There is heavy discussion going over this issues in this forum. I think it is important to grasp the difference between current states and anarchic feudal-like land arrangements.
First of all, one difference resides in the use and concept of property. States claim sovereignity over vast pieces of land which are really unused, literally. This goes against the libertarian concept of property rights, which states (oops) that land should be transformed by human work to become property of its labourer.
Another important issue is that it is very possible that manoralism will not be the unique land arrangement system under anarchy, so that people will be able to choose manoralist types of land arrangement and non-manoralist ones.
At first glance, it seems that nothing impedes that a manor community from becoming a state-like society. A landlord could charge rent (similar to current taxes) and implement economic protectionist policies and/or cultural conservatives ones. Even so, he must do it considering consumer preferences, because he is an entrepreneur working in a free market society.
So I see a world society in which manoralism and property not subject to “landlordism” are combined. What I don’t see, really, is much difference between manor communities and current states. That is because in the concept of private property, which I believe is a prerequisite for liberty, it is implied the concept of power (the owner of a good has full power of it), in this case, represented in the landlord - tenant relation. I know that this is voluntary, and totally compatible with anarchism (at least, with anarcho-capitalism) but this gets a little weird when landlords will behave like competing state-like entrepreneurs, preserving (I think) current “natural order” instead of a “more natural order” based on free-market competition instead of black boxes competing, like today’s neo-mercantilist approach.
The fact is, feudalism isn’t anarchism. Even presuming that it’s quasi-anarchic, all we have shown is that the modern state formed out of them. There is plenty of evidence to indicate that fuedalism is, at best, the pretext for state formation or decentralized states or subsections of states. Furthermore, I didn’t think we just oppose “the current state” but “the state” as such, in all its forms throughout history, including the feudal state.
The same is true of a fuedal landlord, intergenerationally. The state is just like a gigantic fuedal landlord.
I would have to say that communitarianism doesn’t justify violations of libertarian justice. Just because there is “consumer demand” for tyranny doesn’t make it justified. If there is “consumer demand” for initiation force, I really don’t care about such demand.
It seems that here you partially start to get it right: these arrangement are apt pretexts for state formation. If everyone is tenants of some lord, what’s to stop them from effectively becoming a defacto state? Even if these arrangements did come about voluntarily, how are they to be sustained intergenerationally without the formation of a state?
if you analyse your own question the answer falls out.
if at some point A they are not defacto states and ad some time immediately after they are defacto states. what changed, perhaps, an illegitimate arbitrary rewriting of the contract ignoring the tenants rights? (this would of course be illegitimate)
or maybe, a suggested contractual change that is explicity consented to by the remianing parties to the agreement after dissenting parties make other arrangements.
if the latter, then what are you complaining about?
If the lord claims the power to invade the people’s right to life and liberty, they are creating a defacto state. All power being concentrated in an individual or small group isn’t a very apt pretext for a free society.
How is his claim legitimate - they didnt agree to it? They would have to agree to that - which is absurd. In this case THEY arent creating anything, he just rewrote the contract and made it void.
so , you’ve picked the illegitiamte branch, so the landowner is clearly coercing the tenants, so they are free to self defend against him , and can have outsiders as their proxies. (and you know how i feel about ‘defence’) so what exactly is your criticism now this is said?
Even if they all signed a contract beforehand, if the lord starts claiming powers above the contract, if the lord starts enforcing the contract onto unconsenting 3rd parties, if the lord does not allow anyone to opt out of the contract, they are beginning to function as a state. This is especially an issue intergenerationally, as people are just born into the society and did not initially sign any contract, and yet are bound by it. The whole thing is a contradiction. To call this a “free society” or to not aknowledge that this situation is not likely to lead to one or be sustainable as one is ridiculous. If all property is owned by a plutocracy, this isn’t likely to be a free society to begin with, and the plutocracy is free to form a state for their protection. This is part of the historical reality of state formation. Plutocracy doesn’t bode well for a free society.
The claim would be legitimate assuming individuals didn’t get right pissed off & revolted against the voiding of the contract. Didn’t a similar thing occur when the Constitution was voided when Lincoln disallowed the Confederacy from secession?
The pre-existing constitutional republic provided an excellent theater for politicians to convince & scrounge up a majority on the opinion that the Civil War was “necessary”.
Yes, revolt occurring under current circumstances unlikley*, (for now), but under stateless circumstances, a revolt (and thus, a reaction to the voiding of contracts) is highly likely*.
It really just seems like a case of the individual not being trusted, in both the case of carrying out the contract or revolting against the voiding of it.
This is just an ad hoc rant against property rights. I may be able to understand if one were to dispute their economic feasability but their legitimacy is not up for dispute. There is no different between somebody owning a house and renting out rooms for profit, whilst setting rules, and somebody doing the same over a greater land area.
The difference between manoralism and feudalism is that the former is subject to the market, the latter is not. If a landlord were to break the rules they’d lose business and be forced to pay compensation.
Another point. Naturally, landlords will have interest in conflict with those of the state. As such landlords will have a vested interest in defending their tenants from the state.
In fact, we see this now. Owners of malls conduct relations with local authorities on behalf of the shops that rent their property.
It seems to me that this just is a giant confusion. I don’t think anyone here would disagree with the following situation:
Four people each own one acre, all next to each other. Say they’re quite conservative Christians, and don’t want to live amidst homosexuals, so they all decide to sign a contract that nobody who is gay will ever be allowed to live or own any of their property. If one of them (or a descendent who owns the property) break the contract, they’re obviously liable to be sued.
I remember seeing Brainpolice complaining that there’s no way out of such a contract. The fact of the matter is that the entire point of the contract is to be completely binding. You can break it like every other contract and pay the consequences. Now, I might be greatly simplifying the problem here since I haven’t read through the discussions or debates, but this entire thing seems pointless to me. If I’m wrong, somebody please correct me.
I think that manoralism is completely coherent with anarchism. Some may find it undesirable or immoral, but I think it never breaks the libertarian logic. It seems to me that there are several solutions to this problem:
It is highly unlikely that all land will be arranged in a manoralist way.
Landlords will not be able to change or modify their contracts with tenants (for example, breaking natural rights). This will be managed by a court (obviously, not by one related with the landlord, but with another one, because landlords won’t have any monopoly of law regarding conflicts with their own tenants).
Landlords have long (theoretically infinite) personal interest in responding to customer preferences, unlike current governments which usually last a couple of years. (Hoppe)
If a landlord establishes a government, tenants could simply demand the landlord to a court. Also a PDA could declare war to this new government, because it is in their interest (or in the interest of their customers) to mitigate new governments creation.
If that happens, the homosexual will have to find another place to live. No one has the right to impose a positive obligation on another. So, he could starve to death, if no one wants to feed him, for example.
Then it’s not feudalism. As Feudalism is specifically defined as one who is subject as property to a lord, and being tied to the lord’s land. It’s just a gated community extended to other social spheres.
You mean manorialism? lol. I’m not sure if the term originated with me or someone else, but I originally used the term because “manorialism” refers to the economic basis of feudalism (feudalism being the social/political system).
We’re not discussing the economics of an industrial society, but the economics of little tribes ruled by ‘voluntary’ churches concerned with getting rid of gays. I’m sure that statists of all kinds are very worried about the threat to their power posed by libertarians…
juan, why does this irk you so much?, do you get quite as upset when you hear a capitalist has determined he doesnt allow greenpeace lobbyists in his reception room. do you think that anarcho-communists dont draw parallels between the states power to dictate how peoples liberties are restricted and compare that to how capitalists and owners of property dictate peoples liberties?