Potential in Outmoded Forms of Government

[Drychnath]

Most specifically, Feudalism. Now the initial reaction is, no doubt, one of near derision. Understandable, as a feudal society, while an accomplishment in terms of advances in governance from the utter chaos of the early Dark Ages, is nevertheless reknowned for its inefficiency, particularly where the economy is concerned, and in terms of military cohesion.

I submit, however, that despite the numerous failings feudalism possessed during its tenure as a functioning system of government, that even today - indeed, perhaps especially today - valuable insight can be drawn from the underlying theory surrounding the organization of the government. For those not familiar with the system, I will summarize the relationship with you: at the top is the King, who wields ultimate authority. He grants nobles under him vast tracts of land, and certain rights and obligations on that land (namely taxation and to defend it), in exchange for military service and obedience to the King's word and law. The nobles then form this same contractual relationship with lesser nobles under them, who formed the bulk of the landed gentry and Knights in time of war. These knights, in turn, give tracts of their lands to peasants to farm, in exchange for military service when called upon, and taxes, generally in the form of a portion of their crops.

Now of course, there were variations from country to country, but in essence, the above is feudalism. I draw your attention to a few key points:
1) Contractual relationship between every layer of society.
2) The nature of the services contracted.

1) If as Locke and others, predominantly within the Liberal camp of political theory, have suggested that governments are comprised of social contracts, and that a government's legitimacy is founded largely on how it fulfills those contracts, then feudalism is the ultimate expression of that concept; for indeed, all government is a series of explicit contracts, the conditions of which may be filled out by either participant.

2) The nature of the services contracted and what the contracts concern defines how a nation organized along such lines will function. Int he case of historically practiced feudalism, land and military protection were exchanged for military services and taxes. As the only form of wealth at the time of any significance was land, and the only way wealth changed hands significantly was through taxation, this systematized the form of the economy. The multi-layered form of military service likewise stands as a criticism of feudalism, such armies being time-consuming to raise, expensive to maintain, and frequently the reliability of individual segments was questionable. It is my contention that, despite these weaknesses, feudalism maintains viability as a basis for government if certain variations are made: specifically, the services contracted and rendered by each party.

The central problem in making feudalism a viable form of government in the modern world, to my mind, is to alter the economy from a necessarily land-based (and therefore agrarian) economy. While not offering detailed solutions to this problem at this juncture (while the underlying theory I've been kicking around for a year or so, I only just now decided to commit this idea to "writing"), I would note a few things to keep in mind; one, this form of government could serve best, I think, in areas where there is weak government or no government, such as Sudan and other parts of Africa. Two, as such, shifting drastically away from an agrarian society in what still is an essentially agrarian society would be counter-productive. The problem actually lies with allowing industrial and market growth to take place. The old style of feudalism was ill-equipped to deal with the processes of capitalism, and as such could not benefit from it.

Another benefit of a feudalistically organized society is, believe it or not, an economic theory. Federal systems likewise have this advantage; that advantage is the concept of an economy of scale. Put in simple terms, for the purposes of convenient reference, economies of scale are when it is more efficient for a good or service to be provided by a larger entity. Diseconomies of scale are the same logic backwards; a smaller entity produces the good or service more efficiently. The same logic can be applied to government; there gets to be a point in the size of a government (whether a specific department or the entire thing) when it would be more efficient by far to have it broken down into smaller, regional authorities rather than have one massive bureau or ministry of the national government. Indeed, this fact among others drives home certain relationships between the American federal system of governance and the old-style English Feudalism. While the relationship is loose, a conceptual oversimplification would be to refer to federalism as legislatively-based democratic feudalism with a bottom-up organization (eg the emphasis on human rights). A mouthfull, and too simplified, but not nonsensical.

I'm running out of steam, and I'll get back to this when the passion strikes me again (unless I read over it and decide it's idiocy, which while unlikely is possible). I'll leave the following additional thoughts, which are a part of my conceived model for this idea;
1) First and foremost, the reliance of any feudal system on individuals. My feudal system retains a hereditary elite, for both cultural and practical purposes. This is not necessary (the rights could be secured to an office awarded in any fashion conceivable - or even to a body of decision-makers, although I feel that a less desirable alternative) but I felt it the best option, though in terms of ultimate long-term stability a democratic body would probably work best in a number of these instances.
2) Division of powers and checks and balances. Both concepts impede the functioning of this society, which is not predicated upon the protection of individual rights. The national government possesses ultimate authority in all arenas. However, regional governance (through however many layers there may be) exercises all specific administrative and economic decision-making powers. Put simply, the King will always have override for the Lords, but his responsibilities are other than dealing with the minutae of his vassal's realms. Acknowledging the incredible vastness of any given nation, however, even a small one, such a country would remain legislatively based, and much of any Lord or King's duties would involve his domain's legislation (specifically approval of it and participation in some form of council).
3) Presence of Crown at all levels. This warrants special attention, although it technically falls under the previous heading. What I mean is that there must remain some institutions and government organs exclusive to national control. These would operate independant of local authority, and retain connection to national power at all levels of society. Likewise, there should be some vassal participation in the above level of society; more than likely, as a body responsible largley for proposing legislation, etc. including a council of the Lords at the highest level.

Put simply, this form of government retains its top-down flow of authority, but is designed to facilitate the execution of the duties of those individuals in authority.

Thoughts, for the moment?

[johnjacobjingleheimerschmidt]

couple things that strike me off hand(i'll come back and re-read this tonight after class...or maybe later this week, i've been reading politics for the last 2 days straight and it's starting to wear me out.), and in between classes are as follows.

you don't describe how this sort of government system would integrate with the world economy, you said you wouldn't have to be agrarian, but offer up no explanations of how such a thing would be undertaken. earlier you write that a major part of the social contract is land ownership, but this usually leads to an agrarian society. one of the main things contributing to the downfall of feudalism(according to the grand me) would be the rise of industrialization and large corporations. you see it even in the beginning of the middle ages, the merchant class exists, except without the large numbers of today. a large middle class, something that generally comes with industrialization would be something to contend with, as you can't have a large number of lesser lords 'lording it' over a small number of peasants, that just wouldn't work.

you also mention human rights. where are they in this form? granted i've been one to discredit such things as hogswallop, but they have become deeply engrained into today's global society. for example, china, a nation which, throughout the centuries has developed it's own unique culture and religious practices. they say that, rather than valuing individual freedom, one should value freedom of the society, one should be free to not be afraid to walk at night, rather than here, where we value the ideal of innocent 'til proven guilty, the rights of the individual. we have a huge ammount of crime, one of the largest numbers of violent death tolls in the world(minus, of course those nations who are currently engaged in war, i mean come on folks, we're a nation, at peace with ourselves, and yet we're constantly kicking the shit out of each other?) but it's not us that recieves the bad press. it's china. why? we have this little clause in our constitution saying we value the individual, whereas china says one person doesn't matter, as long as the nation as a whole is bettered by their loss, the loss was a good one.

at this point i'm not going to get into which of these views i think is right(though i think most of you know), that's just...ummm, 2? 3? things i see right off hand, maybe you just need to explain yourself a little more, but come on, do you seriously see a nation starting up a form of government that blatantly ignores these so called human rights? not bloody likely says i.

[Drychnath]

I can't really expound further on the idea itself at this moment (it's awfully vast, and is much easier to conceive in thought than explain in words), but I can say a little about the thinking that underlies certain aspects. One of the principal questions that will no doubt arise (and indeed, already have from everyone I have expressed the thought to) addresses the place of feudalism in regards to economics, and most specifically integration into the world economy in the case of a contemporary feudalistically inspired government. My thinking in the viability of the system (unclearly as I have been able to express it thus far) is two-fold. In the first, this kind of government would likely enough function best in a society without a long democratic tradition, and, frankly, one in poor overall condition. Examples include several African nations, such as Sudan. Where warlordism is a problem, feudalism can work. Much of the opposition from regional warlords arises from a desire on their part to hold onto power. Why not let them keep it? This is, in no small part, how feudalism arose in the first place. Let them swear fealty to a King, and in exchange for service and advancing the King's will, they gain the rights to tax and govern the land they control. Economically (the original topic from which a short departure was necessary), the country remains largely the same; agriculturally based, likely enough not advanced much past the subsistence level. This would be the principal criticism; how is a nation to succeed with such a weak economy? My question is rather thus; how can an economy grow strong with no nation? The value of feudalism here comes from the above scenario. The question is not promoting free trade, but rather ensuring the order necessary for trade to take place at all. The government therefore does not change the economy within the country.
Secondly, who says integration with the world economy is so inescapably vital? Self-sufficiency should be a goal for all smaller nations; once considerations such as the populace being fed and the defense of the nation have been provided for, the King can turn his attentions to other matters, such as international trade. Additionally, I submit that it was largely the culture and specifics of the feudalism of old that caused it to be so incapable of dealing with capitalism; so long as minimal legal strictures are placed on the non-noble classes, there should be no problem with a flourishing trade economy.

[Pike]

dormancy and communism