Quote# 137710

Were the Middle Ages intolerant? Yes, they were intolerant of that which they viewed as wrong. Were they ignorant? For many people yes, the majority were uneducated though probably still more educated than is generally thought but there was also a minority of very highly educated people and many of the scientific theories and discoveries that are attributed to later thinkers actually originated in the Middle Ages. St Thomas Aquinas was certainly no intellectual featherweight! But, finally, what about royal absolutism? Monarchs in Medieval times were “absolute” but they were far from arbitrary. They did not rule through brute force but through what were essential free contracts between parties that were to their mutual benefit. This was the basis of the feudal relationship; security and the use of land provided in exchange for certain goods or services.

Not only was there no “government” as we would recognize it today, but even the monarchies were decentralized into subsidiary monarchies. This sort of relationship reached upward to the King, the Holy Roman Emperor and (for some) the Pope while also reaching downward to the princes, dukes, barons and free commoners. Yet, no one, not even bound serfs, could be forced to provide any good or service. It was, in many ways, the sort of privatized society that libertarians uphold as the ideal. Taxes were low, in some cases even nonexistent and only collected temporarily in times of necessity. At each level these “monarchies” were autonomous, entering freely into contracts with each other for support, profit and protection. Whether a prince or a landowning commoner, what you possessed was truly your own and no one could arbitrarily take it from you or tell you what to do with it; hence the old saying that, “an Englishman’s home is his castle”.

Mad Monarchist, The Mad Monarchist 17 Comments [4/15/2018 6:15:23 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Michael

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 | bottom

breakerslions

You left out the part where they would borrow money from the Jews to fight among each other, then default on the loans. This was the basis of all Jew-hating propaganda: to justify the crime and keep the general population on their side.

War was as much a tool to exterminate the surplus population as it was an excuse for any military objective.

St. Thomas Aquinas committed many logical fallacies to reach his foregone, a-posteriori conclusions. To put it simply, he was hard-headed, and responsible for the expression, "pulling conclusions out of your ass."

No public services = low taxes. Meanwhile, the Church collected their tithe for promises that required no action on their part.

Yeah. The Middle Ages were great. No medical care either.

If you think you want to try it, go to Scotland and re-thatch one of those stone huts. Don't bring any modern conveniences with you. See how long you last.

4/15/2018 6:47:08 AM

emau99

Yet, no one, not even bound serfs, could be forced to provide any good or service.

I'm no historian, and even I know that that's some bullshit.

4/15/2018 7:09:30 AM

Swede

The Holy Roman Emperor, during the Dark Ages? The Middle Ages began when the Western Roman Empire fell. The Byzantine Empire existed during the Middle Ages.

I'd say many of the monarchs of this time ruled through complete indifference to their subjects. I highly doubt that ordinary people had any form of free contract with the monarch, and little of what the monarchs did had any benefits to the lives of ordinary people.

Oh, you think you'll be a feudal lord if monarchy is ever introduced for real again? What if you are a serf? Will you still think there are free contracts with mutual benefits then?

The serfs WERE goods and services, you dolt, and were most definitely forced to provide it.

Sure, taxes might have been low, but ordinary people got little or nothing from them. No medical healthcare, no proper roads, no public education, no child-care, no parental-leave, no retirement benefits.
If there was a war with a neighboring king, the taxes were most definitely collected regularly, and probably not as low as you think.

Commoners were not landowners, you silly bint. Most "rented" a piece of land from a rich landowner and nothing was truly their own; everything, including their wives and daughters, could be arbitrarily taken from them.

You're laboring under faux-nostalgic delusions, and permanently rose-tinted glasses hide the dirty reality from you, Maddy.

4/15/2018 7:40:03 AM

hydrolythe

Were the Middle Ages intolerant? Yes, they were intolerant of that which they viewed as wrong.


A lot of which we'd nowadays consider to be right or dubious, but not wrong.

Were they ignorant? For many people yes, the majority were uneducated though probably still more educated than is generally thought but there was also a minority of very highly educated people and many of the scientific theories and discoveries that are attributed to later thinkers actually originated in the Middle Ages. St Thomas Aquinas was certainly no intellectual featherweight!


Why of all people is it St. Thomas Aquinas that you consider great? You know that he produced a major shift in medieval philosophy that ultimately ended feudalism, right?

But, finally, what about royal absolutism? Monarchs in Medieval times were “absolute” but they were far from arbitrary. They did not rule through brute force but through what were essential free contracts between parties that were to their mutual benefit. This was the basis of the feudal relationship; security and the use of land provided in exchange for certain goods or services.


Nevertheless it was hierarchical. Classes were sharply divided and taxes were absurdly high. So much so revolts broke out to regulate them. Ever heard of the "Magna Charta"?

Not only was there no “government” as we would recognize it today, but even the monarchies were decentralized into subsidiary monarchies. This sort of relationship reached upward to the King, the Holy Roman Emperor and (for some) the Pope while also reaching downward to the princes, dukes, barons and free commoners. Yet, no one, not even bound serfs, could be forced to provide any good or service.


Of course at the end of the day you need food to put on the shelves.

It was, in many ways, the sort of privatized society that libertarians uphold as the ideal.


We also know that whenever we propose to a libertarian what their ideal society is that they deflect the subject because their "ideal society" resembles a dystopia. Just ask any libertarian if they want to live in the free zones of Honduras. At least communism is an ideal worth striving for. A social anarchist wouldn't even hesitate a single bit to take the opportunity to move to Rojava whenever it was given to him.

Taxes were low, in some cases even nonexistent and only collected temporarily in times of necessity.


That's not true at all. Why do you think they had treaties regulating taxes? You simpleton.

At each level these “monarchies” were autonomous, entering freely into contracts with each other for support, profit and protection. Whether a prince or a landowning commoner, what you possessed was truly your own and no one could arbitrarily take it from you or tell you what to do with it; hence the old saying that, “an Englishman’s home is his castle”.


Until war breaks out between two kingdoms. If a castle was conquered it was no longer your own. And wars between kingdoms were common during that time period. You really didn't think this through at all.

4/15/2018 7:53:13 AM

Anon-e-moose

The Spanish Inquisition.

You weren't expecting that were you...?!

4/15/2018 8:16:41 AM

Pharaoh Bastethotep

"Neoreactionary" incompetently twists history in order to pretend that hardcore libertarianism is actually a time-proved ideology, part #800.

4/15/2018 10:48:53 AM

KingOfRhye

@Anon-e-moose

Well, nobody expects that.

4/15/2018 2:01:39 PM

Naeron

Swede

The Holy Roman Empire was established by Charlemagne at the start of the 9th Century and lasted until 1806, it's size varied over the centuries but in the main it consisted of a number states in Central Europe centered one the various States of Germany. It was not the same as the Eastern, or Western Roman empires.

4/15/2018 3:42:49 PM

SpukiKitty

All these regressive reactionary weirdos, I noticed, all seem to have an image of "olden times" that's sanitized and based on a cheesy, candy-colored, Saturday Morning Cartoon, "Theme-Park" take on history (every example, below, is bogus)....

* Vikings were synonymous with The Norse People in general and were these macho "super-warrior" guys who wore silly horned helmets, were badasses, raped and pillaged with impunity, could "take" any woman they wanted and didn't sully themselves with stuff like manners, ethics or hygiene....and it was "Awesome".
* The Middle Ages and such....Medieval Times and The Renaissance....were they colorful fairy tale worlds that looked like Disney cartoons or those "Russo-Finnish Co-Production" movies the original MST3K TV show riffed on.
* The Antebellum South looked like most of Gone With The Wind with everybody living in big beautiful mansions, everything was charming and elegant and the slaves were happy to serve.
* Victorian Times looked like a charming old-time dept. store Christmas display with a big focus on elegance, top hats and tails, ornate furniture, gold pocket watches, esteemed proper gentlemen with monocles and weird facial hair, etc.
* The "Old West" looked like cross between John Wayne/Roy Rogers/Tom Mix/The Lone Ranger adventure-fest.
* The Turn of the 20th Century looked like The Music Man or the Disney Theme Park's "Main Street U.S.A.".
* The 30s-40's looked like a Frank Capra film. The 50's looked like Leave It To Beaver.
* In everything on this list; Non-Whites didn't exist or were happy to be serving "whitey", women were happy being housewife/broodmares, LGBTAQ didn't exist and everyone was content being retrograde.

....and THAT, HERE, is THE BIG PROBLEM, FOLKS!

4/15/2018 3:48:59 PM

Indicible

@ SpukiKitty

Well, the Norse were awesome, that remains true. Nobody else had a god who could be a brony, a berserker in drag slaughtering a wedding and an afterlife solely devoted to drinking and bashing each other's head in.

And there was very much a government in France, thank you very much. France basically invented modern bureaucracy. The existence of a State apparatus has been uninterrupted in France since the 8th century.

4/16/2018 5:23:21 AM

Elie

Today I learned that feudalism was a libertarian system...

Say what now? I keep hearing lolbertarians harp on about the immorality of the state's monopoly on violence, and then this guy comes along claiming that monarchies that were literally upheld through force of arms were a libertarian utopia?

4/16/2018 8:03:09 AM

Doubting Thomas

Once again, the Mad Monarchist wants a monarchy thinking that he'll be royalty and not a serf.

4/16/2018 8:56:43 AM

SpukiKitty

@Indicible
Of course, the Norse were very awesome. I was just using "awesome" in the context of all the macho rapey stuff the idiots assume being "awesome".

4/16/2018 8:59:16 AM



The Middle Ages is something you pine for? OK then your medicine will be leeches and exorcisms, you get no running water, no technology. People back then were kept ignorant by the church. They often killed what they viewed was wrong

4/16/2018 9:12:52 AM

Lucilius

@Elie: Of course feudalism was a libertarian system! Libertarianism in practice: The already-rich guys run everything, fuck everyone else, and tell you this is how it's supposed to be.

4/16/2018 9:35:30 AM

Karana

I'm just going to put this right here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtYU87QNjPw

4/16/2018 11:14:42 AM

Canadiest

“an Englishman’s home is his castle”.

That phrase is entirely relative to the nobility.
Commoners didn't own anything, even on land they had lived on for generations, it was all dependant on their usefulness to the nobility.

Again, this was the draw to immigrating to North America, land ownership.

4/17/2018 7:34:49 AM

1 | top: comments page