What is the difference between feudalism and anarcho-capitalism?

>I don't have to feed a kid I chose to carry to term because muh freedoms
This has literally nothing to do with wealth

Feudalism was essentially socialist, but it was based on a longstanding tradition of making royalty from priority.

For example, the first kings were blacksmiths in Europe. They were the ones who had priority in society until a new priority had to be met (food). Then came the Lo'rds, aka loaf wards, whose sole duty it was to act as the incentive and arbiter of society. The lo'rd with held bread and food from the peasants as taxation so the deficit would act as an incentive for the peasants to work harder, and the feudal lo'rds could control that and industrialize them, especially that mercantilism (a fore bearer to modern capitalism) came along.

It has.

Fuck bzlrumph and fuck h'wite h'p'eople

What absolute nonsense is this? I swear to God browsing Veeky Forums makes my smarts more dumb dumb.

The first kings weren't blacksmiths that became bakers. European nobility arose from military castes or powerful land lords that had existed during the collapse of Rome. They gained and maintained their position through military strength not controling food supply to peasants. Peasants gave the nobility food in exchange for protection from other lords who wanted to take it. It was a symbiotic relationship because at the time a peasant couldn't waste time learning to fight because he had to farm and the nobility couldn't waste time farming because they needed to train to fight so people specialised and covered one anothers weakness. Higher tiers of feudalism is just an extension of that, a King or Duke is a military leader that is meant to protect his subjects (peasants and lower nobility) land.

Blacksmiths weren't "kings" but he's probably referring to the influence and power/respect that blacksmiths had in pre-Roman Gaul and probably other Celtic areas.

>Feudalism was essentially socialist
The saddest part is this isn't even the dumbest post I have read all day

What property? The baby never bought or created anything. Why would parents be obliged to protect and feed him if they never agreed to and who would enforce the feeding and protection of the infant anyway? Can I initiate violence against bad parents? If I take away a child from bad parents, without their consent, to rear it as my own, am I infringing on the parent's right to their child? Or the child's, which can't consent? Or no-one's?

Hobbes would argue that strongmen or powerful groups would take feudalism, centralize it's power structure, and, thusly, create a more orderly, peaceful system.

>Feudalism was essentially socialist
>the first kings were blacksmiths in Europe
Nice bait.

...

Is the same shit.

>Feudalism was essentially socialist,

Nice true socialism m'lord

Pretty much all major roads are built on tax money. They are public works, not just products of private entrepeneurship.

When you breed a child you unsolicited agree, that this being has the right of everything both parents have, while it is true we don´t oblige the parents to take care of them(that is why they can adopt)

The children has the basic right of being taken care of until 18, if the parents won´t give this to him then the state must find someone who will or the state must take care of this child.

Please don't call capitalists libertarians
It hurts real libertarians

>the baby isn't property
>until it is old enough to work

Whether you like it or not, the statistically measureable improvements occured in Somalia after the fall of the communist state and the period statelessness.

[spoiler]Did you know that most regulations are made by private companies? There billionaires who made their fortune exclusively in quality control of instruments and electronics[/spoiler]

>The main oddity of this, relative to other political systems, is that usually obligations only extend one link up or down.
It's not that odd. Why would a king be responsible for a minor issue that a baron in the region can take care of

>leftists getting triggered by this post
The king, his nobles, his armies, his serfs are totally different from the dictator, his party, his armies, and his proles.

If you think about the actual meanings of "ownership" and "property", nearly all property in developed countries is owned by the state. When private entities "own private property", really all that they actually own is an exclusive, transferable right to make use of that property provided that they agree to certain conditions.

Why would leftists get triggered by something that is utter nonsense? Socialism means the workers own the means of production and conversely, that one cannot claim ownership of the means of production (and by extension an entitlement to profits resulting from production) beyond the extent that they contribute labor. That's pretty much the opposite of feudalism.

>achieve your socialist dream
>whoops it's a dictatorship enslaving the underclasses again

I was really more thinking bottom to top loyalty being the odd part. Being obligated to your baron's commands even when they contradict the king's commands because your loyalty is to your baron, it's only his loyalty that's owed higher up and any conflict is between him and them is a decidedly weird attitude, at least to me coming from a 21st century American perspective.

>If you think about the actual meanings of "ownership" and "property", nearly all property in developed countries is owned by the state
Not him, but what the fuck? The actual, or at least legal meanings of things like ownership and property are a series of socially recognized rights and obligations towards the item of property. The state does not usually hold those; it simply enforces them. I suppose you could come up with an alternate definition, and in fact you seem to invite it, but what makes your definition better than other competing definitions?

>legal age
>state
>in an ancap society

How can one "achieve their socialist dream" by attaining something that doesn't even fit the definition of socialism?

If you really owned your property, the state wouldn't have legal jurisdiction over it.

>If you really owned your property, the state wouldn't have legal jurisdiction over it.
Yes, it would. In fact it almost essentially has to, in order to enforce your property rights. No matter what legal system you come to, unless you want to abandon it all and go back to force majeur, it will have to have jurisdiction over your property to be able to say, induce a fine on someone for trespassing on it.

If you rely on an external entity to protect your property rights, that's only a "right" in the sense of a legal contract (which is how "rights" are usually understood today). But it's certainly not an absolute right - since the state generally has the ability to stop enforcing your property rights at any time.

And if you don't, your "right" only extends to the level of your individual force, and can be taken away the second someone else comes along with greater force. At that point, it can hardly be said to exist, since your ability to defend a "right" isn't really any different from your ability to mug someone.

Exactly, which is why "rights" are pretty much arbitrary. They only describe something that exists in a specific circumstance, there really aren't any universal rights that all humans have.

If you're taking that tack, then how do you even have a coherent notion of property ownership at all, let alone how you can view a state's power to exercise jurisdiction over it somehow negating your ownership? (And whatever definition you use for things like property and ownership, why is it a better definition than any other?)

I don't regard any form of property ownership as a universal right, since that simply isn't an accurate view. Property ownership is a practical, de facto circumstance that exists, at least temporarily, as a result of one either having the force to defend it, or forming a contract with one who agrees to use force to defend it.

>. Property ownership is a practical, de facto circumstance that exists, at least temporarily, as a result of one either having the force to defend it, or forming a contract with one who agrees to use force to defend it.
So how do you reconcile that with the statements here ?

You have, maybe not a contract exactly, but a quasi-contract with a state that will enforce a pretty clearly recognized set of norms about what is and isn't property. If you're using the definition you're using in the post I'm responding to, how does the state's jurisdiction over that property invalidate your ownership of it?

Hobbes would argue that all roads lead to imperium: a powerful, centralized state

Yeah but the king doesn't own the land your farm is on, the baron does. So unless the baron asks something of you that is the king's demand, you're going to stick to just doing what the baron says.

But again, notions of feudal overlordship were completely distinct with the notions of feudal property ownership. It's easier to illustrate when you get away from the peasants at the bottom.

If you have a series of knights who themselves own bits of property, and pledge service to a count or whatever higher up on the food chain, offering the guy 40 fighting days a year in return for his protection, it's not because that count owns the knight, or the knight's lands, you have a completely separate chain of feudal obligation, that does not at all take into account any further chains upward that count himself has.

Feudalism is closer to Communism

I don't really see the issue. As long as you know where you place is in the chain, then it's a stable relationship.

Oh, it's eminently stable, so it's not a "problem" per se, but it for instance means that if your lord is openly breaking his vows to the guy above him, your honorable path as a good vassal to him is to back him to the hilt, even when he himself is being a bad vassal to his overlord.

I mean, you sort of have a notion of a chain of command, since every feudal chain ultimately ends on top with a king, but the idea that the king's wishes don't override your immediate superior's wishes even though the king is himself above your superior just is a bit weird.

>No no no he's not a king he's a dictator
>Oh ok that's fine then
Leftists

Not really. What's the king done for me lately compared to my master?

>"communist" totalitarian states that never actually called themselves communist are class societies with wealth equality
try harder retards

>no no no he's not a dictator he's a nationalist entrepreneur
>oh ok great!
The """"Right"""" lmao

It only seems strange from a modern perspective, where everyone is familiar with national politics and people strongly identify with the nation.

A medieval peasant would have only a vague idea of who the king was, and would know nothing at all about court intrigues among the nobility. The average man lived his whole life in the town where he was born, and would see the town rather than the kingdom as the primary component of his geopolitical identity.

Which "leftists" said that?

Capitalism has taxes ya doink

>entire platform in the thread is how unlike monarchy your idealized utopia will be
>communist rhetoric ALWAYS ended up with the dictator/king, party/nobles, military, proles/serfs hierarchy
>NOT REAL COMMUNISM NOT REAL COMMUNISM

You are equally as shit as the Neo-Nazis.

fpbp

Tankies

>implying every leftist is a Marxist-Leninist

The chief differences between feudalism and capitalism is that political power under feudalism was directly personalised whereas under capitalism it is abstracted from our personal situation.

What do I mean by this? Under feudalism you're actual social relations to you're lord and him to his king were features of the political state. The political state was to put in Marx's terms fully intertwined with civil society, or else civil society was directly political.

In contrast under capitalism, the public/political sphere is purified and abstracted from civil society. We are equal in the eyes of the state as "citizens". The reason why this is is because capitalist economic relations are themselves entirely impersonal. Capitalist economic relations are entirely regulated by abstract exchanges of value in the form of commodities and money. If such a system is to be established it needs a political form that doesn't ascribe political power to any particular personal privileges such as that possessed by a monarch or noble.

Hobbes' point is that attempts to interfere with centralized authority invariably leads to immense human misery before centralized authority is reestablished.

Whereas under feudalism the relations of production are concrete and wedded to the actual personalities producing. The actual production of utilities for the peasants and nobility.

Under capitalism production is suboordinated to the expansion of social wealth in the form profits as money.

I was gonna post Hobbes. Libertarians need to read their classics, their ideology is babybrained immature horseshit.

>it's another historically illiterate dipshit doesn't know what feudalism means thread

>Muh horse shoe theory

>Feudalism was essentially socialist

Surprisingly little. Enormous territories were bought/sold in the middle ages. King Richard of England sold Cyprus if I remember right.