The U.S. Goverment

[jorb]

Serfdom in Western Europe was well on the decline by the 1400s, by the by, and in Sweden we've never had serfdom. Serfdom is also much harder to maintain in a small Principality (HRE) than in a large Empire (Russia), as peasants can just skip across the border if things get too bad.

Uhm, didn't openly speaking against one's king usually lead to a very short haircut?

I can't speak for every country, but it certainly didn't carry the death penalty here. In Austria-Hungary Gavrilo Princip wasn't even exectued. Indeed, even Lenin was sent to a rather comfortable exile in Siberia (Being allowed, among other things, to have a hunting rifle) rather than be executed. Also, being suspicious of the King does not necessarily imply being actively disloyal or even speaking ill of him.

[jorb]

The last public executions in Imperial Russia apparently took place after the decembrist revolt when five leaders of the insurrection where apparently tried and hanged, and that was in 1825, in Russia -- the most autocratic Monarchy in Europe -- and after an open and violent rebellion, with other participants instead being sent into exile. I thus draw the conclusion that the Tsar was virtually a Santa Claus of kindness compared to what was to come.

I can't, however, claim to know the exact statutes regulating crimes against the crown, and I'm not trying to deny that the Monarchy couldn't clamp down on people. Nicholas II apparently found the events "painful and sad", which is more of a pro forma regret about the events than Lenin or Stalin ever cared to express about any of their crimes. At least he wasn't actively looking for people to butcher.

[longblacksocks]

If you promote free action, but, not the ability to question the world and it's structures; and taking that all but the very basest of action is derived from thought, how then is that any freedom at all?

[painhertz]

Thread full of mental masturbation.

[longblacksocks]

A man is free when he is allowed to act in accordance with his own volition and is not subjected to acts of physical compulsion. The fewer such acts the state commits the freer the society is.

What if my volition is to inflict violence on other men? What about theft? Conning? Where do you draw the line?

In that case I wouldn't fault other men for defending themselves. The organization of such common defense is, indeed, the reason why governments are instituted in the first place. Fraud and the like I would consider instances of a particular form of theft, quite simply.

Surely these kind of local and autonomous militias would not be tolerated by a king? Of course local citizen militas may not be a problem but what stops private armies, a big concern for any king. You can say that will check his/her (still, as yet, illegitimate) power but what keeps these new Baron's power in check?

Also, surely this kind of thing will promote the guilds and therefore the Mercantalism that you dislike?

On the matter of people getting thier neck's stretched or head's lopped off... it is true that many kings and queens showed mercy to traitors, giving them exiles or imprisonment (more then a few though lived to regret that decision when said exiles returned at the heads of armies); but a probable equal number chopped off heads with glorious abandon. Not all kings were noble and strong, many were weak and easy to manipulate, others were simply psychotic.

Where I would perhaps agree with jorb (and ask to the 'democrats') is on the notion of big centralised governments. However my problem is not with the big but with the centralised. How can someone behind a desk in, for example, Paris possibly know and dictate what is best for people in and small village outside of Lyon? A person who is making choices that have big effects on (almost) all who live there, and yet they have no personal stake in that community or comprehension of what actually is really going on there. Does not a decentralised democracy bring more fairness?

[burgingham]

Will there be an answer to my post in particular? You said it was gonna come later, Jorb. Then I will wait for that with my next post.

[MagicManICT]

Thread full of mental masturbation.

The best kind. At least you don't have a mess to clean up afterward.

[burgingham]

As Jorb said in this thread earlier (and if nothing else I will remember that from our discussion to pass on whenever someone asks me) he/I/we are interested in what world, time and environment we live in and strive to understand it as good as possible. Only got this one life to figure it out so I don't see how any of this is to be judged negative if that is how Painhertz meant it.

I find it to be very productive to discuss with someone who has a very sound base to his argumentation, but basically a diametrically opposed opinion to mine. First it gives me the opportunity to exercise my mental capabilities and the stringency of my arguments. Second it of course also teaches me new things. While I probably never will become a monarchist or libertarian there are at least valid points I try to consider especially since I am interested in finding the best possible balance between individualism and society.

[MagicManICT]

I've certainly enjoyed reading it. I hope you guys keep up the conversation. I wish more people would bring valid opinions to the table. It's so hard to find a good discussion where people aren't all up in arms and going into nerd raeg mode.

[burgingham]

Yeah that certainly is another upside of this debate that it has bene kept rather civil so far