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.
I think 'bureaucracy' is fine so long as it does not enjoy a monopoly. Monopoly of government is the problem. Peaceful competition in all things is what yields the most prosperity and inhibits the most corruption.
I've actually looked at getting Reynold's book. How would you say it differs from prior works on the Middle Ages and its political structure?
Tbh its use to you depends on your conception of Medieval times. If you still think Medieval times ran on "Feudalism", or that Marx's conception of Medieval times is correct, etc, that book overturned all those past understandings. It's particularly noteworthy for establishing a Medieval conception of the "State" without the monopoly of violence, and it argues that the "sovereign State" actually appeared after the 12th century. It also dispels the notion that Fiefs and Vassals were the most important cornerstone of Medieval times, that Fiefs were a character of decentralization (they actually appeared thanks to centralizing bureaucracies), that vassalage was an important interpersonal relation between nobles, that nobility was anything beyond an informal institution before Knighthood became hereditary, and much more.
Reynolds's book is only the first of a revisionist strand in Medieval Studies. Bisson's "The Crisis of the 12th Century", Crouch's "The Birth of Nobility", and a whole slew of other texts followed its wake.
Okay so it seems her view aligns with my own, and probably has informed my own in some way. I revere the Middle Ages or Western Christendom as the closest political order to actual liberty that the West has experienced, and certainly exceeds the 'democratic freedom' we experience today with its mountainous and monopolistic bureaucracy and its ever increasing stack of laws. As a libertarian, I see medieval governance as the closest system to government based on personal bonds. As a Catholic, I see it as a social order where the Church was fulfilling its role as an international authority that intervened in the temporal affairs of kings and emperors. The Medieval Church would have had no problem excommunicating Biden, Pelosi, and all the other pro-abortion faux Catholics in government. I don't see feudalism as a bad word though. To me federalism is only an attempt to approximate the polycentric authority of feudalism but under the thumb of a modern monopolistic state.
well the word "Feudalism" means different things to whom you ask. Before Reynolds, "Feudalism" in Medieval Studies referred to fiefs and vassals being the way Medieval society was organized - vassals took authority from the king, who ruled fiefs in his stead. Also here, the central authority was nonexistent beyond his demesne, and kings relied on vassals to rule fiefs.
In reality, vassal was a catchall word for any subordinate, fiefdoms were created by a growing bureaucracy that supplanted local rulers, and these developments led to the new monarchies and eventually absolutism. Her book is a real good read about medieval historiography.
The real question I suppose is: what was the condition of serfs or peasants in the Middle Ages? Was it akin to slavery, or was it consensual work in return for security? I'm sure these conditions changed over time and were varied in different locations, so it is a difficult question to answer. I am of the mind that it was not slavery, but sort of an imperfect, best available option for poor folks in those days.
Sefdom was definitely not slavery, it was akin to employment. Being employed at this time though was still a state of unfreedom, albeit one entered in by choice and one which dudes could climb out of contractually. Crouch and Reynolds both touch on serfdom, and how the free/unfree distinction mattered more than noble/commoner.
Slavery itself did exist in Medieval times, but was noticeably on an extreme downwards trajectory.
"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.
I think 'bureaucracy' is fine so long as it does not enjoy a monopoly. Monopoly of government is the problem. Peaceful competition in all things is what yields the most prosperity and inhibits the most corruption.
I've actually looked at getting Reynold's book. How would you say it differs from prior works on the Middle Ages and its political structure?
Tbh its use to you depends on your conception of Medieval times. If you still think Medieval times ran on "Feudalism", or that Marx's conception of Medieval times is correct, etc, that book overturned all those past understandings. It's particularly noteworthy for establishing a Medieval conception of the "State" without the monopoly of violence, and it argues that the "sovereign State" actually appeared after the 12th century. It also dispels the notion that Fiefs and Vassals were the most important cornerstone of Medieval times, that Fiefs were a character of decentralization (they actually appeared thanks to centralizing bureaucracies), that vassalage was an important interpersonal relation between nobles, that nobility was anything beyond an informal institution before Knighthood became hereditary, and much more.
Reynolds's book is only the first of a revisionist strand in Medieval Studies. Bisson's "The Crisis of the 12th Century", Crouch's "The Birth of Nobility", and a whole slew of other texts followed its wake.
Okay so it seems her view aligns with my own, and probably has informed my own in some way. I revere the Middle Ages or Western Christendom as the closest political order to actual liberty that the West has experienced, and certainly exceeds the 'democratic freedom' we experience today with its mountainous and monopolistic bureaucracy and its ever increasing stack of laws. As a libertarian, I see medieval governance as the closest system to government based on personal bonds. As a Catholic, I see it as a social order where the Church was fulfilling its role as an international authority that intervened in the temporal affairs of kings and emperors. The Medieval Church would have had no problem excommunicating Biden, Pelosi, and all the other pro-abortion faux Catholics in government. I don't see feudalism as a bad word though. To me federalism is only an attempt to approximate the polycentric authority of feudalism but under the thumb of a modern monopolistic state.
well the word "Feudalism" means different things to whom you ask. Before Reynolds, "Feudalism" in Medieval Studies referred to fiefs and vassals being the way Medieval society was organized - vassals took authority from the king, who ruled fiefs in his stead. Also here, the central authority was nonexistent beyond his demesne, and kings relied on vassals to rule fiefs.
In reality, vassal was a catchall word for any subordinate, fiefdoms were created by a growing bureaucracy that supplanted local rulers, and these developments led to the new monarchies and eventually absolutism. Her book is a real good read about medieval historiography.
The real question I suppose is: what was the condition of serfs or peasants in the Middle Ages? Was it akin to slavery, or was it consensual work in return for security? I'm sure these conditions changed over time and were varied in different locations, so it is a difficult question to answer. I am of the mind that it was not slavery, but sort of an imperfect, best available option for poor folks in those days.
Sefdom was definitely not slavery, it was akin to employment. Being employed at this time though was still a state of unfreedom, albeit one entered in by choice and one which dudes could climb out of contractually. Crouch and Reynolds both touch on serfdom, and how the free/unfree distinction mattered more than noble/commoner.
Slavery itself did exist in Medieval times, but was noticeably on an extreme downwards trajectory.
"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.