After the Crisis of the 12th Century, the Early Medieval heteronomy faded, and both local rulers and kings increasingly relied on a bureaucracy to function.
And that's the thing - any complex organization, like post 12th century Europe, necessarily needs bureaucracy to function. This bureaucracy inevitably takes over, like Mamelukes did in Egypt, or Jannisaries were about to in the Ottoman Empire. Taking down the king isn't enough in this case - the French Revolution began in the first place because all three estates were sick of the proto-Managerialism that counselors and advisors to the king - his bureaucracy - practiced. Their mismanagement and increasing powers didn't disappear after the shift to Constitutional monarchy, or after the Jacobins hijacked the Revolution and took power for themselves. The centralizing institutions had been there since after the 12th century!
That is why I have concluded that man needs to live among like-minded men, ie Localism and Neotribalism. Mass society can never exist without atomization or oversocialization. Complex organizations inevitably lead to the same outcome - rule by bureaucracies and managers. In 12th century Europe, economic growth, cultural developments, etc made rule difficult, but instead of giving up some of their power ala the division of the Roman Empire or barbarian kingdoms dividing the realm among all sons, they sought to expand their reach instead. In time, these rulers just got hoist by their own petard.
Hence I have been emphasizing that the radical right must learn Medieval Studies and History in general. Not in the hokey dory fashion that people like AA have been doing it, but a real, rigorous treatment, interacting with modern developments. This last point is very important, because while the academe is funded by globohomo governments, there is *a lot* of good material being produced. Susan Reynolds's Fiefs and Vassals is a work that more people need to read, for example - it completely overturned Medieval Studies on its head.
"The real check is competition, that beautiful component of the invisible hand."
Exactly. This is why I believe true libertarianism would manifest as a more philosophically rigorous and technologically advanced re-emergence of the polycentric, overlapping, and varied political structure of Latin Christendom.
"A just society is one that will enforce equality before the law de facto; if it is attempted de jure, such as in a written constitution, it will either be indeterminate on whether it is actually enforced at best, or it will become corrupted at worst."
I'm not even an advocate of equality before the law. I'm all about local or voluntarily contracted rights and privileges. If the law is different in the county or state next to mine, I consider that more just than if we each had to fight against each other over who's law should hold sway over both our lands.
I think there is a big case to be made that it was written law that marked the beginning of the end of the freedom of the Middle Ages.
I would replace 'power' with 'authority' in your subtitle. The iron law of oligarchy holds, but I believe we as a society can strive to uphold a system wherein the oligarchy must earn this status. I consider power what is required to maintain order or rule when authority breaks down. Of course this does not happen all at once, and the use of power is employed in a targeted way to control those areas where one's authority no longer holds sway. The more authority can maintain order, the more we are in a condition of liberty. The more power must be employed to do the same, the more we are living under tyranny.
After the Crisis of the 12th Century, the Early Medieval heteronomy faded, and both local rulers and kings increasingly relied on a bureaucracy to function.
And that's the thing - any complex organization, like post 12th century Europe, necessarily needs bureaucracy to function. This bureaucracy inevitably takes over, like Mamelukes did in Egypt, or Jannisaries were about to in the Ottoman Empire. Taking down the king isn't enough in this case - the French Revolution began in the first place because all three estates were sick of the proto-Managerialism that counselors and advisors to the king - his bureaucracy - practiced. Their mismanagement and increasing powers didn't disappear after the shift to Constitutional monarchy, or after the Jacobins hijacked the Revolution and took power for themselves. The centralizing institutions had been there since after the 12th century!
That is why I have concluded that man needs to live among like-minded men, ie Localism and Neotribalism. Mass society can never exist without atomization or oversocialization. Complex organizations inevitably lead to the same outcome - rule by bureaucracies and managers. In 12th century Europe, economic growth, cultural developments, etc made rule difficult, but instead of giving up some of their power ala the division of the Roman Empire or barbarian kingdoms dividing the realm among all sons, they sought to expand their reach instead. In time, these rulers just got hoist by their own petard.
Hence I have been emphasizing that the radical right must learn Medieval Studies and History in general. Not in the hokey dory fashion that people like AA have been doing it, but a real, rigorous treatment, interacting with modern developments. This last point is very important, because while the academe is funded by globohomo governments, there is *a lot* of good material being produced. Susan Reynolds's Fiefs and Vassals is a work that more people need to read, for example - it completely overturned Medieval Studies on its head.
"The real check is competition, that beautiful component of the invisible hand."
Exactly. This is why I believe true libertarianism would manifest as a more philosophically rigorous and technologically advanced re-emergence of the polycentric, overlapping, and varied political structure of Latin Christendom.
"A just society is one that will enforce equality before the law de facto; if it is attempted de jure, such as in a written constitution, it will either be indeterminate on whether it is actually enforced at best, or it will become corrupted at worst."
I'm not even an advocate of equality before the law. I'm all about local or voluntarily contracted rights and privileges. If the law is different in the county or state next to mine, I consider that more just than if we each had to fight against each other over who's law should hold sway over both our lands.
I think there is a big case to be made that it was written law that marked the beginning of the end of the freedom of the Middle Ages.
I would replace 'power' with 'authority' in your subtitle. The iron law of oligarchy holds, but I believe we as a society can strive to uphold a system wherein the oligarchy must earn this status. I consider power what is required to maintain order or rule when authority breaks down. Of course this does not happen all at once, and the use of power is employed in a targeted way to control those areas where one's authority no longer holds sway. The more authority can maintain order, the more we are in a condition of liberty. The more power must be employed to do the same, the more we are living under tyranny.