am here going to compare the christian feudal monarchies of the medieval time period to modern democracy- rather than the later Renaissance time period of absolute monarchies witch were a turn towards centralization. It was during the Renaissance and the reemergence of ancient Roman/Greek law that transformed the medieval feudal system to a system of centralized power of either absolute monarchies or later democracies and republics. Urban merchants, power hungry Kings, and Reformationist studying Roman law and needing or looking to justify centralization of power left the middle ages Feudal political system behind and moved into the Renaissance of centralized power.

“[Roman law] it was the law par excellence of those who wanted to affirm a central state authority”
-Regine Pernoud Those Terrible Middle Ages Debunking the Myths Ignatius press San Francisco

“feudalism was a set of practices that arose....during the middle ages”
-Thomas Madden The Modern Scholar: The Medieval World, Part II: Society, Economy, and Culture



Divine Right of Kings?


The “divine right of kings” teachings started with protestants in the 17th century never accepted by the catholic church. The Magna Carta of 1215 was written by a mix of nobles and church leaders. Absolute monarchies [such as what the colonies resisted] started after the Renaissance . From Agustin and Aquinas to the church fathers and councils, the catholic church held the biblical doctrine of resistance to tyranny .

Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God

It was protestants and the enlightenment who when come into power steadily increase the power of the state weather to absolute monarchies or various republic/democracies.


““If to provide itself with a King belongs to the right of a given multitude, it is not unjust that the King be disposed or have his power restricted by that same multitude, becoming a tyarant, he abuses his royal power.”
-Thomas Aquinas On Kinship

"This is nonsense [catholic doctrine of divine right of kings]. The Church never endorsed the notion of the divine right of kings. That was first proclaimed by James I of England (1566– 1625), a Protestant after whom the King James Version of the Bible is named. Instead, the Catholic Church always asserted that its authority was greater than that of monarchs. From St Augustine through St Thomas Aquinas, the great Church theologians denied the moral authority of the state and condemned tyrants, warranting their overthrow....in 1215 the English bishops participated in forcing King John to sign the Magna Carta...many ‘Protestant’ monarchs were far more powerful than had been the case in these same kingdoms prior to the Reformations. Indeed, Luther fully supported ‘the development of strong centralized states and absolute monarchies’."
-Rodney Stark Reformation Myths Five Centuries of Misconceptions and (Some) Misfortunes SPCK Publishing

“then every subject, every section of the people, and even the whole community was free to resist him..whereas today it is an illegal act for the people to resist the government authority, during this period after the fall of Rome the lords had a duty to resist the king who overstepped his authority. ... the act of resistance in and of itself was not considered illegal. It was a duty respected by king and people alike. …
-Bionic Mosquito Decentralization Hidden in the dark Ages

 

They had a check on when the central overstepped, it was states rights/nullification/secession. But that was destroyed during the civil war.

 

Great point. However I think it applies even more so to how we are taught democracy. We avoid its evils and pretend it is what it is not. The winner writes the history and we are given those rose tinted glasses in our history of the middle ages [a bad color tint] or democracy a rose colored tint.

I would say today we are also forced to do "the right thing" and that is what our politicians tell us and by no surprise is what helps them. At least if feudal times and decentralization people could decide for themselves what "the right thing" was.

 

But that is a temporary condition that will always be replaced by something else. The only thing that ever changes is the Method of replacement. China in around 300 BC (+ or minus a century) went from feudal monarchy to an empire without even briefly glancing at Democracy so did Japan and Germany though the latter two did so much later in the day.

 

Teetering my ass in every way imaginable we are already there so is western Europe for the most part.

 

I see what you are saying and perhaps you are correct. In this fallen world a free society cannot last forever. Perhaps this is what was meant by Jefferson

“I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing”
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

 

agreed. Land of the free or home of the slave?

 

Please note a long time before Jefferson a dude named Confucius said something quite similar. In fact according to at least one History professor the founders may well have had access to some of the works of Confucius

 

Interesting. Thanks.

 

I might have added to them but certainly not reduced them I would further have added that the commerce clause was not written with the idea in mind of allowing the government to do an end run around article 1 section 8 any time it felt unduly hampered.

 

Please note general welfare meant something entirely different to the founders than it does to leftist. I think they were most referencing infrastructure projects like roads and bridges and the like. I think however that the founders would have been appalled at using that phrase as an excuse for stealing money from a and giving it to B, or taking a's property without his consent and giving it to B so that B could build a shopping Mall.

 

Yet there existed a phrase among the German peasants and serfs. It Translates roughly to "City air makes one Free" Kings especially in Briiain were somewhat limited in their pilferage, but the local Barons were not and a hell of a lot them were dumb as posts.

Bare in mind as well that Robin Hood was the first example of a tax rebater taking goods and money From King John and giving back to the over taxed citizenry.

 

I am sure some thought life in the cities, especially merchant cities, was more free in some realms. The reason, they were often given complete autonomy. This is touched on in my op.

“monarchs will tend to support a free market to gain competitiveness on a global scale. Prince Hans Adam II of Liechtenstein does exactly this. As a result, his economy thrives. A monarch looks for the best, most prosperous system, because ideological lines are not his or her goal. Rather, a monarch’s goal is to bring prosperity to the owned country.”
-Daniel Szewc The Case for Libertarian Monarchism

“The Lords is not interested in messing with the profitability of these towns... and if that means to let the town manage itself, than most of these Lords are willing to go along with that. And since they are in competition with other Lords, in other towns, its in their interest to make there's work to the best benefit. These towns....become self governed.”
-Thomas Madden The Modern Scholar: The Medieval World, Part II: Society, Economy, and Culture


If a King went tyrannical he could be easily resisted as my op points out, not so in a democracy. Plus in a decentralized system it forces the lord to give maximum freedom since competition is near at hand and many. To keep men in the realm they must compete with other local Lords. Not so in a centralized system.


Robin Hood understand we are going on folklore here. But the sheriff taxed the local people an unjust tax and Robin Hood fought back resisted the tyranny and returned the peoples [stolen] tax money. I think it an example that if a Lord [who turned against the king gone on crusades- robin remained loyal] does turn tyrannical he can easily be resisted. Tell me what are we to do today when our democratic government impose heavy unjust taxes as they do today?

 

Hard to say I've heard it said that in the entire 8000 years of recorded history there have only been about fifty years when some sort of war wasn't being fought somewhere.or the other. And those fifty years may only exist because we lack complete records.

I remember and article from some years back about them find human skull from 1 and a quarter million years ago who appeared to have had his head bashed in with a stone axe and then there are human remains all over europe dating back 5k years or more with stone arrow heads embedded in them. It appears that among the first things we learned to do was kill each other.

 

If you see my post under Warfare - Total war or Chivalry? post 6. You will see warfare was far less often and local compared to modern democratic wars. Far less total or brutal.

 

Nice. Best thread I've seen on here. Even better than Sanskrit's occasional skewering of Collectivist nonsense.

Unfortunately I don't think we have a solution to the inherent Democratic/Republic problem. It's happened before (multiple times) and it's *very likely* happening as we speak. My first instinct is to counter the collectivist (over-democratization) force with some new brand of Fascism. Which is disconcerting - because it means you have to counter totalitarianism with *better* totalitarianism (because Individualism is going to be a failure at least for the foreseeable future - thanks not to the individualists themselves, but those who don't understand or accept the basic related concepts.)

It's kind of the problem of our time - I'd like to say some monarchy/feudal variant isn't desirable but it does sound better than the counterbalancing force of Fascism...