[J m HofMarN]

Quote

Economic socialism isn't regulation, it's outright control. What you're thinking of is state capitalism or, in modern speak, economic fascism.

No it's not and No it's not. It might be communalism though. Regulation of industry is neither a form of state capitalism (the state doesnt own the industry or take their profits) nor "economic fascism" which I have no idea what it would mean.

[civilian_number_two]

Deucaon, on 08 January 2011 - 06:56 AM, said:

Economic socialism isn't regulation, it's outright control. What you're thinking of is state capitalism or, in modern speak, economic fascism.



In every socialist system people needed permits to travel from one place to another. And in feudalism nobles weren't allowed to kill or rape peasants under their command. Mainly because peasants outnumbered them, because they relied on peasants being happy, because it was illegal and because it made them look like assholes to all the other counts/dukes. Reputation was important to a count/duke since their sovereignty depended on it. There's examples throughout history of counts and countesses being overthrown or losing titles as a result of being assholes to peasants.

You need permits to travel now. We call them passports. And no, in feudalism there was limited ability to to report, and nobles raped peasants frequently. The time of feudalism was not a great time to be an attractive peasant woman. I;d be curious to read of some of these counts and countesses you're talking about, because I imagine the cases would have to be rather extreme. more extreme than the odd rape resulting in an unacknowledged bastard or two.

[J m HofMarN]

Prima Noctis, etc etc. And yeah, how exactly was the weak central government going to stop feudal lords whose word was law in their own domains from doing as they pleased? Please consider that question for your city-state based anarcho-capitalist utopia.

[J m HofMarN]

By the way, I nearly forgot since you completely ignored my second or third posing of a question your statements illicited, but given today's assassination of a US congresswoman, are you still saying that the only way to keep our elected officials in line is to occasionally kill one of them, or make it clear that they are under threat of such? Please explain the benefits that some crazy ass shooting Rep. Giffords in the head and how it will increase liberty, or defeat socialism, or unions, or communalism, or bureaucracy, or anything at all.

[Zatoichi]

Deucaon, on 08 January 2011 - 06:56 AM, said:

In every socialist system people needed permits to travel from one place to another. And in feudalism nobles weren't allowed to kill or rape peasants under their command. Mainly because peasants outnumbered them, because they relied on peasants being happy, because it was illegal and because it made them look like assholes to all the other counts/dukes. Reputation was important to a count/duke since their sovereignty depended on it. There's examples throughout history of counts and countesses being overthrown or losing titles as a result of being assholes to peasants.

Besides that you've already been refuted by others, I already said I skipped to the end and decided to cry instead. Just can't let things go, can you?

[Deucaon]

J m HofMarN, on 09 January 2011 - 06:22 AM, said:

No it's not and No it's not. It might be communalism though. Regulation of industry is neither a form of state capitalism (the state doesnt own the industry or take their profits) nor "economic fascism" which I have no idea what it would mean.

It's basically what Mussolini did in Italy and what everybody from Churchill to Roosevelt admired him for. If you're going to support a system then read up on its history for once.

civilian_number_two, on 09 January 2011 - 06:29 AM, said:

You need permits to travel now. We call them passports. And no, in feudalism there was limited ability to to report, and nobles raped peasants frequently. The time of feudalism was not a great time to be an attractive peasant woman. I;d be curious to read of some of these counts and countesses you're talking about, because I imagine the cases would have to be rather extreme. more extreme than the odd rape resulting in an unacknowledged bastard or two.

So a noble is, when they're in a place full of willing courtesans, going to go down to the local village and rape an unhygienic and possibly disease ridden peasant? Are you out of your mind? It sounds like you guys have been reading way too many erotic novels if you believe this shit.

J m HofMarN, on 09 January 2011 - 06:33 AM, said:

Prima Noctis, etc etc. And yeah, how exactly was the weak central government going to stop feudal lords whose word was law in their own domains from doing as they pleased? Please consider that question for your city-state based anarcho-capitalist utopia.

Duh. Taking away titles. Counts and Dukes were still at the mercy of the King who had sovereignty over them. And no King would (as proven by history) allow a sadistic Count/Countess/Duke/Duchess to cause disorder because it interrupts their economy or causes outright revolt.

J m HofMarN, on 09 January 2011 - 03:42 PM, said:

By the way, I nearly forgot since you completely ignored my second or third posing of a question your statements illicited, but given today's assassination of a US congresswoman, are you still saying that the only way to keep our elected officials in line is to occasionally kill one of them, or make it clear that they are under threat of such? Please explain the benefits that some crazy ass shooting Rep. Giffords in the head and how it will increase liberty, or defeat socialism, or unions, or communalism, or bureaucracy, or anything at all.

It keeps them afraid thus makes them less audacious. Look up the history of the Hashishins and their struggle against the government of Persia for a better understanding of this concept. Frankly I have no idea why you don't support the idea of politicians getting killed. I was under the impression that everybody hated them.

This post has been edited by Deucaon: 12 January 2011 - 05:37 PM

[civilian_number_two]

Deucaon, on 12 January 2011 - 05:34 PM, said:

So a noble is, when they're in a place full of willing courtesans, going to go down to the local village and rape an unhygienic and possibly disease ridden peasant? Are you out of your mind? It sounds like you guys have been reading way too many erotic novels if you believe this shit.

...

Duh. Taking away titles. Counts and Dukes were still at the mercy of the King who had sovereignty over them. And no King would (as proven by history) allow a sadistic Count/Countess/Duke/Duchess to cause disorder because it interrupts their economy or causes outright revolt.

I think you may be the one guilty of reading the erotic novels. So medieval courts were filled with "willing courtesans?" I suppose every Lord of every stripe had a roster of quiet and willing handmaidens, and his wife went along for it was all good sport. And unlike today, where it's a victim's word against the attacker, they had lightning-fast reporting of sexual assault, and every judge in the land, appointed as he was by the local country squire, would naturally side with law and order. No corruption there! After all, if a fellow committed a few rapes, there would be economic upheaval and outright revolt!

Jesus Christ, Deucaon. In case you think otherwise, NO, NO, NO. William Wallace did not rebel because his wife was sexually assaulted. That was a legend, popularized in a movie. It's really easy to imagine whether poor and powerless women might have been raped in the middle ages: Ask yourself how difficult it would be for someone with power and money and influence to get away with something like that in a time where reporting a crime was difficult and where a central authority hardly existed. Answer: it would be really easy. You don't read about nobility being deposed by kings for such crimes, and you can take that two ways: either guys in those positions never ever raped, or they did and either they didn't get caught or noone much cared. Since victims of rape are generally the ones considered at fault, it's not hard to see which side to take. It is painful to me to have to explain this to you, but it was in fact so common that sometimes bastards of nobility were able to make claims to land. Noone was much shocked that the son of the duke's maid, who looked a bit like the duke, was in fact the duke's son. This is not simply erotic fiction; you can't read a history of any noble line without encountering dozens of bastards. What would be scandalous today was not uncommon then.

To sum up: no, medieval courts were not filled with willing courtesans. No, rape victims did not have a telephone hotline to CSI teams armed with rape kits and DNA labs. NO, kings did not remove their faithful vassals for crimes against peasantry, and NO, not a single revolution was begun as a response to someone raping a peasant. It's not my fault that you think of this as an idyllic period for the poor and the powerless; it was not.

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 13 January 2011 - 04:52 PM

[J m HofMarN]

Quote

It's basically what Mussolini did in Italy and what everybody from Churchill to Roosevelt admired him for. If you're going to support a system then read up on its history for once.

Actually what Mussolini did is called "fascism" not "economic fascism" but thanks anyhow. Also, I don't believe I ever supported fascism. Except that you seem to consider anything, ever, to be fascist. Question: I am forced, daily, to stop at a stop sign, wasting my valuable time. But the govenrment here has no constitutional imperative to force my compliance to their signs and traffic laws, and yet if I disobey them I could be thrown into jail or fined. Is this an example of a fascism? By obeying, am I now a sheep?

Quote

Duh. Taking away titles. Counts and Dukes were still at the mercy of the King who had sovereignty over them. And no King would (as proven by history) allow a sadistic Count/Countess/Duke/Duchess to cause disorder because it interrupts their economy or causes outright revolt.

You really dont understand feudalism and decentralization whatsoever. Kings were at the mercy of the nobles more often than not. If a king wanted to wage war, he had to have the approval of the lords, because they were the ones who raised an army from their domain. There were no national armies. The nobility could often be the ones that decided who would or wouldnt be king if a dispute arose. So forth and so on. Do you think any king would jeopardize their country's defense because a peasant girl said she got banged by Duke Hornydick? How would this peasant girl get her complaints from bumfuck-nowhere-province all the way to the capital, and then all the way to the king?

Also, youre once again collapsing history by applying our modern perceptions of sexual and women's rights, not to mention microbial biology to medieval times. Back then, your ideal of "women belong in the kitchen" was the general modus operandi. This meant that a woman didnt really have that large of a social sphere, so there werent that many people to tell if something happened. She could tell her husband (who was basically her only legal representative) but this would have 4 possible outcomes:
1: The vile huzzy must have come on to him, let us hang her for infidelity!
2: The vile witch must have bewitched him! let us burn her for witchcraft!
3: Hot damn, the lord fukced my wife! My wife's vagina is fit for a petty noble and I get it almost all to myself!
4: Well, that sure sucks... Mind doing the laundry now?

Quote

[note: in response to the random murder of a congress woman:] It keeps them afraid thus makes them less audacious. Look up the history of the Hashishins and their struggle against the government of Persia for a better understanding of this concept. Frankly I have no idea why you don't support the idea of politicians getting killed. I was under the impression that everybody hated them.

So, to be perfectly clear here, just a yes or no answer, do you support the random execution of government representatives and elected officials?

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 13 January 2011 - 03:20 PM

[Zatoichi]

I mean there are so many historical and fictional accounts of kings/other rulers having to contend with the whims of their nobility that it's kind of a theme for the time. Very few of them actually ruled with such absolute power.