A pretty good read and premise, once the ideas were assembled together and articulated rather than being parceled out piecemeal as clues.
I've been thinking a lot about feudalism lately as well. Matter of fact, I made a post about it a couple of days ago here. My basic conclusion is that feudalism has not yet fallen from the face of the Earth, but it's sort of on the ropes and less prevalent, perhaps, than it once was - although it does appear to be in the ascendant again under the brand name of "Globalism". I believe firmly that socialism, communism, and now globalism were and are just an attempt to re-brand feudalism and make it palatable to the masses.
It's not a coincidence that Marxism appeared just when feudalism appeared to be in severe decline.
"You will own nothing and be happy" and "you will not need transportation because everything you need will be within a 15 minute walk of your home" both sound a LOT like serfdom to me, just a re-branding of the age old system, a continuation of renaming "serf" to "the proletariat".
To be honest, almost ANY political system is going to have a certain degree of feudalism built-in to it. Under any of them, with the singular exception of Anarchy, you are going to have those wielding the power and those subject to the power. The question is one of balance, the degree to which the subjects are subjected to the powerful. Anarchy is merely a throwback to the days of lawlessness, the world of dog-eat-dog and survival of the fittest, which is probably too far in the opposite direction. The ideal is to have some degree of governance, of law and order, while at the same time permitting the subjected to the greatest degree of freedom possible - i.e. "small government".
But yes, it was thought-provoking, and well laid out and articulated.
.
I've been thinking a lot about feudalism lately as well. Matter of fact, I made a post about it a couple of days ago here. My basic conclusion is that feudalism has not yet fallen from the face of the Earth, but it's sort of on the ropes and less prevalent, perhaps, than it once was - although it does appear to be in the ascendant again under the brand name of "Globalism". I believe firmly that socialism, communism, and now globalism were and are just an attempt to re-brand feudalism and make it palatable to the masses.
It's not a coincidence that Marxism appeared just when feudalism appeared to be in severe decline.
"You will own nothing and be happy" and "you will not need transportation because everything you need will be within a 15 minute walk of your home" both sound a LOT like serfdom to me, just a re-branding of the age old system, a continuation of renaming "serf" to "the proletariat".
To be honest, almost ANY political system is going to have a certain degree of feudalism built-in to it. Under any of them, with the singular exception of Anarchy, you are going to have those wielding the power and those subject to the power. The question is one of balance, the degree to which the subjects are subjected to the powerful. Anarchy is merely a throwback to the days of lawlessness, the world of dog-eat-dog and survival of the fittest, which is probably too far in the opposite direction. The ideal is to have some degree of governance, of law and order, while at the same time permitting the subjected to the greatest degree of freedom possible - i.e. "small government".
But yes, it was thought-provoking, and well laid out and articulated.
.
“Trouble rather the tiger in his lair than the sage among his books. For to you kingdoms and their armies are things mighty and enduring, but to him they are but toys of the moment, to be overturned with the flick of a finger.”
― Gordon R. Dickson, Tactics of Mistake
― Gordon R. Dickson, Tactics of Mistake