What is difference between Feudalism and Capitalism?

>that even the oppressed worker has a choice of employer, whereas the serf does not, he's stuck with the land he's bound to.
Not much of a difference in practice, in either case the oppressed class is denied control over their own fortune.

>whereas the desperation of the worker and his need for income to provide sustenance is not a condition created by prospective employers.
It doesn't really matter who "created" the condition, what matters is that the condition exists. If starving is a valid choice, then so is getting beaten to death.

>Not much of a difference in practice, in either case the oppressed class is denied control over their own fortune.
So, "in practice", a slave who is doted upon by his or her master and given luxuries and pay beyond a normal person in that society isn't really a slave? Because your definition seems to be working on the level of affluence, not the level of choice.

>It doesn't really matter who "created" the condition,
Of course it matters. If you created the situation, you're responsible for it in a way that you're not if the situation arose independently of you.

If I hit you with my car when you're crossing the road, do you think you should have the right to sue one of the bystanders because he's more able to pay and get your medical bills taken care of? After all, it doesn't matter who created the situation, what matters is that the situation exists.

>Ownership of land is independent of feudal obligation and independent of the higher tier's support of the lower tier.
Irrelevant considering that the reason feudalism is considered "bad" is based on the relationship between lords and serfs, rather than the relationship between lords and kings.

>and the duke really does own his duchy, not the king.
Which is a difference from most modern capitalist society. Nobles were pretty much the de facto rulers of their lands, not just some representative of a king. In practice, nobles weren't really subjects of the king but more like minor kings in their own right, who formed a mutually beneficial military alliance with a more powerful king.

if they made pesants go work in a 'open labor market' they would basicaly revolt

pesants and serfs werent just tied to the land as workforce, it was also their land and they had some share in it tho that grately differed from place to place

strangely pesants revolted more frequently where they had a greater share and a higher standard of living, the revolts of the 1600eds are like a failed attempt of a economicaly rising rural middle class trying to kick off the feudal shitlords that tax them, people dont realise some of the european pesantry was doing rather fine under feudalism, thats why they had the strenght to try and tear it down, now you could say it didnt work, but it was a significant thing, correlated with the hussite wars and other protestant and protoprotestant movements

>he owns the land.
No, he doesn't. The King owns all the land. He keeps part for himself, thats the royal domain.
What he does not keep for himself he hands out to his vassals, which then in turn keep some for themselves and give some to their vassals, and so on.
In the end some peasants end up on the estate of a noblemen and work the land. They pay this with giving part of the food they produce to the noblemen and likely will also have to work a certain amount of days on projects of the noblemen.
With the food provided the noblemen can feed himself and his entourage, which then in turn provide services for him (fight, advise, sing, cook, suck dick) and he himself has to provide services and or goods to his Lord.

>So, "in practice", a slave who is doted upon by his or her master and given luxuries and pay beyond a normal person in that society isn't really a slave? Because your definition seems to be working on the level of affluence, not the level of choice.
No, in both cases the oppressed class lacks control over their own fate, whether the means to control their own fate are being denied passively or actively. A slave who lives in luxury may be rather well off for the time being, but they are ultimately powerless, because their status as a slave means that their master can take that all away whenever they want. Hence there being a difference between being in power and just receiving preferential treatment.

>If I hit you with my car when you're crossing the road, do you think you should have the right to sue one of the bystanders because he's more able to pay and get your medical bills taken care of? After all, it doesn't matter who created the situation, what matters is that the situation exists.
Who should pay if no human individual created the situation?

Notice how there is no money in this game, and not much possibility to accumulate capital? Thats one of the main differences between medieval and early modern economy. Next to no money.
You got to imagine the medieval more like a Mad Max scenario. Like your got your band or tribe or lord and you work for him. Next to no one can read or write, trade networks don't exist safe for the most expensive goods and then they work on the bucket chain principle. And if you are not part of some community, you are simply crow bait.
Completely different times and system.

>Irrelevant considering that the reason feudalism is considered "bad" is based on the relationship between lords and serfs, rather than the relationship between lords and kings.
Even between lords and serfs, the point still stands. Right of the overlord to rule over those below him, the obligations the overlord had to those below him, the obligations someone had to their overlord, and whatever rights they could expect of them, were all fundamentally disconnected to ownership of property.

>Which is a difference from most modern capitalist society. Nobles were pretty much the de facto rulers of their lands, not just some representative of a king
You're still missing the point; you're conflating two very separate concepts of overlordship/vassalship and ownership of some sort of property, usually land. The two were not connected.

>strangely pesants revolted more frequently where they had a greater share and a higher standard of living,
It's not really that strange, in an era when most military equipment was privately owned and used, and there were often actual requirements of certain degrees of equipment if you made over a certain amount (obviously, this varied hugely by region). If you had a greater share and a higher standard of living, it also meant you probably owned real weapons and armor, and were called into actual military service more often; and thus had a chance if you rose up in revolt.

>No, he doesn't. The King owns all the land. He keeps part for himself, thats the royal domain.
Maybe on paper. In practice he really doesn't because unlike modern capitalism, in feudalism the property owners (nobles) had their own private armies. And once you strip all the misdirections away, property ownership is nothing more than the ability to defend the land. Now maybe the king's armies are powerful enough to defeat the nobles and take their land, but if that is considered to grant them de facto ownership of the land BEFORE they actually take it by force, then by that logic Saddam Hussein had "de facto ownership" of Kuwait even BEFORE his forces crossed the border. A right doesn't really amount to much until someone actually exercises it.

>So, in both cases the oppressed class lacks control over their own fate, whether the means to control their own fate are being denied passively or actively.
But they aren't being denied. Material wealth is (possibly) being denied. The means to control one's own fate, the ability to make decisions, is present, where it is not for the bound serf.

>Who should pay if no human individual created the situation?
Nobody. Or at least nobody should be obligated to pay. That's why there's a fundamental difference between the situation of a person looking for a job and a person who is tied to an area with the use of force or the threat of force.

>very separate concepts of overlordship/vassalship and ownership of some sort of property, usually land. The two were not connect
Satan trips is right, owning land didn't made you a lord, a freeman at best. But being a lord enabled you to land and titles, and hence the production of those lands respectively the services of those folks this production was able to feed.
Like status and noble birth was more important than money or economic capability.

Feudal magnates backed up their claims with military and political power, the capitalist's rights are secured by the state.

The nobility did deal with merchants, early banks and moneylenders and urban crafts, particularly the smaller landowning gentry that arose in the late middle ages. The idea they were monolithic feudalists I am guessing is from to the marxist conception of history imagining a shift from feudalism to capitalism, this might apply somewhat to the very top for example Charles I vs parliament, both trying to press their own overarching political systems, though not really economic systems. Lower down the ladder there was a greater mix of interests, a landowner would assess whether there was more material gain to be had enclosing a field and hiring professional plow teams using draft horses or using traditional methods of drawing upon local serfs with their oxen, there was no ideological allegiance to one method.

>not much possibility to accumulate capital
What were the lords then? In a primarily agricultural economy, arable land was the main form of capital. Capitalism doesn't have such explicit hereditary class divisions, but like feudalism it's a society where nearly everyone has to work, but ownership of the means of production is concentrated in the hands of a few.

>But they aren't being denied. Material wealth is (possibly) being denied. The means to control one's own fate, the ability to make decisions, is present, where it is not for the bound serf.
Serfs had the ability to make decisions, they weren't mind controlled or lobotomized. It was just that certain decisions, if made, would have negative consequences - just as in capitalism.

>private armies
>king's armies
You seriously should read up on medieval society, the king had no private army, his army was made up from his banner men and their vassals. In exchange for the lands he granted them they had to provide him with advice and in the case of war with troops. Like their vassals had to do the same for their Lords.
Mercenaries and private armies came much much later towards the end of the medieval.

We killed kings and now we have unfairer leaders, fuck life

If the king had no army, then what would stop the lords from turning against him and overthrowing him? The army may have actually been raised and maintained by lords loyal to him, but in any case the system could only be maintained by the use of force against those who refused to cooperate.

They couldn't accumulate capital, because the main means of productions where land and humans. now there is only so much arable land in a kingdom, and that land can only support so much people. so there was a natural barrier to creating more wealth. Also, they couldn't easily convert their production, most food they needed themselves, and long time storage or transportation was out of the question, services like work could also not be transfered.
So the entire accumulation function that money has was non existent. You where rich when you had fertile lands that could hold lots of people.

Accumulation of capital doesn't require producing new wealth.

>If the king had no army, then what would stop the lords from turning against him and overthrowing him?
All the other lords who would side with the king because they owed him loyalty and like him anyway much better than the other lord.
Besides that, there is tons of examples where exactly that happened. On the other hand, a King was rex dei gratia, people thought this was the god given order of the world and it meant a big deal to them. Also, from a medievla point of view, Feudalism made sense, it likely was an effective way to organize a society with only rudimentary infrastructure and administration.

true, but storing it. try doing that with no real currency circulating.
You paid your bills in wheat and barley, pigs and chickens or 200 peasants working 20 days on your construction site or 10 heavy lancers coming for the war season.

no that wasnt it, they had lucrative buisnesses growing cash crops or producing processed food or things like wine oil or manufactured crap, they also earned a load from rent and all sorts of arbitrary taxation and getting in on local deals and trade and so on, the reason they couldnt into capitalism was that they couldnt recapitulate the process into a new phase, they couldnt develop further that utilysing existing capital to maintain existing relations, which were relations of military dictatorship, and rapid changes in social relations fuck that up

the absolutist monarchy was a way to deal with that, a final, end all, enlightened monarchist utopia thats gonna last foever

because they always do

>true, but storing it. try doing that with no real currency circulating.
The "stored capital" is the land itself. Consistent production output wasn't guaranteed (though it isn't truly guaranteed even with modern industry either) and the land might deteriorate over time, but it's not like it's going to float away or anything. You couldn't really transport it, of course, so it lacked the fungibility of currency, but storing it wasn't really an issue.

another thing was that basic acumulation was achieved by decree, so it was realy a political gain, it had nothing to do with being economicaly productive, it was a cut of the cake for you to be gratefull for and exploit

the common people traded and made shit, a lord only got his hands dirty when he killed people

>no that wasnt it, they had lucrative buisnesses growing cash crops or producing processed food or things like wine oil or manufactured
You are already at the very end of Feudalism, that is not how it started out. Like transporting food on land was next to impossible and only things like valuable salt would be transported on roads at all.
Also, you couldn't really sell your goods, but only barter them against a limited quantity of other goods that was available at the time.

This started to change maybe in the 12th century with the Lombard wool & grain trade in Italy, which then turned pretty fast into merchant banks.
But like 9th century feudalism? Not much chance for doing big business.

>a lord only got his hands dirty when he killed people
That was the lords' form of "labor" or "workforce contribution" or however you earn your living in modern society. Just like in regular employment someone rewards you for providing a certain service, feudal lords were rewarded by their king for providing military service to them. Of course, in theory, lords could also go off on their own and conquer land, keeping it all for themselves - provided the other lords were willing to let them get away with it, of course. That would basically be the equivalent of being self-employed, and was possible because the "means of production" in the business of military conquest was armies, and so lords essentially did own their own means of production in that sense.

>The "stored capital" is the land itself.
Land is a mean of production, not capital. You couldn't store it but had to work it all the time. Gold coins are a different matter, they don't rot and you can store boxes of them and exchange them for whatever you want. Can't do that with land.
But again, currency based economy came much later.

Thats not correct, lords had a job, to keep the peace, and thats some job at the time. Also, speak justice and take care of his people.
That was in a time where starvation or plagues where rampant and a bad winter means 20% of the people die.
Sure he was privileged, non the less he provided important services.
Remember, democracy is far far away for now, and there is always some evil shit who would like to steal your harvest and rape your daughters. If you have an ok lord, thats a good thing.

Capital is generally used as a synonym of means of production. The term has become associated with currency in a capitalist context, because currency is basically a highly portable IOU for the actual physical means of production, and its flexibility is what allowed modern capitalism to come into existence.

yes, but were talking why couldnt feudals into capitalism? question

how can you imagine any body going into capitalism before the 13th or 14th century?

the templars tryed to pull a gimmic and thats why the french king took the down, it wasnt that they were too powerfull or too succesfull, its that the logic of it was toxic to the feudal system, knightly orders were beasicaly corporate entities, and that clashed with the feudal system bigtime

How were they rewarded for keeping the peace? Who granted them material gain for doing so? I'd say their interest in keeping the peace was more in the form of self-interest than in an employment-like transaction, basically the same way a craftsman has a self-interest in keeping his tools in good shape, even though he's not directly paid for doing so, but rather failing to do so would deprive him of his ability to bring in income.

>Capital is generally used as a synonym of means of production.
Yes, because it is accumulated wealth that can be exchanged for whatever you want. You can't exchange your land because the King just lent it to you and you only can produce with it what grows or indirectly with what those guys produce that get sustained by your excess food production.
You cannot even exchange your food, because you cannot store it longtime, cannot transport it long distance and even if you could, there would like no one buying when there is excess food left on their side.
For capitalism you need the storage function of money, and it is true, late feudalism was money based, but at that time the Feudalism was already shifting power towards the "bourgeois" class.

feudal forces realy didnt have much with 'keeping the peace'

there were town guards and local militias that did that, the church had its own armed forces and so on, but the local feudal army rarely had shit to do with keeping peace, or peace of any kind realy, maybe they enforced laws and such

maybe '''the kings army''' but that didnt realy work that way in most places

When somebody was enfeoff with land, this included rights and duties, a right could be the low justice (everday law) or high justice (penal law)
Landlord's duty was to keep the peace and law on his lands, should he be inept at doing that he might get exchanged for someone better suited. If you loan land (and people) to someone, then you want him to take good care of it, otherwise you fire him.

>feudal forces realy didnt have much with 'keeping the peace'
Except they did just that on their vast lands, which until the high medieval was the vast majority of all land. Each feudal lord was responsible to keep the peace on his territory.

Townsguards where limited to well, their towns, and there was only few of them in the early medieval, plus back then they were all royal domain.

i think the definition of 'keeping the peace' youre looking for is -keep the population in passive obedience- it wasnt exacly a police force, more like having your local group of stormfags making sure you work for their boss

Well, that is simply not true, they did a lot of policing, and with marauding bandits and what not this wasn't an easy job. Also, the landlord was in charge of speaking the law or designate judges to do so, that was a lot of work, for example contracts on markets, inheritance cases, minor infarctions and transgressions of whatever nature or up to murder and robbery.
In a way, they had to manage their populations, and it turned out that working with the people was way more efficient than against them.
Imagine a different world, material riches are nice as always, but the reputation of a man was everything. Being known as a good lord and wise judge far and wide, thats what you aspire for.
Of course this changed over time, but we have to recall how the system came into place, and how it worked for most of the medieval.

how it worked for most of the midieval period was that people wanted to get rid of them or at least regulate their rule and that was a cause of constant conflict with people forming communes and local councels all trough the early middle ages which cristalise into 'free citties' under crown rule around the 12-1400eds meaning they get to build walls and have armed forces and their own courts, some legal autonomy, and conduct their own trade, and often they get to chose mayors or have other forms of local rule

this was a process going on all over europe, basicaly anyone who could get up from under feudal rule did so, few exeptions, like people emigrated from venice republic into austro hungary because apparently compared to the venetian legal and political system in feudalism you could at least live as a human being, but then peopl also emigrated from HRE to ottoman lands at the same time

>into 'free citties' under crown rule around the 12-1400eds
Thats not really correct, until the 12th century the market and city right was a Droit de régale, a royal prerogative. Only after that aristocracy and clergy dukes became the right to found walled cities and market towns. In the 13th century a free city was a city with no feudal lord but the king or emperor himself and they had a variety of rights like high and low justice and rights to the lands around city.
What you got wrong is to see the evolution of society, early medieval Europe was thinly settled, apart from old roman roads there was no roads at all. like 2% of people could read and of those 96% where clergy, towns where rare and mostly wood and mud huts tucked into some Roman ruins. Transport was walking or as fast as a horse could run.
Best of it all, everybody was frantically believing in some end of days religion and more interested in their sins and afterlife than in economical development or scientific research. Oh and most of your neighbors are sociopaths killers and will attack you if you show weakness or break the rules. Occasionally you get raided by Saracens or Vikings and the rest of the time you try not to starve because of bad weather.

Times where really different, and it was a gradual learning process that enabled cities, trade, sophistication and labor division in trades, agriculture, administration to develop from quasi tribal levels to a early modern society. During this process society changed, and feudalism which started as a good system to get shit done to an anachronism and despotic system.

the plague sped up the process tho

Yup, 50% of population wiped out meant peasants and especially townsfolk could get choosy with their Lords, wages increased and power started to shift. Guilds and merchants would become rich and powerfull.
The great famine of 1315-17 and the 1437-40 weather extreme had similar effects.

>1431-1440, spontaneously ten years of winter
>everybody dies, lol

.

Is it fair to have a materialistic view on the medieval period, when in fact they had a spiritual view?
Like how can a materialistic analysis understand the spirituality driven world of that time?

I will never get why communists believe the transition from feudalism to capitalism happened through a class struggle.

>feudalism
>noble exploits you but has to look after you in exchange
>capitalism
>they exploit you until they find someone better to exploit

Wasn't it? Like French Revolution and such?

But that revolution failed. It just caused a fallout of ideas and of systems of government, but it didn't result in the total take-over of the bourgeoisie. The restauration happened. And yes, gradually it seeped into Europe and elsewhere, but you can't really say it was the type of class struggle communists envision that will finish off capitalism: the total take-over of the working class and the complete destruction of everything bourgeoisie.

That didn't happen. Feudalism gradually morphed. It lost some parts, retained others ( like the Church is still around ) and it didn't mean a bourgeois regime managed a whole top-down change.

>they exploit you
confirmed for never having worked a day in your life

if you knew how much people at the top work you'd never want to trade places with them

t. person at the top claiming he has terrible life

Thats not the point, the revolution happened, and nothing was the same again afterwards. Like the power was shifting for a long time and pressure was building up, and then boom, revolution.

>trade networks don't exist safe for the most expensive goods
But that's fucking wrong.

>restauration
Restaurant or restoration?

Is it? So please tell me about large scale trade network in the early and high medieval!
>Oh, they traded salt and little else

Capitalism
>Promote individualistic values like self-made man, startup
>You don't own your mean of production
>>Corrupt parodies of Guilds know as Unions
>Workers are enslaved to the wealthies, and wealthies aren't bonded to protect them unlike feudal lords
>As the first son, you don't inherit your father's properties as the first son because egalitarian values made it so that all sons and daughters share a part of of the inheritance
>As the first son, you don't inherit your father's skill because modern schooling (led by egalitarian values) made it so that all children are teached the same BS

Feudalism
>Lords and Vassals assist each others
>You own your mean of production
>You are proected by your Guilds
>As the first son, you inherit your father's properties and his skills, you share it with your brothers until they can settle somewhere else

what a dumb post.
You seem to use Feudalism as your projection screen for your problems with our current society without understanding anything about the medieval society nor how it transfered to a early modern society.

>critic (((capitalism)))
>wage-slages(propably american as well) rush to defend it

Good goy, if you continue to suck my Kosher dick for 40 years i swear that your debt will be erased

Actually your blatant ignorance of medieval history and childish attempt to mix it up with todays politics triggered me. Never mind.

>Corrupt parodies of Guilds know as Unions
Drink that cool-aid buddy

What is the diffrence between Marxism and Feudalism?
>both in love with the state
>both think one human is not worth shit (read Marx)
>both think people should be ruled by strong undemocratic government

Because in capitalism you can become rich if you are determined enough. But you commies are too lazy and prefer to cry and complain.

>/pol/ gets triggered
>has to reply with off topic anti Marxist post, complete with pepe
>post is not exactly smart
well done user!

You forgot to pepe post!

You forgot to post some awful HAHA CAPITALIST PIG memes from your /leftypol/.

>Because in capitalism you can become rich if you are determined enough

Nope

If you're a poor American, you'll either stop in high school or indebt you to go to a shitty college, then, pay your debt slavery for the rest of your SHORT life, and it is if you're lucky enough and don't die from an illness that you can't afford to cure

If you have a daughter she will probably whore herself to a rich young master, this rich young master is also the son of your boss/master so you can only watch while he fuck and debase your daughter because you fear to be fired and not being able to pay your debt to your Jewish overlords

>implying luck don't play a large part off it

Nobody prevents you from inventing something and becoming rich. That's the capitalism - if you are lazy - you will get fucked, if you are productive - you will become rich.

Nobody even forces you to go to college, you can have a simple work without a higher degree.

>/leftypol/.
This thread was about how Feudalism, which is based on Nobility transferred to Capitalism, which is based on Capital.
It was an interesting discussion with intelligent people until you turned into a shit ling fest.
>p.s. I'm a conservative

It does. But your work and self-determination is the most important.

No, it is
>muh ebil capitalism ;_; look having a free choice is exactly the same as being a slave of your feudal lord!1111 AM I RITE? LIBERTARIANS BTFO!1111
You forgot that we are being raided by /leftypol/ faggots.

This thread was more fun back when people had a clue about the medieval world and were able to write a reply with more than one line and zero swear words.
Now you just have people with no clue aggressively defending their opinion.
Sic transit gloria mundi...

Nice try commie, so now you are playing "I'm apolitical!" card because you can't shit on capitalism anymore.

And if this thread was "apolitical" and just historical discussion, then explain this faggot Lol you are pathetic.

P.S. If you had enough clue, you would have known that Capitalism evolved out of Calvinistic, and Calvinistic-influenced Anglicanist teachings, not from "feudalism". The idea that becoming rich is your goal is of protestant christian origin, while catholic feudalists believed that (only) they have right to be rich because God gave them power.

>If you had enough clue, you would have known that Capitalism evolved out of Calvinistic, and Calvinistic-influenced Anglicanist teachings, not from "feudalism".
Now we talking baby!
Just so you know, you are quoting "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" By Max Weber, a German lefty.

See, Calvinism didn't develop out of thin air and is neither a economic nor a political theory, but a theology. You need to understand the economic and social changes that enabled the Reformation in the first place Like 9th century Europe is largely a tribal society, 15th century Europe is a civilization, lots of things happened in between. If you don't understand things like the Hansa or Italian city states you can't really understand the development of capitalistic economy under feudalism.

>playing "I'm apolitical!"
mate, I stated that the development of Capitalism is natural and a logical result of our society. That makes me a mortal enemy of every Marxist there is.
The difference is I don't give free (You)s to every one line shit post with a meme picture.
Also I don't throw a tantrum just because someone mentions historic materialism.

>Capitalism evolved out of Calvinistic teachings,
>this is what leftycucks actually believe

>P.S. If you had enough clue, you would have known that Capitalism evolved out of Calvinistic, and Calvinistic-influenced Anglicanist teachings, not from "feudalism".
>Capitalism was created by the evil WASP
shit marxist meme is shit marxist meme!

>pretends to be right wing
>posts decisively Marxist position on history
Are you a false flag or just plain stupid?

Congratulations you've just discovered marxist historical theory is dogshit and doesn't apply to reality.

feudalism has monarchs
capitalism has oligarchs

why hasnt this been posted earlier, /his?

shameful to share the same board with a bunch of inbred psuedo-historians

...

why can't these people talk without bringing up marxism, communism, lefties etc. every time
are they obsessed ?

To be fair, OP's question is attacking a core dogma of Marx's historic materialism.

>Ignoring the class struggle in the history.

t. the "apolitic" classcuck

>just out compete somebody with more access to support and resources
>just start a business. Compete with the guy whos parents can afford for him to learn from his mistakes.
>just invent something better than people who have more access to mentors, investors, education, quality(statistically) of parentage, and the very things necessary to prototype designs.

The people who rise above, do so in spite of their squalor. Not because of it. A person perceptive enough to learn and apply frugality from squalor, would be able to do so with a middling affluent upbringing. And they wouldn't be impeded by the risks to health and development that come with squalor.

This is why even Milton Friedman advocated for welfare. Though his is different from establishment welfare. His idea was a negative income tax. Income is taxable only after a certain threshold that would allow a person the basic necessities of frugal life. Below that point, income is supplemented only to meet that point. What a person does with that income is entirely up to them.

Cont.

I know a single mother. Perhaps she's an outlier. But she's a diligent woman who I've seen climb rank into management. Imagine a person who has stepped up to take responsibility for their mistakes. A person in the process of making right.

Still, she earns meagerly for the breadwinner of a family. While management, it's over a department in a grocery store. And the father of her children was so unstable that he had only ever been an expense. When he couldn't keep himself afloat, she had to. She's an opportunistic and grounded person, and she wanted a father figure for her children. Go figure. food stamps are an option to make sure your children will be fed, you will take that option. Other costs of life are ever present: car loans, rent, your elderly parents, and the debt your boyfriend accrued in your name after he convinced you that he needed your cosign on a car or card.

Such a person benefits from a subsidy like food stamps. It takes pressure off immediate costs, so that you can consider long term ones. Think car payments, housing, and debt from cosigning bad deals. With the benefit of a continued, long-term focus, immediate costs begin to weigh less. She can pay the debt, avoid overcharges, start earning passive income from whatever investment she can do with what's left over. So imagine her confusion when she was told she had too much money in her savings account to receive them. This was after taxes mind you. A good deal of it was from exemptions that she planned to ration off over the year to avoid any sort of overdraft or additional debt. She was clever enough to game them though. She withdrew enough in cash to fall under the threshold, and came back with the story that she'd spent it on a spree. And instead of spending more tax dollars on some audit of this, she was given the stamps. But you still paid for the labor of that clerk twice, instead of once. A nanny rule made sure of that.

>Plebs: Businessmen & CEOs are the new nobility!
>They don't govern you, they participate quite minimally in the affairs of state, they do not ensure the stability of the state, nor lead you in war nor fight alongside you in battle.
>Their "fiefdoms" are private properties instead of lands granted to them by their country for them to be responsible for and not just treat it like some private plaything.

>they participate quite minimally in the affairs of state
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Cont.

These nanny rules are grandfathered in by our collective paranoia about misuse of welfare. But in this case, it's actually punishing good behavior and long-term decision making. They cost us more, in the end, for a false sense of security and the idea that we're chaperoning people with some greater wisdom of tuff love. But anyone who's concerned with solving their own problems in squalor doesn't benefit from this micromanagement. That's what Friedman believed. And furthermore, he believed that this micromanagement was a frivolous waste. Right wing thought dictates that well meaning policies like this pay for peace of mind, not the advancement of the poor. And while I'm not a fiscal conservative, I can agree in this case. Wholeheartedly if it means that I can have a well meaning policy in place that's efficient, and won't overstate its effectiveness. Neglecting those issues only hurt a voter who is interested in left-wing public policy.

His idea is that due diligence and good decisions can lift anyone from hard times. But hard times aren't always the result of a lack of those. As a free-market capitalist, he wants there to be as many rational actors participating in markets as is possible. Free-market capitalism concludes that this is the best way to raise everyone's quality of life. And you can't screen for diligence. You can't look at every American and decide how well they'll use it. That's invasive. It's elitist. It's authoritarian. And it's expensive to try. But you can have a rough idea of what the frugal means of an individual or family will need to survive. You can assume that a right minded person is concerned with their well being. And you can know with certainty that earning below that threshold makes life more expensive, than when at or above it. And for any person who is responsible and capable, this is a temporary affair. They rise to begin paying back into it. And we tolerate those who can't for the sake of those who can.

>be insurance company
>have my dick in the gubmint
>wormtongue some old cunts into drafting a welfare bill
>people literally fined for not paying me
>the fines go into paying me for people who can only pay part
>right is pissed at left
>they draft their own bill
>it's full of even more bullshit like that, plus tax cuts

As long as private health insurance is mandated in any way, my wellbeing -is- their feifdom. My inability to front tens of thousands of dollars is their supple field to till. It's been granted to them by their country. And their privileges over that feifdom are subject to their influence over the country.

Corruption is corruption. Insider cooperation is insider cooperation. Excuse me if it's older than you think.

Also my dude have you ever heard of defense contractors

You know, modern Capitalism and historic Feudalism do not magically end up to be the all same just because you use the word fief several time in a sentence.