Objectivism

[Metacrock]

Thats why I think that both Socialism and Capitalism are remarkably horrible things to run a societ by. Capitalism works well in the Marketplace, and allows rhe consumer and the entrepeneur vast optiosn to grow their wealth or material goods and meet their needs, and is by far the single best system on the planet for such matters. However, if you base a society aroudn a Capitalist principle, it will extend past the Marketplace and into every other area, where it doens't really belong. Look at the recent example of Fulton Tennessee and its subscription Fire Department, wich allowed a mans home to burn. That was simply wrong. I think the Government ( I this case city or county) should operate nonprofit emergency services, that will be paid for put pof the Taxes of the whole community, and used to ensure everyones mutual safety. Police, Fire De[partment, and emergeny medical including ambulance s4rvices should all be run on a social level.

I don't think capitalism even belongs in the market place. It necessitates boom bust and the market winds up being monopolized by the few and even with laws against monopoly the powerful always find ways around it.

So should the Post Office.

As a result I think Capitalism is a failure in socially needed emergency protections and society requires a functioning Governmental support mechanism.

capitalism not democracy. Capitalism is closer to your view Zor, than is Socialism. Capitalism is exactly like the feudalism you love but based upon money rather than birth. Money becomes birth, that's how we got feudalism.

But Socialism fails because it takes over aras its not suppose to, too. When Socialism mixes withthe Marketplace it stifles growth and destorys Freedom.

O yea like Monarchy doesn't? That can be said of any form of government.

So I advocate Capitalism for the Marketplace, and Communal support as opposed to Capitalism for certain other things. Though I'd not be classed as a Socialist given that I don't beleice in Egal;itarianism and Democray, seeign them as innefficient failures that don't even protect the rights everyone so identifies with it.

I don't understand your concept of "communal support" but it sounds like what you want is just a impossible hopelessly outdated system.

would you want that if you couldn't be special in it?

[Metacrock]

I think people consider what kind of society to have by thinking about how it would be to be at the bottom of their ideal society instead of at the top. If you can conceive of a society in which you wouldn't find the bottom spot then it's a fair society.

[QuantumTroll]

Thats why I think that both Socialism and Capitalism are remarkably horrible things to run a societ by. Capitalism works well in the Marketplace, and allows rhe consumer and the entrepeneur vast optiosn to grow their wealth or material goods and meet their needs, and is by far the single best system on the planet for such matters. However, if you base a society aroudn a Capitalist principle, it will extend past the Marketplace and into every other area, where it doens't really belong. Look at the recent example of Fulton Tennessee and its subscription Fire Department, wich allowed a mans home to burn. That was simply wrong. I think the Government ( I this case city or county) should operate nonprofit emergency services, that will be paid for put pof the Taxes of the whole community, and used to ensure everyones mutual safety. Police, Fire De[partment, and emergeny medical including ambulance s4rvices should all be run on a social level.

So should the Post Office.

Why do these things not belong in a marketplace? Do services not belong in a marketplace? What about dry-cleaning? If I believed that all humans have an intrinsic right to dry-cleaning, I'd argue vociferously that dry-cleaning must be a socialized service available to everyone regardless of income. Do all humans have a right to a post office, and is that right threatened by running post offices as private enterprises?

As a result I think Capitalism is a failure in socially needed emrgency protections and society requires a functioning Governemntal support mechanism.

I think you're quite right in the sense that capitalism fails to guarantee basic rights to individuals. The right to life, only if you can pay a medical provider. The right to a dignified old age and burial, only if you can pay. The right to be with your children, only if you can afford a long period of unpaid leave and your employer decides to let you go.

But Socialism fails because it takes over aras its not suppose to, too. When Socialism mixes withthe Marketplace it stifles growth and destorys Freedom.

But this is a gray area, which makes it such an important topic to discuss. Which markets can manage themselves, and why? Are there markets that work part of the time and need to be checked only partially? What should be the domain of the marketplace? What should be done in case of market failure or overly aggressive business practices, if anything? This is all highly debatable, while agreeing with your main point.

So I advocate Capitalism for the Marketplace, and Communal support as opposed to Capitalism for certain other things. Though I'd not be classed as a Socialist given that I don't beleice in Egal;itarianism and Democray, seeign them as innefficient failures that don't even protect the rights everyone so identifies with it.

And, this is why I advocate the older model, which was a Government by subsideary. We'd have an agreed upon Authority, a King, whose principel duties wodl include settlign disputes between rival local Lords, and nesurign the peopel who are his subjects are protected, but who coudl not Violarte their rights. Rights to be written on a Charter that is not Amendable.

When has this model ever been in practice? It sounds like you think it has, and I'm curious to read more about the specifics . That said, I think that Plato's idea of Philosopher Kings sounds close to your vision, and it's an idea that I would totally endorse if any nation were radical enough to try it.

A State Religion would also be erected, and though no one woudl be forced ot attend it, it woudl be seen as the general spiritual voice and moral concinece of the Nation. Other Faiths may also have official Govenrment representation, thugh thye'd be of lesser rank than the State Church.

I like this notion. But don't call it religion, call it "spiritual services". It'd be a service, tied to a peaceful and reverent place, where people could come with their problems for help and experience a sense of community. Public servants, trained in psychology, social care, and perhaps a personal faith, would lead the congregation. Does that sound good to you?

The Focus woudl be on our Duties as much as on our rights.

The big problem with Socialism is that it offers us a faceless beureucracy that regulares evrrythign ostentatisuly int he name of "the People", a mass that never really agrees on anything.

Faceless? Our officials have faces, names, and families. One problem with any government is that a country that is too large is led by faceless types. Even a king is faceless if he's too big.

This way our Focus is on our King, and our local Lord.

Local politics are always the most personal. More distributed decision-making is often better, save if national (or international) collaboration is necessary

We'd have duties that would be centred around service to each other centred around our relationship to the owners of the estates or National Goverment. This provides an oeganic, agreed to point of reerence for everyone else to follow.

Americans can't even agree on the question of whether health care should be available to poor people. I think it's a human right, but not everyone does. It's a pipe-dream to believe that everyone will agree on anything, no matter how simple, basic, or natural...

[ZAROVE]

To Metacrock- Of course Capitalism is closer to what I want as a NeoFeudalist, that’s why I find it laughably bizarre that when I tell people I want this they think I’m a Communist.

As to the system being outdated, I don’t think any form of Government becomes outdated. it’s not like Modern Democracy is a new invention that came along 200 years ago with nothing like it in the Past, Aristotle and Plato described it. All that is today has been of old. When America was first Founded as a separate Nation, people didn’t look upon its form of Government as something new and novel, they looked at it as outdated and silly. I mean, a Republic? The last major Republic that existed was Rome, and we know it had problems, so the uppity Americans want to replicate that?

Now, it’s the only valid form of Government. Do you honestly think it will endure forever? Its all a merry dance and we always go round in circles over these things.

Oh, and if we had the system I would create, I wouldn’t mind being “On the bottom” for there would be no bottom. People would be able to become Lords if the Lord sold them the right Which is not based poorly on Blood. I’d use a model closer to that used by Sark till the Barclays came along to destroy it, the people there use to be very happy.

I’d allow private property Ownership

To Quantum- Lets keep the Traditional name “Religion”. It may now have been given a negative connotation but that can just as easily be amended. Besides, the Specific State Religion doesn’t have to be followed, and other Religions can also have a voice. Likewise, Local Fiefs can set up their own Local Religion separately from the Kings. IE, If the Kingdom is Anglican, but a local community is predominantly Jewish, as is their local Lord, let Judaism be their local Religion.




To Quantum and Metacrock, I just think that a System in which there is a balance is best.

I think that the Local Lord in counsel should provide all basic services, including Health care, Police, Fire Department, ect… but privately owned shops would only be regulated for safety. IE, food regulations to ensure people aren’t food poisoned.

But in my Ideal Society, people would be able to live the life they chose, so even if they weren’t a Lord, they could live comfortably and make something of themselves. They’d choose their own job, and would have he right to live whichever lifestyle they desire.


Quantum again- I think you misunderstand America. They aren’t rally arguing over if poor people need Health care. Everyone agrees Poor people need Health Care, but the argument is over central control of said health care. America use to have Free or near free health care anyway up till around the 1950’s with Local Hospitals treating you. You may have to be treated by a new doctor whose just learning, but he’d see you.

[QuantumTroll]

To Quantum- Lets keep the Traditional name “Religion”. It may now have been given a negative connotation but that can just as easily be amended. Besides, the Specific State Religion doesn’t have to be followed, and other Religions can also have a voice. Likewise, Local Fiefs can set up their own Local Religion separately from the Kings. IE, If the Kingdom is Anglican, but a local community is predominantly Jewish, as is their local Lord, let Judaism be their local Religion.

It's not a negative connotation that I'd like to avoid, but rather dogmatism and traditions that are not founded on sound evidence and practice. Any implementation must tolerate not only local "religion", but also overlapping domains, so people can choose a congregation they like. I think your idea is essentially sound .

Quantum again- I think you misunderstand America. They aren’t rally arguing over if poor people need Health care. Everyone agrees Poor people need Health Care, but the argument is over central control of said health care. America use to have Free or near free health care anyway up till around the 1950’s with Local Hospitals treating you. You may have to be treated by a new doctor whose just learning, but he’d see you.

I think I understand pretty well. I spent a good part of my 12 years in the US trying to understand it. I've spoken to many people, face to face, who say that you deserve only the medical care you can pay for. Sure, they usually start to waffle when I explain to them that a direct implication is that poor people don't deserve to live, but they rarely reconsider their position. You shouldn't get something for nothing, they say. Some essentially say "sure, poor people can get medical care they can't pay for, but it should be a loan." With the costs being what they are, it basically comes down to indentured servitude or bankruptcy. It's ugly, but there's a significant contingent of Americans who believe these things.

Overall, I kinda enjoy your Utopic Feudalism. It ranks right up there with (and is pretty similar to) Edward Bellamy's utopia described in Looking Backward in 1888. One thing that you should remember is that most people associate feudalism with the middle ages, when life was cheap unless you were very rich, human rights were nonexistent, and you were largely stuck in the role you were born to. A feudalism where peasants have the right and ability to do what they want is a strange and wonderful feudalism indeed...

[Metacrock]

think I understand pretty well. I spent a good part of my 12 years in the US trying to understand it. I've spoken to many people, face to face, who say that you deserve only the medical care you can pay for. Sure, they usually start to waffle when I explain to them a direct implication is that poor people don't deserve to live, but they rarely reconsider their position. You shouldn't get something for nothing, they say. Some essentially say "sure, poor people can get medical care they can't pay for, but it should be a loan." With the costs being what they are, it basically comes down to indentured servitude or bankruptcy. It's ugly, but there's a significant contingent of Americans who believe these things.

that's been one of the grounds of my social criticism all my life. This is truly brain washing. They are like dogs who have been conditioned to respond to a bell by acting a certain way. They can't distinguish between what is and should be. They seem to really think "there is no free lunch, therefore, there should not be a free lunch." As though some ineluctable law of nature is going to smite them if they try to provide a free lunch; what is is what should be.

[tinythinker]

think I understand pretty well. I spent a good part of my 12 years in the US trying to understand it. I've spoken to many people, face to face, who say that you deserve only the medical care you can pay for. Sure, they usually start to waffle when I explain to them a direct implication is that poor people don't deserve to live, but they rarely reconsider their position. You shouldn't get something for nothing, they say. Some essentially say "sure, poor people can get medical care they can't pay for, but it should be a loan." With the costs being what they are, it basically comes down to indentured servitude or bankruptcy. It's ugly, but there's a significant contingent of Americans who believe these things.

that's been one of the grounds of my social criticism all my life. This is truly brain washing. They are like dogs who have been conditioned to respond to a bell by acting a certain way. They can't distinguish between what is and should be. They seem to really think "there is no free lunch, therefore, there should not be a free lunch." As though some ineluctable law of nature is going to smite them if they try to provide a free lunch; what is is what should be.

Yup. There is nothing wrong with incentivizing people to work hard, but 1) money shouldn't be the primary incentive and 2) there are some things that should be basic human rights IF we really believe all people are inherently valuable. That is, whether they fit a "model of productivity" or not. Basic forms of food, shelter, health care and education should be available to ALL citizens by virtue of their inherent value, and the truth of this value by the way is the fundamental insight of all religions, especially Christianity, and is central to humanism as well. If you want more than just a bedroom, a common eating and showering area, decent but not extravagant food, and a comprehensive public transportation system, etc, then sure, work hard in a truly ethical system which is merit-based. But we have none of this. People go without basic human dignity and survival needs, the workplace is extremely unethical, inherited wealth and social networks of the powerful are worth more than honesty and hard work, and so whether people are comfortable acknowledging it or not, the system we have does not look like a system that sees all people as having a basic worth, but only what worth they contribute to a particular measure of productivity. Western and other modernized industrial nations, do NOT fall for the rhetoric that to compete or to be successful you need to emulate these things about the United States!

[ZAROVE]

Quantum, even the Middle Ages are a highly misunderstood time period. They weren't as bad as most think and often had Freedoms and Human Rights.

besides, the last Feudal feifdom in History was Sark, which became a Democracy in 2007. They didn't become a Democracy because the peopel got tired of livign a life of destitution and servitude, crushed under the weight of the Local Lords and the Signiur, and thus rose up in revolution to overthrow the evil system in the name of Freedom, but because outsuiders named the barclays came to Sark and bought barque. Thje Barclays firts claiemd Barque was not partof Sark, but it as. They had wanted to build roads, allow cars, and build a Helipad, noen of hwich was legla on Sark or desired by their people. They also wante to cut up their estate to give to different Children, but Sarkian Law forbade this. So the Barclays sued, tryign to change the Governmental system, all in orser to get their way. I mean, they had moved there willignly and wre rich enogh to live whereve they wanted, but chose Sark and now wanted Sark to chanfe to suit them. After over a decade of challenfes, they finally go the European Court of Human Rights to rule that Sarks Feudal Government was illegal becaus it was not Democratic, and Sark officially changed over to a Democracy.

Harldy an inspiration.

However, Sark now has prioblems it never had before. Peopel whohad been life long freidns are now bitter enemies, Government meetigns which once were short and effective now take all day and are hotly debated, and the [population is divided, and this will only get worse as Democracy continues.


Sarkian feudalism is more of a Model of how Feudalism can work than was the imagined Middle Ages in which no one had Human Rights. (Actually Human Rights did exist in most placesin most times in he Middel Ages. Just to remind.)

On Sark, the peasants COULD do watever thye liked. The Signiur did not try to force them to even so much as stay on the Island. They worked whatever jobs they liked and lived as they pelased. They had free health care hat ran more efficiently than did the NHS on the UK. (Sark is a Channel Island and Crown Dependancy but is not partof the UK)

Sark shows how such a feudal Government thsat I envision would work. A Feudal State that allows freedom. The onlything I'd change, or rather not establish, is that I'd allow smaller tracts of land to be owned.


However, if yoyu did not have enough money to buy a House, the Local Lord coudl let you stay in a House with no rent in exchanfe for Services. That way you'd be empoyed, and unlike in a Socalist Govenrment yoru not a number on a peice f paper the agensy is suppose to employ, yoru a Human being who operates in a system with other Human Beings and whose Local Lord is just as Hman. This can be more readily tailored to yoru personal needs and increaees real interaction over simply formula.

[ZAROVE]

Also, having not actually read "Looking Backwards", I looked it up. Reading the Synopsis, I'm not sure how my ideal society is like this at all. I wouldn't have Nationalised services, for instance. I certainly wouldn't have Equality given that I would need an Aristocracy to make my society work. The State would not be the sole employer, as it would not exist. Land Ownership and real assets must exist in Feudalism for it to make any sort of sense at all, making it inherently more capitalist than Socialist. While individual Rights would be maintained, and no one would be a slave to Birth, the quality of the society is still depends ant on a social Hierarchy and intricate relationships between Individuals. The Lord is chief Judge of his Domain and the King chief Judge of the Realm, and This is held as supreme. Nothing would be Publically owned, it'd be owned by the Land Holder, IE, the King, Local Lord, or buisnessman. I don't see the similarities at all.

[QuantumTroll]

Quantum, even the Middle Ages are a highly misunderstood time period. They weren't as bad as most think and often had Freedoms and Human Rights.

Hehe, I never said that I thought the Middle Ages were completely grim and dark. But I can see why you thought I did

besides, the last Feudal feifdom in History was Sark, which became a Democracy in 2007.

Now this is very interesting. Sark shows us an example of what feudalism can be. But it's just one exceptional example (exceptional at least in the fact that it lasted until the 21st century), and therefore maybe not representative of how feudal societies in general. But thanks for the reference, it's been interesting reading!

Sarkian feudalism is more of a Model of how Feudalism can work than was the imagined Middle Ages in which no one had Human Rights. (Actually Human Rights did exist in most placesin most times in he Middel Ages. Just to remind.)

I'm pretty well versed in the Scandinavian middle ages, and according to what I hear this was a region that was relatively well off compared to the continent. While the letter of the law did give ordinary men some protection, it was far from acceptable by today's standards and in practice it was worse. For example, if you wanted to argue your case in a court of law, you'd get someone who knew the law to recite it. So far so good, but if two people recited laws that contradicted each other, whoever recited the longest law would win. This was abused by powerful men all the time. Moreover, while there were laws that supposedly applied to the king, in practice it was nearly impossible to get such cases tried and if they did the king would tend to ignore any disadvantageous outcome. There are several of these cases described in the Prosaic Eddas, I believe, and medieval law books are one of the most common sources of old manuscripts in Scandinavia, which is why I've heard about them. Lastly, and most crucially perhaps, slavery and indentured servitude were common. If you messed up, your mistakes would not be forgiven and your debts would not be written off, you'd be made an outlaw (and you'd probably escape to Iceland) or they'd take your life and the lives of your children and you'd work as a slave. This isn't an exaggeration wrought by Hollywood movies, but the sorts of things you find in actual history. Medieval society was harsh and you had very little power over people above you in the hierarchy.

On Sark, the peasants COULD do watever thye liked. The Signiur did not try to force them to even so much as stay on the Island. They worked whatever jobs they liked and lived as they pelased. They had free health care hat ran more efficiently than did the NHS on the UK. (Sark is a Channel Island and Crown Dependancy but is not partof the UK)

Sark shows how such a feudal Government thsat I envision would work. A Feudal State that allows freedom. The onlything I'd change, or rather not establish, is that I'd allow smaller tracts of land to be owned.

That sounds lovely. One thing I'd add is a requirement on the part of the governing class that they actually go to school to learn to govern properly AND some system to limit the personal gain they can get from the decisions they make. You can't have a ruler just taking money out of the community coffers...

However, if yoyu did not have enough money to buy a House, the Local Lord coudl let you stay in a House with no rent in exchanfe for Services. That way you'd be empoyed, and unlike in a Socalist Govenrment yoru not a number on a peice f paper the agensy is suppose to employ, yoru a Human being who operates in a system with other Human Beings and whose Local Lord is just as Hman. This can be more readily tailored to yoru personal needs and increaees real interaction over simply formula.

A socialist government doesn't turn you into a number on a piece of paper. Our government employees are human, just like our citizens. They're very often quite helpful if you have a problem, and often have the power to fix things if the standard formula doesn't work. Just like feudalism, socialism can work pretty well. And unlike feudalism, there are current examples of working socialism that are much more substantial than little Sark...