Feudal Monarchy is a Better System Than Democracy

An Oligarchy is when a small group of people control the govt. the voters do not control the govt.
The US govt. is teetering on becoming a fascist nation, it has been a plutocracy since the Civil War.

 

Great, I love to read as well. Great grandmother by the sounds of it.

 

Agreed. You seem to never give me a straight answer to be truthful. I said would you call a system that allows 5 people to vote, decide who is elected, and law, an oligarchy or democracy.

 

I would call it a dictatorship.

 

but 10% is democracy like Greece? at what % does it become a democracy?

 

To 1stvermont:

Sobering and thought provoking - thank you for your time and effort in posting this.

 

Democracy is not a form of government, but a form of anarchy or a leading indicator of emerging anarchy, nor is there any such thing as a "feudal monarchy." Feudalism is not a form of government, and "despotism" is a far better, clearer term than "feudal monarchy" describing the same thing.

That said, I agree that even despotism is a better form of government than what people call "Democracy" in that despotism is far more stable. People forget that without stability over time in a government, justice, equality, etc. mean absolutely nothing (See "Reign of Terror"). Given no other choices, an unjust but stable government is better than a transient one, as so many gruesome 20th century "post Marxian" examples illustrate.

 

Well until Napoleon.

 

We allow 538 people who are unknown to 99.999999999 recurring, percentage of our population to elect our president and vice president ????We are far removed from democracy.

 

Thank you. That makes it worth doing it.

 

Agreed.


"[D]emocracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy; such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable [abominable] cruelty of one or a very few."
- John Adams

Well you have me and the major medieval historians fooled than. Tell me, what would you call the monarchies of the middle ages during the feudal system?
You have claimed that from of monarchy was equal to despotism. Websters defines despotism as


oppressive absolute (see ABSOLUTE sense 2) power and authority exerted by government : rule by a despotan excess of law is despotism, from which free men revolt— S. B. Pettengill
b: oppressive or despotic exercise of powereducational despotism
2a: a system of government in which the ruler has unlimited power : ABSOLUTISM
b: a despotic stateenduring the despotism of the czars


So my question than for you becomes one of asking you to back this up, show this is true. Show that feudal monarchies were absolute despotism and had full power/control. Perhaps you have drank the coolaid?


“Official” history is always written by its victors I.e from the perspective of the proponents of democracy.”
-Hans- Hermann Hoppe Democracy the God that Failed The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order Routledge 2001

“It is so easy, in fact, to manipulate history... for a public that is not knowledgeable about it. We have nearly daily evidence of this on television”
-Regine Pernoud Those Terrible Middle Ages Debunking the Myths Ignatius press San Francisco

While I might agree, i think the libertarian medieval feudal system far better than both you offer.

 

Good.

 

The problem with the 'good king' theory is that they are extremely rare and they're mortal. Monarchy will always result in a 'bad king' within just a few generations.

Otoh, democracy has a similar result, though perhaps on a longer timeline.

I would be willing to give a constitutional monarchy a try under the right circumstances. And some of those circumstances include: we retain the legal rights to speech, privacy, property and civilian armament. Be it a king or a congress, the government must fear the governed.

 

The United States has done well, but in retrospect, the Founding Fathers could have further strengthened individual freedom and "protection from mob rule" in the Constitution.

 

We were never a democracy and thank the Lord for that, the Founding father wisdom came through on this one

People like you want the "popular vote" and you dont realize that with a popular vote, the reality is yes there will be more candidates, but the reality is most would campaign in Populous states like the Democratic people's republic of California and New Socialist York.

Hillary proved this point in 2016, she received 3 million more votes and she took the Democratic people republic of California and New York

You really believe that if we had a popular vote that a candidate would win 51% of the votes?

Just look at Canada as an example with their system with Soyboy Trudeau, turns out he won and formed a minority government while not receiving one vote in the prairie provinces

And by the way he lost the popular vote to the conservative leader, and receiving 33% of the votes

 

The problem in a nut shell is that every governing form you have will always try to increase its power and control. And that will always come at the expense of the governed. And in the end the governing elite will always, becoming increasingly hidebound and sclerotic over time, and less and less flexible and unable to deal with new challenges. This is one of the things that contributed to the Confucian view of the circular nature of history.

 

could you translate what he said for me.

 

????

 

What of the feudal system than? I clarified between an absolute monarchy and feudal on my op. What do you think of the feudal system of monarchy.

 

I agree but they also could not foresee the future and what attacks would come. The Constitution itself is ignored and not viewed as it was when created.

 

Agreed, but as my op points out, this was at least lessened in a feudal system and disco surged rather than encouraged in a democracy. Further gain in power was usually done through marriage and titles. Rather than war and tax like a democracy.

 

Agreed, and it is a shame that they didn't do a few things different. Would have saved us a lot of grief. Still, no place I would rather be than right here.

 

Agreed but just not right now lol. I think the south and the jeffersonians did do more, but were eventually suppressed by war in the civil war. In fact if large scale immigration had not happened, we just might have maintained liberty. At least for much longer.

 

Just to clarify many seem to think i am referring to a general absolute monarchy but this is not the case. I am referring to the monarchies of the middle ages. See post 9 for some info on feudal 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

 

I oppose the fundamental concept of feudalism. Society should be focussed on everyone owning their own 'slice', not renting from the authority structure.

However, what we have now could be viewed as feudalism. Property tax precedentially makes us all renters.