|
eirefrance (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Last point, I promise. Although there was a "market", so to speak, in Commonwealth Iceland (chieftains traded wool for luxury goods to keep their followers happy), all property values, labor compensation and prices were set by assembly, not by the market.
eirefrance (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Specifically, Durrenburger goes into great length again and again to show how the lack of any "real" state (there was a hierarchical system of control whereby the few ruled over the many through violence and appeasement) affected property rights. Essentially, might made right, as in, I physically can take whats yours, thus I'm going to. And, in fact, if you wanted to remain a powerful Godi, you damn well better take from the weak to supply your followers.
eirefrance (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
You should pick up E. Paul Durrenburger's "The Dynamics of Medieval Iceland". Its a good in-depth anthropological overview of medieval Iceland and you can see they used your ideas and where they didn't.
openyourmind678 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
and your is covered by double-negatives.
eirefrance (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Fine, and your philosophy is your philosophy, but this discussion is about finding real world examples where what you believe has come into being, and medieval Iceland does not appear to be that. I'm sure you're an intelligent person, and you're thinking outside the box, which is more than most can say, but I think your worldview is colored by idealistic ideology.
openyourmind678 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
so elect a tyrannical bureaucracy which decides how kind men should be to their families. let them regulate your life and take a third of your paycheck and kill thousands of people overseas at yours and their expense. Ill stick with my ideas, thank you.
eirefrance (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Your use of the the word governing is pointlessly specific. Has anarcho-capitalist come to mean clan-based? Male heads of households having legal control over the lives of members of their household is hardly individualistic. The "State" is simply a semantic word you've given special meaning to. Those subject to the rule of the wealthy male Icelandic society were no more free individuals than any citizen of any state, not even in terms of contract-makig.
eirefrance (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"there was nothing wrong with their system of minimal governance." That is a very sweet-sounding evaluation on your part, but incredibly vague. Expound, please. I cited specific laws/examples showing that individual freedom was not there as you claim. What do you mean by "minimal governance"? Is enforced castration an acceptable level of minimal governance for you?
eirefrance (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Oligarchy: a form of government in which power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society distinguished by royal, wealth, family, military or religious hegemony. Medieval Iceland: A society in which select individuals maintained control over other individuals through the use of hegemonic violence, as laid out in the examples I just gave. I have the writings of a Professor Emeritus of History at Towson. What do you have?
openyourmind678 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Since I am talking about a society which is not governed and you are reflecting upon how primitive people had a much more chauvinistic marriage process than us... I think A: it was NOT an Oligarchy, and B: there was nothing wrong with their system of minimal governance. |
