2 Party System Vs. 3+ Party System

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1349204020' post='2489293']
I stand by my response.
[/quote]

So do I.

[Nihil Obstat]

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1349201732' post='2489275']
This is really dumb.

Anomaly, you are extremely overmatched.
[/quote]I didn't realize there was some sort of contest... I readily admit the intelectual shortcommings on my part, but keep pushing for a response that I might comprehend.

[Nihil Obstat]

Fair enough.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1349202699' post='2489285']


Sure. I do not have much time, but I will give a rough sketch.

My understanding of feudalism is that its essential characteristic was of landowners and renters who generally farmed the land, or something along those lines. The landowners often became the center of small, rather vibrant communities, as long as things were working well. I do not see anything inherently wrong in general with this system.
A neo-feudalist system obvious is not going to be primarily agrarian, but I think we can take the same principles of landowning and renting and apply it to a modern society.

A certain amount of law and order is well within the best interest of the landowner, therefore in his rental contracts he is likely to specify certain 'laws' as part of his agreement, and he may retain a small private security group, or he may hire a firm to take care of security. The rental contract protects both the landowner and the renters, and private courts are [url="http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf"]more than capable of arbitrating disputes[/url]. (p. 14-21)

That is the general gist of it. I do not have time to go into more depth at the moment.


It would be rather sad if one even had poor arguments against their strawmen.
[/quote]How would this even be remotely workable given that many people are employed in non-agarian field? What effect would this have on large urbanized populations like New York or even a smaller city like Orlando? Doesn't fuedalism preclude the 'small people' from becoming land owners? Would your social system of neo-fuedalism permit or falicitate movement from serfdom to Lord?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1349207631' post='2489311']
How would this even be remotely workable given that many people are employed in non-agarian field? What effect would this have on large urbanized populations like New York or even a smaller city like Orlando? Doesn't fuedalism preclude the 'small people' from becoming land owners? Would your social system of neo-fuedalism permit or falicitate movement from serfdom to Lord?
[/quote]


I do not think the essential feudal aspects preclude an industrialized society. It would simply take a different form, with some, perhaps most of the landowners renting out office buildings in addition to whatever else they are doing.

Co-operation makes good business sense, so I see no reason that larger cities cannot arise spontaneously in a neo-feudal system, not to mention making use of already existing infrastructure.

I do not think that it prevents upwards mobility. Anyone can buy and sell land. Anyone can make money. Therefore anyone can move up from a renter to an owner, if they work smart.

One flaw of the landed gentry system in England as I understand it was that, number one it was too closely related to noble titles awarded by the state, and number two, that it actively resisted upward mobility.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1349207926' post='2489312']



I do not think the essential feudal aspects preclude an industrialized society. It would simply take a different form, with some, perhaps most of the landowners renting out office buildings in addition to whatever else they are doing.

Co-operation makes good business sense, so I see no reason that larger cities cannot arise spontaneously in a neo-feudal system, not to mention making use of already existing infrastructure.

I do not think that it prevents upwards mobility. Anyone can buy and sell land. Anyone can make money. Therefore anyone can move up from a renter to an owner, if they work smart.

One flaw of the landed gentry system in England as I understand it was that, number one it was too closely related to noble titles awarded by the state, and number two, that it actively resisted upward mobility.
[/quote]Are you proposing (neo)fuedalism as hypothetical utopia, or as a real possibility as a social evolution or revolution as a response to current societal shortcomings??

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1349208292' post='2489316']
Are you proposing (neo)fuedalism as hypothetical utopia, or as a real possibility as a social evolution or revolution as a response to current societal shortcomings??
[/quote]

I will call it possible but highly unlikely. Just like converting the world to Catholicism.

[abercius24]

Neo-feudalism is more where our economy is going today. It is based on the idea that all economic activity occurs based on the use of capital already owned by a choice few. Basically, you can own the conception behind your business to make money, but you will never make enough money to actually be the primary investor in your own business. It's all based on debt. You can't start a business without owing a debt to procure the capital necessary to start it. And if your income vs. your debt structure makes it that you will always remain in debt, you basically fall into a situation where your work benefits the creditors eons more than it actually benefits you. This is similar to classic feudalism because the "rent" you would pay for the land you would work (land that belonged to the feudal lord) was in many cases very close to the actual income you would make off working that land. It in a sense amounted to slave labor. This was especially the case where you could not work as a serf on the lord's land unless you agreed to a long-term contract where you had to dedicate yourself to working that land under those limited profit conditions for 10-20 years at a time. And if you broke that contract, you ended up in debtor's prison.

[Nihil Obstat]

So make enough money to get out of debt. Do not enter into contracts which you will be unable to pay off.

[abercius24]

Yeah, said no classic serf, ever! ;-D

It's not a good scam if it doesn't sucker people! And if it wasn't a great scam in the first place, it wouldn't have been written in the history books!

See the problem with contracts those days and these days is that they are only unchangable for the consumer/serf/borrower. As far as the creditor/lord is concerned, it can change whenever they want. Take my student loan, for example. The original agreement was for a reasonable monthly payment that I paid for 10 years. Then all of a sudden the government decides they will change the payment structures of student loans without any agreement from the borrowers. Now I'm paying four times more than what was actually agreed upon. It's a one-way contract that makes feudalism untenable as a "free-market" concept.

Edited October 3, 2012 by abercius24

[Nihil Obstat]

People in industrialized societies make more money than at any other time in history. If there has ever been a time when the average person can stay out of debt, it is now.

Also I do not see how a statist and/or corporatist system addresses the concerns you are presenting.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Nihil Obstat

[abercius24]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1349302478' post='2489702']
People in industrialized societies make more money than at any other time in history. If there has ever been a time when the average person can stay out of debt, it is now.
[/quote]

I agree with that, but that's not my point. The point isn't where we are now, but where the current trends are leading us. Purchasing power for the middle class is substantially decreasing over the last 30 years. That is a concern because it means the free-market is actually being manipulated for the prime benefit of those with power. The invisible hand is not so invisible anymore when it has a brand name stamped on the side of it!

[Anomaly]

Oh bull poo. I personally know of people who have started companies, myself included, on shoestring budgets. It takes a lot more work and effort than money. Complying with Governmental regulations is one of the most difficult and time consuming obstacles. Lemonade stands are illegal.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='abercius24' timestamp='1349302878' post='2489706']

I agree with that, but that's not my point. The point isn't where we are now, but where the current trends are leading us. Purchasing power for the middle class is substantially decreasing over the last 30 years. That is a concern because it means the free-market is actually being manipulated for the prime benefit of those with power. The invisible hand is not so invisible anymore when it has a brand name stamped on the side of it!
[/quote]


Ah, then we are rather close to agreeing after all.

The thing is that the market is not free. Purchasing power of the middle class is decreasing in part due to the fact that the Federal Reserve can inflate the money supply basically at will. So why would they not? It supports the power elite, of which they are a part.

So the 'free market' is not being manipulated, inasmuch as it does not currently exist. But I do absolutely agree that the market, generally speaking, is being manipulated to the benefit of the power elite.