View Single Post
Old 04-15-2005, 07:55 AM
Draken Draken is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 899
Default Re: Why Private Property Equals Private Liberty - Clinical Analysis By Butler Shaffer

truebeliever wrote:
I'm sorry dear Drak...i can never partake in your love of feudalism...for one, it ends in 'ism' and 2, it absolves people of personal responsability.

I have no objections to Feudalism on a small scale such as small communities. But never on the large scale whereby people have nowhere to go if they dont like it. The potential for Totalitarianism is to great.

In the end Feudalism is Paternalism...daddy knows best. I dont think we can go back. It's to much like Durkheim and his 'organic system' thingy where everyone in society knows there place in the system of things.

It could work in an extremely advanced psychologically, society, but...well, dont hold your breath.


Loved the article BTW. Could'nt agree more. Which begs the cant even build a pergola without a satellite peering into your backyard and a beauracrat giving you permission...who owns your house?
You're right, it's too late to go back. I don't love feudalism, I just want to remind you and others thrashing it as a totalitarian system, that it wasn't always like that. There was a time feudalism was based on a spiritual, transcendent and ultimately Divine order, I know that's impossible now;-) but let us dismiss the of said system's possibility to work for the right reasons, them being not a defective order of hierarchy but the degeneration, corruption and decadence of the souls of Men, especially the rulers and leaders of our age, that is Kali Yuga.

In regards to the small scale implementation of feudalism; when feudalism worked it WAS on a small scale! The king DIDN'T meddle in the business of peasants; the king in fact was not a despot. He didn't even have the right to ORDER his nobles to do anything. He called upon them in times of conflict, to unite in the defence of the realm. If a noble didn't want to take part the king could not force him. When the conflict was over, everyone went back home to families and farms.

In face of conflict a commander was chosen among the gathered nobles. He had absolute authority and nobody who had sworn allegience could question him. But everyone had a choice NOT to swear allegiance and go about their business. The ones who DID swear allegiance were under his absolute authority and if you didn't follow orders in times of conflict the chosen absolute commander had the right to put you to death.

This Supreme Commander lost his authority AS SOON AS THE CONFLICT WAS OVER, and went back to his original status; a noble among nobles.
The function of the king in such a society was more one of spiritual centre for those that recognized him as their king and ruler. To "defend the king" in those times was to defend a higher ideal for which the king was a symbol.
Today, we have shallow nationalism and the forceful defence of "the flag". I rest my case.:-?

I think I read all this recently in Evola's book <a href="">Revolt Against The Modern World</a>. I recommend everyone to read this monumental work. It's beyond excellent.

And yeah, Butler is the bomb. I've read almost every article of his on and they are ALL right on the kisser.
Three things are sacred to me: first Truth, and then, in its tracks, primordial prayer; Then virtue–nobility of soul which, in God walks on the path of beauty. Frithjof Schuon
Reply With Quote