Monarchy vs Democracy A Critical Look at Democracy

[18611096]

Religious forums? No thanks.

You seem to have very uninformed and naive opinion about state of democracy in other countries, and even worse about life under feudalism. I suggest you try to fix it, go out of your shell and explore sources that don't reinforce your bias.

I've briefly scanned the second part of your...whatever, and I see how you conveniently omit very important facts. For example, you rant how the social welfare and healthcare system is wasteful, and how it was generously provided by church, but you neglect to mention the fact that church financed it from the tax it levied-tithe-and it did not only use it for welfare, but also to build churches, buy jewels and generally high standard of living for its high ranking members, which was far more expensive than the little healthcare and some basic food it provided to those in need.

Oh, and while you keep talking about freedom, your idea of feudalism is inherently dependent on the worst kind of tyranny. Religion.

Dont be scared, reading on a christian forum [many atheist there] does not convert you, only you can do that. But it does remind me of a quote.

A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere
-C.S Lewis

But it is the same material as you read on this atheistic forum. Really though, no reason to be afraid. In fact, the same cam now be read here.

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...dal-Monarchies


You said. "You seem to have very uninformed and naive opinion about state of democracy in other countries, and even worse about life under feudalism. I suggest you try to fix it, go out of your shell and explore sources that don't reinforce your bias"

Those are very kind words and observations thanks for sharing. But since I seem to not understand democracy outside of the U.S, perhaps you can fill me in. Perhaps you can point out flaws in my op that has shown me uniformed and naive. Perhaps you could do the same with me and feudalism. Could you please be the one to get me out of this shell?


Instead it seems you are in a shell "Religious forums? No thanks." and unable to show anything to show what i have said is naive or uniformed. What i often find on these forums is the people who accuse others of something such as uniformed, bias, naive etc are the very ones most guilty of those claims. If that is the case here [I think we both know it is] than your posts will show it as we go along. I shall keep a close eye on them.


My main objections to welfare as my op makes clear is not how wasteful it is. But since you bring it up. As i pointed out the church handles welfare much better than the state, less is used on corruption etc I was also referring to modern day churches as welfare providers. But you are 100% correct at various times [and in medieval times] corruption is an issue whenever money is involved. I was just saying its worse in modern democracies. And the vast majority of money to church is donated.


Interesting stance. See like the founding fathers I see atheism as the worst kind of tyranny and i think the atheistic totalitarian states of last century show me true. Could you please tell me how it is the longest lasting libertarian society ever was also the most christian?

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...dal-Monarchies

I go into on the above thread how/why liberty can only be maintained in a christian nation. If the government and man are supreme, no liberty or rights are safe. Could you tell me how/why an atheisitic government is "free" or not a tyranny and how a feudal monarch led by a catholic is. You dont have to read what is below but it does talk on this issue. It is from my other thread.







Catholic Monarchs

“That the ruler must have the law of God always before his mind and eyes, and he is to be proficient in letterss... The law of Deuteronomy,... And the prince properly writes Deuteronomy in a book because he may thus reflect upon the law in his reason without the letter disappearing from before his eyes....All censures of law are void if they do not bear the image of the divine law; and the ordinance ( constitutio ) of the prince is useless if it does not conform to ecclesiastical discipline. Nor did this escape the notice of the most Christian prince, who pro¬ claimed that his laws were not to disdain imitation of the sacred canons. And not only should one aspire to be ruled by the examples of priests, but the prince is dispatched to the tribe of Levi in order to obtain its benefits. Note how diligent in guarding the law of God should be the prince, who is commanded to hold it, to read it and to reflect upon it always.”
-John of Salisbury 1115-1180 Policraticus

“The medieval society... was obsessively dedicated to this faith [Catholicism], almost every feature of daily exsistance being conditioned to its doctrines...in Urban's day, this faith dominated and dictated everyday life to an extent that can seem almost inconceivable to a modern observer.”
-Thomas Asbridge the First Crusade Oxford university Press 2004

“One must add that the idea of a Christian monarchy is quite distinct from the monarchical idea of antiquity, not only on account of the concept of legitimacy but also due to certain qualities which are intrinsic characteristics of a Christian monarchy.”
-Erik von Kuehnelt- Leddihn The Menace of the Herd or Procrustes at Large Bruce Publishing Company Milwaukee 1943

Unlike democracy that desires moral relativist and atheist. The medieval monarch built up the church and promoted it. The kings Christianity also effected his politics. Christianity in the middle ages was not relegated to a personal belief system of an individual or placed within the four walls of a church. It was seen as the guide to all life's activities. Education, family, politics, culture, music, science, art etc etc everything was influenced and revolved around Catholicism. As French historian Leon Gautier in his book the Everyday Life of the medieval Knight wrote “ The fatal separation which consists in isolating the faith from all other knowledge did not exists” and “It is no exaggeration to compare the church during the middle ages to the sun, witch illuminates everything...The thought of God then filled and animated all and it was as the breath of their nostrils in those believing centuries.” In the middle ages democracy and it accompanying philosophies had not convinced Christians that the Bible and the church were a spiritual personal belief of theirs not fit for public life. To the middle ages christian the Bible and church law were divine commands to form your every thought and action around. And monarchy encouraged this.

“It goes without saying that, as all presidential republics or parliamentary democracies see authority as primarily coming up temporarily to elected rulers from the people of the nation themselves and not down from God upon divinely anointed and consecrated king and queens, no elected system can theoretically or practically embody, manifest, or make real the solemn and covenantal three-way relationship that exists between God, a crowned and anointed monarch, and his or her people.”
-Quoted from A Theological and Political Defense of Monarchy Ryan P. Hunter

“logic suggests and history demonstrates that monarchies have been much more stable than democracies in their adherence to Christian faith and morality. The history of democracy since the French Revolution shows an ever-accelerating decline in faith and morality, and an ever-expanding undermining of the natural hierarchical relations that God has placed in human society, whether these be between parents and children, husbands and wives, teachers and pupils, or political rulers and their subjects. And by undermining these natural heirarchical relations, it implicitly undermines the most important heirarchical relationship of all, that between God and man. The Orthodox monarchy, on the other hand, strengthens all these relationships, and orients society as a whole to spiritual goals rather than the exclusively secular and material goals of contemporary democracy.”
-Vladamir Moss

A King who believed the church and the bible's view was Governments are instituted among men to protect those unalienable rights that come from a higher authority than man [government] that is God. The medieval king constantly acknowledged that biblical higher power that they were accountable to. Man was not the ultimate authority. A monarch authority comes from God not a magic blood line [pagan] or a Roman republic [government] the King was under the churches and Gods authority. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote “Kingship was not only an office with religious implications (the coronation of a Catholic ruler is a sacramental), but the whole traditional Christian monarchy was deeply imbued with a religious spirit.” John of Salisbury in Policraticus summed up the difference of a prince and tyrant as one former had the holy spirit and the latter did not. And later “The prince is, therefore, to fear the Lord and he is to profess his servility to Him by an evident humility of mind and by the performance of pious works. For indeed a lord ( dominus ) is the lord of a servant. And so the prince serves the Lord provided that he faithfully serves his fellow servants, namely, his subjects.” This philosophy that reorganizes a creator, produces a limited government. “the Christian European monarchy was through most of its history of a constitutional pattern, which circumscribed and limited the ruler's sphere of action by the law of God and the law of the land.” wrote Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn in Liberty or Equality the Challenge of our Time.Government is not the ultimate authority but is to protect all citizens god given liberty and law. It also believes that man should alter and abolish a government that is destructive to those rights of the people.

“He who receives power from God serves the laws and is the slave of justice and right. He who usurps power suppresses justice and places the laws beneath his will. Therefore, justice is deservedly armed against those who disarm the laws, and the public power treats harshly those who endeavour to put aside the public hand. And, although there are many forms of high treason, none of them is so serious as that which is executed against the body of justice itself. Tyranny is, therefore, not only a public crime, but, if this can happen, it is more than public.
-John of Salisbury 1115-1180 Policraticus

“In the traditional order, the source of power is God, the almighty. In him power resides in its essence, all other power is delivered from this essential power....power is delegated by the creator to human beings, and this is expressed symbolically and most lucidly in the traditional monarchical order where the King governs “by the grace of God” and is responsible before his celestial principle.”
-Tage Lindbom the Myth of Democracy Wm. B Eerdmans Publishin Co 1996

In a christian monarchies Christ was the true king and Kings obeyed God and law and reigned in the fear of the Lord. Thomas Aquinas in on kingship said a King who's actions benefited himself was not a King at all and in fact the best example of a hypocrite. He quoted another church leader Augustine as writing

““we do not call Christian princes happy merely because they have reigned a long time, or because after a peaceful death they have left their sons to rule, or because they subdued the enemies of the state, or because they were able to guard against or to suppress citizens who rose up against them. Rather do we call them happy if they rule justly, if they prefer to rule their passions rather than nations, and if they do all things not for the love of vainglory but for the love of eternal happiness. Such Christian emperors we say are happy, now in hope, afterwards in very fact when that which we await shall come to pass....Therefore it is God alone Who can still the desires of man and make him happy and be the fitting reward for a king.”

“In the Europe of the Middle Ages, the noble was concerned with his eternal life and God’s eternal kingdom and this concern shaped his behavior; no longer the case since the Enlightenment.”
-Daniel Ajamian the Cost of the Enlightenment

The Bible speaks of the eternal King to come who will rule from Jerusalem the model for an earthly King. Further the Old testament was not viewed as a collection of fables or myths but was taken as actual history and fully Gods word and authoritative on its politics. Thomas Aquinas On Kingship quotes constantly from the bible and the overwhelming majority are from the Old testament. The other great political work of the middle ages Policraticus by John of Salisbury as well overwhelmingly uses the Old Testament for justification of political rulers. Leading crusade scholar Christopher Tyerman in his massive book Gods war a new history of the Crusades wrote ““the medieval church placed considerable importance on the old testament.” To quote Leon Gautier agagin, “the spirit of atheism was not fitted, to enter into the mind of the feudal baron.”

“Tamar the Great ...At the beginning of her reign, Tamar convened a Church council and addressed the clergy with wisdom and humility: “Judge according to righteousness, affirming good and condemning evil,” she advised. “Begin with me — if I sin I should be censured, for the royal crown is sent down from above as a sign of divine service. Allow neither the wealth of the nobles nor the poverty of the masses to hinder your work. You by word and I by deed, you by preaching and I by the law, you by upbringing and I by education will care for those souls whom God has entrusted to us, and together we will abide by the law of God, in order to escape eternal condemnation.… You as priests and I as ruler, you as stewards of good and I as the watchman of that good.”
-Fr. Zakaria Machitadze The Lives of Georgian Saints quoted from A Theological and Political Defense of Monarchy Ryan P. Hunter

Kings reigned by biblical standards and did not rule or control its people as we have today. John of Salsibury said the King must have wisdom, justice, mercy, humility, charity, selfishness, prudence, charity, he must be reluctant to punish and quick to reward. In on Kingship Thomas Aquinas wrote “ From this it is clearly shown that the idea of king implies that he be one man who is chief and that he be a shepherd, seeking the common good of the multitude and not his own.” Instead they led by example as moral christian royal families. To live godly lives. Unlike today's modern pagan celebrities who lead the masses away from Christ. '

“Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes, or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.”
- C.s Lewis

Even today kids grow up pretending naturally to be princess, queens, knights and kings, not presidents or lobbyist. Disney makes a killing off of its princesses and castles. Something of the monarchist system in mankind looks to royalty as a positive influence and christian morals. Every family has a father and mother just as a monarch serves as a form of father/mother to the country. This helps unification of the country rather than division from politicians like in democracies. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn in his book Liberty or Equality the Challenge of our Time wrote “Families, for instance, are minor kingdoms—ideal spheres for the development of personality; and free societies always have strongly developed hierarchically built family cells” They also symbolize christian ideals of marriage, family and unity. Like nature a monarchy seems to make sense as Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn in his book Liberty or Equality said “Monarchy seems to be the most natural sort of government, for whatever nature produces with more than one head is esteemed monstrous.” And Aquinas wrote "There is only one queen among the bees and in the whole universe one God, Creator and director of all," Aquinas mentions the Kings only just functions as

-To exsersize just judgment in his kingdom.
-To have his rule under the authority of the church and the bible
-To make suitable for his people to seek heavenly happiness and forbid the contrary
-Protect his realm from foreign invasion
-Restrain men from wickedness and push them to virtuous deeds following the example of God
-And finally

“the Book of Deuteronomy (17:18-19) that “after he is raised to the throne of his kingdom, the king shall copy out to himself the Deutoronomy of this law, in a volume, taking the copy of the priests of the Levitical tribe, he shall have it with him and shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, and keep his words and ceremonies which are commanded in the law.” Thus the king, taught the law of God, should have for his principal concern the means by which the multitude subject to him may live well.”
-Thomas Aquinas On Kingship

And like the biblical decentralized/tribal model, the people remained in power and the King did not control an entire “nation”.

“It is plain, therefore, from what has been said, that a king is one who rules the people of one city or province, and rules them for the common good.
-Thomas Aquinas On Kingship to the king of Cyrus 1225-1274

“Ancient Jewish society, even in the heyday of monarchy, never gave way to abolitionism [absolute monarch] . The “people” always remained, directly and indirectly a body of influence on the affairs of the state”
-Chaim Herzog and Mordechai Gichon Battles of the Bible GreenHill Books London 2002

[conon394]

well yes indeed they could, in fact the feudal system was one of consent, while democracy is by force. I will do a thread to show this. But even if they could not that does not change the fact the state is your master, you have a master. That is what I was responding to.

OK I will entertain the silliness of you statement what I want a definite temporal and spacial ideal of what you mean by Feudal - when and where exactly. And no you other Thread has not.

I was referring to of course those with political authority. Just as white southerners were denied self government

HA HA HA HA HA HA....

The entire bloody constitution was designed to give the 'poor' white southern slave owner massive over self representation on the backs of his black slaves. Don't even pretend the South was fighting for anything more than the right to have the most odious form of slavery western civilization manged to create and the racism that was required to justify it.

---

as all of us in the us today are slaves to our master the state

And of course again I still waiting for the bit of Feudal fantasy where you describe why there are lords and who gets to pick them and well who gets be out in the field tilling.

My main objections to welfare as my op makes clear is not how wasteful it is. But since you bring it up. As i pointed out the church handles welfare much better than the state, less is used on corruption etc I was also referring to modern day churches as welfare providers. But you are 100% correct at various times [and in medieval times] corruption is an issue whenever money is involved. I was just saying its worse in modern democracies. And the vast majority of money to church is donated.

Yep a lot alter boys can attest to that all 'welfare' they received

“Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes, or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.”
- C.s Lewis

You know you are doing wall of text with cut and past and very much not interested in figuring out how and are authentic, or altered or made up (the fact you have failed to attribute most of them to work does not inspire confidence)

I'm pretty sure I can make a list of a lot kings not much worth admiring. But if you think about a famous gangster or prostitute is a self made person out very harsh conditions with no silver aristocratic spoon in their mouth. Kings have certainly killed more people by their actions than gangsters and certainly prostitutes.

I certainly admire Phryne of Athens via Thespiae who offered to pay for the work on the walls of Thebes if they have the inscription Alexander can take things down but Phryne can get them up (entendre was meant - modern translations tend to white wash the Greek implication of an erection). Should I admire Phryne less than Liz the 2nd just because she is wealthy was born royal had a grand life without ever working for it and runs a very dysfunctional family because of an accident of birth made her a monarch? Who really is the better person? Besides Phryne was able to hire one of the two best lawyers in Athens - for the time that kinda means the classical world of the date and that not bad for a whore. That is self made boot (sandal?) strap kind of go getting.

----

You dont want a master? me either. but the modern state is your master and it has more control over you than any king ever had.

Not really and in fact Corporations have far more control over me and my life than the US government enforces and I have very much less ability to influence them or their capricious decisions or actions.

[Sar1n]

I'm agnostic, not atheist. Though sometimes the line can be thin, especially since I harbor dislike for religion in general. Main reason why I don't like religious forums is that I'm fond of debate, and I'd lose a lot of time there trying to have an intelligent discussion.

The reason why I call religion tyranny is because it teaches, and at times forces, people to accept an unprovable, arbitrary belief as dogma, and teaches them to be followers, directly attacking critical thought and with it, what I consider most essential freedom. A freedom of thought. No religious society can truly be libertarian, as by principle it maintains extra set of restrictions based on the religion. If you believe in libertarian religious society, it's only because you cannot envision yourself acting outside the limitations imposed on you by religion.

Which leads me to this: who truly has power in any religion-driven system? It's not really a god. God in any form is an unprovable proposition. The real power is wielded by those who are accepted by believers to be the ones speaking for their god. By basing their power on arbitrary belief in ultimate power that's largely either taught or forced upon population, there are no external check of their power, which leads very quickly to corruption. Don't believe me? Check history of your precious catholicism. Many medieval popes were real powerhungry, sociopathic bastards, and only when the Papal power was checked by secular powers did they start to turn into those we know today.

In the end, the ultimate power in human societies is always wielded by humans. What really makes difference between libertarian and authoritarian society is how it manages to keep this power in check, how it enables different opinions and different ways of life to express themselves and have a say in how the society operates. Religious societies are inherently restricted in this by their dogma. Absolutist systems are inherently locked in the viewpoint of its ruling despot or oligarchy. Two-party democratic systems suffer from the "tyranny of majority" and the fact that they offer only two options, thus forcing a polarization of society, driving people into two camps with no expression possible for people with opinions not fitting either. Multi-party systems tend to avoid that. Parties in such systems rarely, if ever, achieve majority alone, and thus are forced into temporary coalitions and alliances, and are forced to consider and include opinions of their allies and often, even their adversaries. Thus, any party that achieves a seat in governmental institutions can share some of the power. That makes entry into political scene easier for new parties, and thus the political landscape of such system is much more varied, and voters can find a suitable party without being forced to support views that they might nor agree with, and overall it reduces concentration of power, thus checking the runaway corruption. This comes at hefty price of speed and decisiveness of such system, especially noticeable in times of crisis.

You tend to load your posts with many quotes. Frankly, that makes them hard to slog through, and to some people, including myself, it looks like you're trying to substitute arguments with appeals to authority. I'd advise you to reduce the number of those quotes.
Nevertheless, permit me just one, because it perfectly sums up my opinion about democracy.
"Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
-Winston Churchill, 1947.

[18611096]

OK I will entertain the silliness of you statement what I want a definite temporal and spacial ideal of what you mean by Feudal - when and where exactly. And no you other Thread has not.

Thanks for being so open minded. I appreciate it. Any questions or comments on feudalistic monarchies i think would best fit on the thread of that topic.

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...dal-Monarchies

HA HA HA HA HA HA....

The entire bloody constitution was designed to give the 'poor' white southern slave owner massive over self representation on the backs of his black slaves. Don't even pretend the South was fighting for anything more than the right to have the most odious form of slavery western civilization manged to create and the racism that was required to justify it.

I would have to disagree on all accounts. But I think we have enough to talk about with these threads agreed? but even pretending you are correct, that does not change that the south was not allowed self government.
---

And of course again I still waiting for the bit of Feudal fantasy where you describe why there are lords and who gets to pick them and well who gets be out in the field tilling.

Wait no more my friend.

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...dal-Monarchies

Yep a lot alter boys can attest to that all 'welfare' they received

Ouch. But are you suggesting the crimes of atheistic democracies is somehow less than the catholic church?

You know you are doing wall of text with cut and past and very much not interested in figuring out how and are authentic, or altered or made up (the fact you have failed to attribute most of them to work does not inspire confidence)

I'm pretty sure I can make a list of a lot kings not much worth admiring. But if you think about a famous gangster or prostitute is a self made person out very harsh conditions with no silver aristocratic spoon in their mouth. Kings have certainly killed more people by their actions than gangsters and certainly prostitutes.

I certainly admire Phryne of Athens via Thespiae who offered to pay for the work on the walls of Thebes if they have the inscription Alexander can take things down but Phryne can get them up (entendre was meant - modern translations tend to white wash the Greek implication of an erection). Should I admire Phryne less than Liz the 2nd just because she is wealthy was born royal had a grand life without ever working for it and runs a very dysfunctional family because of an accident of birth made her a monarch? Who really is the better person? Besides Phryne was able to hire one of the two best lawyers in Athens - for the time that kinda means the classical world of the date and that not bad for a whore. That is self made boot (sandal?) strap kind of go getting.

I am sorry you feel that way. I think if you look over once more very careful you will find i cited most everything.


So you are arguing gangsters and prostitutes are more moral than Kings? Yes Kings actions have killed [wars] more but have they murdered more? no they have not. They overall have been for moral progress not decline like gangsters/prostitutes. If it is death you want wars etc as a bad thing than how can you prefer democracy?


R. J. Rummel has studied the phenomenon of the state killing people within its jurisdiction. He calculates that nearly four times as many people have been killed by their own governments as have been killed in all the wars, domestic and foreign, fought around the globe in the twentieth century. Killing on this scale would not be possible without the subversion of independent social authorities caused by massive centralization. If so, the greatest threat to human life in the twentieth century has not been war but the massive centralization of power in modern states. Rummel says, its as if nuclear war occurred, and no one noticed.”
-Donald Livingston The Southern Critique of Centralization

“The recently ended twentieth century was characterized by a level of human rights violations unparalleled in all of human history. In the book death by government, Rudolph Rummel estimates some 170 million government-caused deaths in the twentieth century. The historical evidence appears to indicate that, rather than protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of their citizens, governments must be considered the greatest threat to human security.... it is states that are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people and immeasurable destruction of the 20th century alone. Compared to that, victims of private crimes are almost negligible.”
-Hans- Hermann Hoppe Professor Emeritus of Economics at UNLV, Distinguished Senior Fellow with the Mises Institute


see post 3 for much more. And also who promoted those conditions for gangsters/prostitutes anyways? see op.

Not really and in fact Corporations have far more control over me and my life than the US government enforces and I have very much less ability to influence them or their capricious decisions or actions.

So you have two masters than. Both with far more control than any king would have had on you.

[18611096]

First off, great post. Thanks for being open and honest with me. I apologize for jumping to a wrong conclusion it is just it happens so often. Also I agree with you in some areas. I am not a catholic because i think it much man made religion. And i hate man made religion more than you. Because not only is it false and not from God, it is in mockery of him. While to an atheist its just another mode to control similar to democracy or any form of government. Thanks for your post and i apologize once more.

I'm agnostic, not atheist. Though sometimes the line can be thin, especially since I harbor dislike for religion in general. Main reason why I don't like religious forums is that I'm fond of debate, and I'd lose a lot of time there trying to have an intelligent discussion.

You sound like me my friend. I also love debate and I stay away from popular forums unless i have a good amount of time to devote to it. So I fully get where you are coming from.

The reason why I call religion tyranny is because it teaches, and at times forces, people to accept an unprovable, arbitrary belief as dogma, and teaches them to be followers, directly attacking critical thought and with it, what I consider most essential freedom. A freedom of thought. No religious society can truly be libertarian, as by principle it maintains extra set of restrictions based on the religion. If you believe in libertarian religious society, it's only because you cannot envision yourself acting outside the limitations imposed on you by religion.

I dont care to defend "religion" I am a christian. But since this thread is on democracy vs monarchies i will say something of catholic monarchies. They never forced anyone to be catholic and nowhere in the bible is this so. It was a choice by free will. Neither did they attack critical thought or freedom of thought. But what i would say is all you have said or claimed of a "religious" society, is more true of our modern atheistic democracies [no freedom of thought must conform etc] than ever in the medieval time period. Further in the medieval time period they were christian and wanted law/society built around biblical standards. Today as a christian i am forced to support a system against my beliefs. So I would say that atheism is " unprovable, arbitrary belief as dogma, and teaches them to be followers, directly attacking critical thought and with it, what I consider most essential freedom" and God the truth and reality mankind rejects. The only society that can be libertarian must be based on the bible because that gives the only justification for it. You wont find this in atheism. And in a christian libertarian society you are allowed to not accept god. That is biblical. And as a christian, I have no limitations by "religion" I have only liberty and freedom in Jesus. I never was free until I became christian. Now I am free from what others think of me, free of any boss or family member, trying to do good, free from government etc I have one King Jesus. And out of my own free will I might chose to be faithful to my wife, avoid stealing, lying etc you might see these as restrictions. I do them only of my own free will for him who died for me to set this captive free. Liberty is found only in Jesus from my own experience.

Which leads me to this: who truly has power in any religion-driven system? It's not really a god. God in any form is an unprovable proposition. The real power is wielded by those who are accepted by believers to be the ones speaking for their god. By basing their power on arbitrary belief in ultimate power that's largely either taught or forced upon population, there are no external check of their power, which leads very quickly to corruption. Don't believe me? Check history of your precious catholicism. Many medieval popes were real powerhungry, sociopathic bastards, and only when the Papal power was checked by secular powers did they start to turn into those we know today.

I think we have enough to disuse on topic so right now [later is better] but to claim God is unproven is false. Beliving in atheism is anti critical thought, logic, science etc and that is a discussion I would encourage at another time. So imo your scenario starts with a false assumption their is no God. So its a false premise. But i do agree [as would any catholic than or now] some popes were powerhungery. Power does bad things to people. I talk much of this in my reasons elected officials are so very bad. I also agree there needs to be checks on power. Thus i love the medieval monarchies.

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...dal-Monarchies

In the end, the ultimate power in human societies is always wielded by humans. What really makes difference between libertarian and authoritarian society is how it manages to keep this power in check, how it enables different opinions and different ways of life to express themselves and have a say in how the society operates. Religious societies are inherently restricted in this by their dogma.

From your perspective sure. As a christian I want a society around biblical laws/morality etc this view is not allowed in a modern democracy to express itself. Thus in our secular society it is "inherently restricted." Only in a decentralized society [like medieval monarchies] can actual self government be realized. All those millions of Catholics and monarchist murdered for their beliefs were a great example of how secular democracies are "inherently restricted in this by their dogma." See

Democracy- the Enemy of the Church? The People?
Destroy the Church- Replacing the Catholic Church and Monarchy With the Modern State

So here is a section on decentralization from my other thread.


Decentralization and Self Government During the Feudal Monarchical Middle Ages

“By the end of the tenth century the kingdom of France remained a legal and ideological construct, but it's kings exerted little genuine power outside their own family lands. The main political foci were the great counties ruled as autonomous principalities by comital families...contrast mirrored different histories customs and laws. The far south retained a tradition of written law.... there was no uniformity of rules of landowning, judicial systems, weights, measures or currency. A kingdom often in name alone.”
-Christopher Tyerman Gods war a new history of the Crusades Harvard U Press Cambridge Mass 2006

“Medieval civilization was also decentralized, and it was vast in scale. It was a mosaic of thousands of independent and quasi-independent political units: kingdoms, principalities, dukedoms, bishoprics, papal states, republics, free cities, and tens of thousands of titled manors. The medieval contribution to politics is the idea of a federated polity where various independent political units are held together in a larger realm by compacts and traditional hierarchy.”
- Donald Livingston The Southern Critique of Centralization

The agrarian western european christian middle ages were the most decentralized libertarian societies ever known. Medieval scholar Thomas Madden in The Medieval World, Part II: Society, Economy, and Culture says “ Feudalism was a set of practices that arose....during the middle ages.” Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote “Federalism in the European anti-centralistic sense has always been part and parcel of Catholic political ideologies.” There were various forms of monarchies usually hereditary but some were elected by Lords and Bishops, or a mix of both. For example France elected Kings until Hugh Caput in 987 and than started a hereditary monarchy. Decentralization was at a peak, Lords controlled within their own spheres, as did dukes, princes, barons etc and held autonomy. Each realm had their own laws and courts and near everything was done by the local village with no influence from the Kings Capital. In describing France in the middle ages medieval scholar and Oxford professor Christopher Tyerman said “few of the great princes in France bothered to pay homage and feality to the King” and “the vast majority of Frenchmen, their spheres of economic, public and private life operated entirely beyond the reach of necessity of royal influence or power.” and the region of France had an“absence of national instincts.” “a Europe that contained no nation states in the modern understanding” Thomas Asbridge in his book the first crusade described France as a national identity as “endured only in imagination” Erik von Kuehnelt- Leddihn in his great work The Menace of the Herd said of the mindset of medieval man as first and foremost his loyalty was to his family, witch had its own flag and arms, second was to their local town or village, than to their region. Any sense of a nation was almost mystical. In his book Liberty or Equality the Challenge of our Time he stated “The Middle Ages and their aftermath were characterized by a multitude of such autonomous and semi-autonomous spheres; medieval man frequently belonged to a variety of these.” The greatest power in the middle ages was custom and tradition and these were local. These traditions and customs were fixed and could not be altered by any ruler including a King. In the Holy Roman Empire Dukes and Archbishops elected their kings and the states [such as Saxony Swambia Bavaria etc] and had near complete autonomy where they were “dominated by its own Duke.” Often wars such as the Germans into into Poland were funded and controlled by local Lords and Dukes with no input from the King. Famed French historian Regine Pernoud in her book Those terrible middle ages debunking the myths wrote “Only local powers reined.”

“As people came before courts or before judges they would have to declare witch they were and what law they lived under”
-Thomas Madden The Modern Scholar: The Medieval World, Part II: Society, Economy, and Culture

“They stand as monuments to the intense localism of the High Middle Ages, when every man’s country’ was not the kingdom, duchy, or county in which he lived, but his own town or village... Even the law might change from village to village; a thirteenth-century judge pointed out that in the various counties, cities, boroughs, and townships of England he had always to ask what was the local customary law and how it was employed before he could successfully try a case... Davis describes medieval civilization as “firmly rooted. It grew out of the earth, as it were.” The Road from Serfdom “
-Bionic Mosquito Decentralization Hidden in the dark Ages

Unlike in a democracy actual self government by consent rather than force was practiced. The people had the choice of witch Lord to follow and what political system to live under. Generally men would swear an oath to the Lord of their choice who would give the peasant land to work and protection. In return the peasant would give a small % of his produce back to the Lord. And also at times volunteer military service to the Lord. Lords protected the people in their domain who in return would swear an allegiance to the lord. It was a mutual beneficial situation that encouraged Lords to serve his/her people well as he would have more and more loyal men who would willingly fight under his banner. This was a loyalty by choice not a forced servitude. Thomas Aquinas said “ Good kings, on the contrary, are loved by many when they show that they love their subjects and are studiously intent on the common welfare, and when their subjects can see that they derive many benefits from this zealous care, government of good kings is stable, because their subjects do not refuse to expose themselves to any danger whatsoever on behalf of such kings.” Likewise a wicked ruler will have no support from his people and his kingdom will not last. French historian Leon Gautier writes in his book Chivalry the Everyday Life of the medieval Knight on the bonds between Lord and his men “The bonds of feudalism were stronger than family ties. The Lord was greater than a father, and a vassal was more than a son.”

“Secular histories report that, when it was observed that Dionysius, the tyrant of Sicily, surrounded his person with guards, Plato inquired: ‘Have you committed so much evil that you need to have so many guards?’ This is in no way fitting for the prince, who in doing his duty so wins the affection of all that every one of his subjects would expose his own head to imminent peril for him ... and would sacrifice his own skin for the sake of the royal skin; and all that a man has he will give up for the life of the prince.”
-John of Salisbury 1115-1180 Policraticus

A local government is more accountable to the people, and more in line with the local people. Decentralization allows diversity in government that a centralized government cannot offer. If one area wishes to provide universal health care, socialist tax code it can. If the area next town/county/state over wishes to have a libertarian society and a fair tax code, it can. The people can decide for themselves. This would also stop so much fighting between separate groups because neither could force themselves on the other as we do today in our modern centralized democracy. Wars would not be needed as there would be no cause when all can live as they wish. No cohesion. People could literally vote with their feet. Think of east Germans of the centralized soviet socialist who blocked in their runaway slaves [citizens] and shot them for running away from the tyranny. Decentralization also would allow multiple ways of dealing with a certain problem be tried and tested. We could have a dozen separate ways to do education, we could than test the results. The areas that “failed” in their way could adopt another more successful way if they chose to. But If the centralized government does education a certain way, and it fails, than everyone suffers. Since there are so many different opinions on how to better the education system in America, all could have it their own way instead of being forced by a central dictatorship in Washington- centralization forces conformity. Further this would force competition on government to behave and treat its citizens well and avoid corruption as this would give people choice and they could move to an area of like minded people. This is also the reason corrupt governments always seek centralization to avoid choice so as to be able to become more corrupt. True diversity would blossom as would free markets.

“A highley decentralized power structure composed of countless independent political; units explains the origin of capitalism- the expansion of market participation and of economic growth. It is not by accident that capitalism first flourished under conditions of extreme political decentralization.”
-Hans- Hermann Hoppe Democracy the God that Failed The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order Routledge 2001

“”secession/decentralization Increases ethnic, linguistic, religious, and cultural diversity, while centuries of centralization have stamped out hundreds of distinct cultures.”
-Hans- Hermann Hoppe Democracy the God that Failed The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order Routledge 2001

A power structure of a centralized democracy can not be removed easily, where as a tyrant king [a single person] can be. Think of a town mayor turning tyrannical, he will be easily resisted, a strong military and centralized democracy turns evil it will lead to mass destruction. Centralized governments and the modern state can turn as tyrannical as they wish and have a monopoly on force through police and the military. If a monarchy did so it would pit him against all his population who could than turn against him and in a decentralized system, such as the medieval time period, he would be hopelessness outnumbered and the people would truly rule. Thomas Aquinas in on Kingship said kingdoms should be arranged so if a King turned into a tyrant, he can be easily removed and his power should not be absolute but limited so as to avoid his potential to become a tyrant. ” This is the medieval decentralized system. So today what a centralized authority declares law, it is so, with no hope of recourse no matter how tyrannical or contrary to previous laws. In the decentralized medieval system [as in antebellum America as well] laws were the authority.

democracies “has placed the state above the law – the state self-defines and self-interprets the constitution; the state has a monopoly on the adjudication of its dictates. This places the state in a position to decide what law is, and how law is applied. The only hope one has to influence this is to turn a minority into a majority. Such a concept was unknown to the mediaeval mind – each individual held a form of veto. No majority was necessary, and minority rights were fully protected – even for the minority of one.”
-Bionic Mosquito Decentralization Hidden in the dark Ages

Absolutist systems are inherently locked in the viewpoint of its ruling despot or oligarchy.

A perfect example of modern democracies. Please read my op's.

Two-party democratic systems suffer from the "tyranny of majority" and the fact that they offer only two options, thus forcing a polarization of society, driving people into two camps with no expression possible for people with opinions not fitting either. Multi-party systems tend to avoid that. Parties in such systems rarely, if ever, achieve majority alone, and thus are forced into temporary coalitions and alliances, and are forced to consider and include opinions of their allies and often, even their adversaries. Thus, any party that achieves a seat in governmental institutions can share some of the power. That makes entry into political scene easier for new parties, and thus the political landscape of such system is much more varied, and voters can find a suitable party without being forced to support views that they might nor agree with, and overall it reduces concentration of power, thus checking the runaway corruption. This comes at hefty price of speed and decisiveness of such system, especially noticeable in times of crisis.

Please see under as actual self government does not exist no matter how many parties.

Democracy the Road to Socialism -Communism and Totalitarianism
Two Party System and Self Government

You tend to load your posts with many quotes. Frankly, that makes them hard to slog through, and to some people, including myself, it looks like you're trying to substitute arguments with appeals to authority. I'd advise you to reduce the number of those quotes.
Nevertheless, permit me just one, because it perfectly sums up my opinion about democracy.
"Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
-Winston Churchill, 1947.

Great quote. I agree no government is perfect. Nor are any people. But IMO democracy is among the worst and feudal monarchy perhaps the best.

[Sar1n]

But since this thread is on democracy vs monarchies i will say something of catholic monarchies. They never forced anyone to be catholic and nowhere in the bible is this so. It was a choice by free will.

That is simply a lie. Iberian muslims during Reconquista, French Cathars during Albigensian crusade, Czech Hussites after Thirty Years' War....those are just few examples off the top of my head of forced conversion to catholicism.

Neither did they attack critical thought or freedom of thought. But what i would say is all you have said or claimed of a "religious" society, is more true of our modern atheistic democracies [no freedom of thought must conform etc] than ever in the medieval time period. Further in the medieval time period they were christian and wanted law/society built around biblical standards. Today as a christian i am forced to support a system against my beliefs. So I would say that atheism is " unprovable, arbitrary belief as dogma, and teaches them to be followers, directly attacking critical thought and with it, what I consider most essential freedom" and God the truth and reality mankind rejects. The only society that can be libertarian must be based on the bible because that gives the only justification for it. You wont find this in atheism. And in a christian libertarian society you are allowed to not accept god. That is biblical. And as a christian, I have no limitations by "religion" I have only liberty and freedom in Jesus. I never was free until I became christian. Now I am free from what others think of me, free of any boss or family member, trying to do good, free from government etc I have one King Jesus. And out of my own free will I might chose to be faithful to my wife, avoid stealing, lying etc you might see these as restrictions. I do them only of my own free will for him who died for me to set this captive free. Liberty is found only in Jesus from my own experience.
I think we have enough to disuse on topic so right now [later is better] but to claim God is unproven is false. Beliving in atheism is anti critical thought, logic, science etc and that is a discussion I would encourage at another time. So imo your scenario starts with a false assumption their is no God. So its a false premise. But i do agree [as would any catholic than or now] some popes were powerhungery. Power does bad things to people. I talk much of this in my reasons elected officials are so very bad. I also agree there needs to be checks on power. Thus i love the medieval monarchies.

It is inherent to the idea of god that it's unprovable if, and which god, out of infinite possibilities, exist. The proof is quite simple, if you're open minded enough to consider idea of god as a proposition, not a dogma. Want me to go through it with you?

Secular humanism is based on similar logic. To unbiased observer, atheism and any idea of god are equally likely and equally unprovable. Thus, any religious dogma is arbitrary as basis of society. So the secular humanism starts from humanistic propositions and provable things, rather than religion. BTW, freedom of thought is one of those humanistic propositions.

You say that in modern secular society (which is not atheistic society), there is no freedom of thought. Far from it. You're free to pick your dogma, even if it's as nonsensical as any religion or religious belief. What you're not free is to put your dogma ahead of anyone else's. In most countries you're free to support or form an organization that supports your dogma. Do you know how free were people in feudal catholic society to do the same?

You say that man could only be free as christian. Besides that being incredibly narrow minded opinion, you haven't substantiated it in any way. And I say that one can only be free without god. Because belief in god is a belief in a will greater than one's own, and submission to it.

In short, you have totally no idea how life in feudal societies truly was. The local lords were the ones wielding power by law and force, they were the ones largely making the law. No separation of powers. As a result, while there was a customary law and tradition, lords could override it. The serfs also weren't mobile as you think. In middle ages, only about 10% of commoners were freemen whose riht to move was guaranteed by law. But even of they could by law, they were hindered by the fact that either most of their property was their house and fields, or they did not even own it but rented it, and moving elsewhere would mean abandoning their only source of nutrition without knowing that they'll be able to maintain their status of freemen elsewhere. Most of the lower classes in feudalism were villeins or slaves, who were contractually bound with land and its actual owner and could not abandon it. What you called "voting with feet" did not exist in feudal societies.

[Heathen Hammer]

The inherent flaw of monarchy is that monarch could lack traits that would make him a good ruler.
The inherent flaw of democracy is that it is incredibly vulnerable for subversion by the rich and powerful, something that we see manifested in the Western democracies of today.

[conon394]

I am sorry you feel that way. I think if you look over once more very careful you will find i cited most everything.

No you really have not. You are creating cut and past walls of text with attribution to a nominal author but no proper citation or ideal of context.

Let me contrast with a bit of text I was writing for the VV...

"For example this from Kagan's “The Outbreak of the Peloponnesian War” (1.)

'The sustenance of Her [Athens - my clarification] population depended on imports, her prosperity depended on trade and imperial revenues guaranteed by an overwhelmingly superior navy. Her very defense against any attacker was based on her unquestioned superiority at sea . To allow the creation of a fleet to rival her own by the union of the Corinthian and Corcyrean navies was unthinkable.” (pg 235).

1. "Outbreack of the Peloponnesian War" Donald Kagan. Cornell University Press

https://www.amazon.com/Outbreak-Pelo.../dp/0801495563

You see first no ellipses. An edit that I clearly stated was my own and the immediate means to see if I have mis-characterized the actuarial text or am taking it out of context.

Lets compare shall we

R. J. Rummel has studied the phenomenon of the state killing people within its jurisdiction. He calculates that nearly four times as many people have been killed by their own governments as have been killed in all the wars, domestic and foreign, fought around the globe in the twentieth century. Killing on this scale would not be possible without the subversion of independent social authorities caused by massive centralization. If so, the greatest threat to human life in the twentieth century has not been war but the massive centralization of power in modern states. Rummel says, its as if nuclear war occurred, and no one noticed.”
-Donald Livingston The Southern Critique of Centralization

“The recently ended twentieth century was characterized by a level of human rights violations unparalleled in all of human history. In the book death by government, Rudolph Rummel estimates some 170 million government-caused deaths in the twentieth century. The historical evidence appears to indicate that, rather than protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of their citizens, governments must be considered the greatest threat to human security.... it is states that are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people and immeasurable destruction of the 20th century alone. Compared to that, victims of private crimes are almost negligible.”
-Hans- Hermann Hoppe Professor Emeritus of Economics at UNLV, Distinguished Senior Fellow with the Mises Institute

The Mises I, really and this completely ignores the conclusions of the book in question. In any case all other types of mortality need to consider if you are going to make such a sweeping conclusion.

So you have not read Rudolph Rummel in actual fact have you?

"This is R. J. Rummel's fourth book in a series devoted to genocide and government mass murder, or what he calls democide. He presents the primary results, in tables and figures, as well as a historical sketch of the major cases of democide, those in which one million or more people were killed by a regime. In Death by Government, Rummel does not aim to describe democide itself, but to determine its nature and scope in order to test the theory that democracies are inherently nonviolent. Rummel discusses genocide in China, Nazi Germany, Japan, Cambodia, Turkey, Yugoslavia, Poland, the Soviet Union, and Pakistan. He also writes about areas of suspected genocide: North Korea, Mexico, and feudal Russia. His results clearly and decisively show that democracies commit less democide than other regimes. The underlying principle is that the less freedom people have, the greater the violence; the more freedom, the less the violence. Thus, as Rummel says, "The problem is power. The solution is democracy. The course of action is to foster freedom."

Death by Government is a compelling look at the horrors that occur in modern societies. It depicts how democide has been very much a part of human history. Among other examples, the book includes the massacre of Europeans during the Thirty Years' War, the relatively unknown genocide of the French Revolution, and the slaughtering of American Indians by colonists in the New World. This riveting account is an essential tool for historians, political scientists, and scholars interested in the study of genocide."

Bold is mine. you buy the book on Amazon if you want.

https://www.amazon.com/Death-Governm.../dp/1138522007

Yes of course with a lot more people the death tole of the well recorded 20th century will be high but that is a pointless figure. You cited the bible, how do you rate Jericho? Sure numbers were smaller and the story is just a story but that culture was clearly on board with the same methods as Stalin. Also you really can't play that game fair. You want to live in a tiny decentralized feudal society than you loose all the benefits of a big one. Have fun with all the down sides and deaths from that as well. I was born 3 month early - for most of history I'm just a miscarriage. I don't think 9th century feudal farmer peasants were going to change that. Or at least eventually only for the lords and the betters.


From you rather nauseating lost cause source:

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/b...entralization/

"Virginia conquered the vast Northwest territory"

Ha har ha no it did not except on a some map of its own devising. So it had nothing to give back in defense of republicanism.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._1782-1802.png

Sorry the Northwest Territories were not really conquered till after the war of 1812 and that would be the USA doing it.

Hey look its Jefferson

"“the wit of man cannot devise a more solid basis for a free, durable well-administered republic.” "

Along with my black slaves and racism. That way the poor white dumb crackers have somebody look down and not notice thay are living in an aristocratic state dressed up as a republic that vaguely allows them to vote sometimes assuming they are not really poor.

"the largest was Athens with around 200 thousand people"

Rather a large undercount by maybe 50% at the low end and vastly more if you consider the state Athens aimed to make out of the Delian league.

"If you want to know why the South seceded, read the Confederate Constitution it is merely the US Constitution reformed to bring it into closer accord with the Jeffersonian vision of reconciling republicanism with extensive territory"

Or you could read the state documents of succession that made it clear it was slavery that was the issue first and last.


----


And no your other thread is just more poorly cited text walls.

Please give me an accurate place and time where feudalism and a monarchey is clearly the best option for most people than a democracy

Because I think you are tad confused.

You seem to arguing for smaller polities but that does not imply that have to be of any particular nature nor have you fully dealt with in any systemic way the value of size.
But you than have some strange poorly defend ideal one what those should be a republic, no good defense for not democracy and you keep saying Atheistic so you want religion but are you sure yours is right? So you want a religions monarchy but small? As long as its your religion and what you think you going to topple that monarch and a what half a Sunday if you don't like it as a counter balance?

[18611096]

The inherent flaw of monarchy is that monarch could lack traits that would make him a good ruler.
The inherent flaw of democracy is that it is incredibly vulnerable for subversion by the rich and powerful, something that we see manifested in the Western democracies of today.

One of the many inherent flaw of democracy is that it almost ensures the worst are our rulers. One of the inherent good thing of monarchy is that do not rule over us with the authority of elected officials.

[18611096]

That is simply a lie. Iberian muslims during Reconquista, French Cathars during Albigensian crusade, Czech Hussites after Thirty Years' War....those are just few examples off the top of my head of forced conversion to catholicism.

You have not made a vital distinction from what you said and your examples. For example the Liberian muslims had invaded catholic lands, so Catholics retook the land through warfare. This is not forced conversion of the population under your control. Can you give any one example of forced conversion under catholic law? or from the bible?meanwhile in democracy all are indoctrinated in its philosophies with include its religious beliefs of atheism/ moral relativism etc etc

It is inherent to the idea of god that it's unprovable if, and which god, out of infinite possibilities, exist. The proof is quite simple, if you're open minded enough to consider idea of god as a proposition, not a dogma. Want me to go through it with you?

Secular humanism is based on similar logic. To unbiased observer, atheism and any idea of god are equally likely and equally unprovable. Thus, any religious dogma is arbitrary as basis of society. So the secular humanism starts from humanistic propositions and provable things, rather than religion. BTW, freedom of thought is one of those humanistic propositions.

As i said not only is this illogical but untrue on all accounts. I think this better fits a thread being done in the religion section. One topic at a time my friend. Remember you said you enjoy debate but lack time so you avoid christian forums, and how i said i fully get where you are coming from. Same here. When that is the topic i want to come with material and make the case in my op and when I have time to focus on that very important subject. But this thread is monarchy and democracy. A big topic itself.

You say that in modern secular society (which is not atheistic society), there is no freedom of thought. Far from it. You're free to pick your dogma, even if it's as nonsensical as any religion or religious belief. What you're not free is to put your dogma ahead of anyone else's. In most countries you're free to support or form an organization that supports your dogma. Do you know how free were people in feudal catholic society to do the same?

I would say that is not the case at all. You are allowed beliefs contrary to democratic philosophy, just not in public. And never to be preached by the state witch holds its religious beliefs and philosophies 100% to be preached and cannot be challenged. And history shows us what happened when you challenge the state with competing beliefs. Just ask those Catholics and monarchist that were murdered by the millions. We are allowed only to preach nonsensical illogical philosophies, because they are PC. Because they support the state. And these are the only beliefs/worldview that is allowed above all others. And we [those who disagree] must pay for it or go to jail.


I believe you are referring to the inquestions under absolute monarchies that come from secular/renaissance thinking.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index....itions.564748/
http://www.politicalforum.com/index....k-ages.564747/

You say that man could only be free as christian. Besides that being incredibly narrow minded opinion, you haven't substantiated it in any way. And I say that one can only be free without god. Because belief in god is a belief in a will greater than one's own, and submission to it.

Your narrow minded for saying it is not so. Truth is by definition narrow minded. 2 plus 2 is 4 no matter who says it is 3 or 5 or 72. I would rather be correct and be called narrow minded. You have no no way substantiated your claim an atheistic society can allow freedom as i pointed out [you ignored my post] there is no justification within the atheist worldview that sees man as nothing but evolved animals that need to be controlled by the state. There are no god given rights, the state becomes god the highest authority and history shows us the atheistic governments are the most tyrannical and allow the least freedom. Only if their is higher authority that gives man liberty and that is followed by those in authority [like medieval Europe] can actual liberty [not freedoms] happen. Just the reason the most christian time period was the most libertarian. I have gone into good detail on both of these . Please read

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...k-at-Democracy
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...dal-Monarchies


And once more God is followed by our own free will if we chose, he does not force. So we are no more less free if we reject him.

In short, you have totally no idea how life in feudal societies truly was. The local lords were the ones wielding power by law and force, they were the ones largely making the law. No separation of powers. As a result, while there was a customary law and tradition, lords could override it. The serfs also weren't mobile as you think. In middle ages, only about 10% of commoners were freemen whose riht to move was guaranteed by law. But even of they could by law, they were hindered by the fact that either most of their property was their house and fields, or they did not even own it but rented it, and moving elsewhere would mean abandoning their only source of nutrition without knowing that they'll be able to maintain their status of freemen elsewhere. Most of the lower classes in feudalism were villeins or slaves, who were contractually bound with land and its actual owner and could not abandon it. What you called "voting with feet" did not exist in feudal societies.

Great, come support your claims and show why the leading medieval scholars got it wrong. I have a thread all ready for you to argue the counter of your claims above. Come show me wrong.

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...dal-Monarchies

[Heathen Hammer]

One of the many inherent flaw of democracy is that it almost ensures the worst are our rulers. One of the inherent good thing of monarchy is that do not rule over us with the authority of elected officials.

One look at British royal family with all the degenerate behavior and apathetic attitude to erosion of its nation's values and sovereignty shows that monarch simply can give up his nation to be at mercy of those officials, due to being too stupid or simply because he/she doesn't care. Again, it all comes down to putting all your eggs into one basket.

[18611096]

No you really have not. You are creating cut and past walls of text with attribution to a nominal author but no proper citation or ideal of context.

Let me contrast with a bit of text I was writing for the VV...

"For example this from Kagan's “The Outbreak of the Peloponnesian War” (1.)

'The sustenance of Her [Athens - my clarification] population depended on imports, her prosperity depended on trade and imperial revenues guaranteed by an overwhelmingly superior navy. Her very defense against any attacker was based on her unquestioned superiority at sea . To allow the creation of a fleet to rival her own by the union of the Corinthian and Corcyrean navies was unthinkable.” (pg 235).

1. "Outbreack of the Peloponnesian War" Donald Kagan. Cornell University Press

https://www.amazon.com/Outbreak-Pelo.../dp/0801495563

You see first no ellipses. An edit that I clearly stated was my own and the immediate means to see if I have mis-characterized the actuarial text or am taking it out of context.

Lets compare shall we



The Mises I, really and this completely ignores the conclusions of the book in question. In any case all other types of mortality need to consider if you are going to make such a sweeping conclusion.

So you have not read Rudolph Rummel in actual fact have you?

"This is R. J. Rummel's fourth book in a series devoted to genocide and government mass murder, or what he calls democide. He presents the primary results, in tables and figures, as well as a historical sketch of the major cases of democide, those in which one million or more people were killed by a regime. In Death by Government, Rummel does not aim to describe democide itself, but to determine its nature and scope in order to test the theory that democracies are inherently nonviolent. Rummel discusses genocide in China, Nazi Germany, Japan, Cambodia, Turkey, Yugoslavia, Poland, the Soviet Union, and Pakistan. He also writes about areas of suspected genocide: North Korea, Mexico, and feudal Russia. His results clearly and decisively show that democracies commit less democide than other regimes. The underlying principle is that the less freedom people have, the greater the violence; the more freedom, the less the violence. Thus, as Rummel says, "The problem is power. The solution is democracy. The course of action is to foster freedom."

Death by Government is a compelling look at the horrors that occur in modern societies. It depicts how democide has been very much a part of human history. Among other examples, the book includes the massacre of Europeans during the Thirty Years' War, the relatively unknown genocide of the French Revolution, and the slaughtering of American Indians by colonists in the New World. This riveting account is an essential tool for historians, political scientists, and scholars interested in the study of genocide."

Bold is mine. you buy the book on Amazon if you want.

https://www.amazon.com/Death-Governm.../dp/1138522007

So you are looking for academic type sourcing even to the page? this is not even required in all collage classes. I have always and always will help anyone find the context of the quote or provide it if needed. I almost always provide the book. You have chosen a small minority [2] out of a large number of quotes I would say is unfair. But if you want to claim A quote of mine is out of context or misrepresented, than challenge any one of them. I think it seems you are desperate to refute me and are really having trouble so you have resorted to not 100% full sourcing on valid quotes. If that is the defense of democracy against my op i say perhaps it is weaker than I thought. And no i did not read rummels book, that is why I quoted two historians who had and commented on the book they read. That is why i quoted them instead of claiming i had read it. That is proper sourcing. I thought you would be aware of that given your post.

Yes of course with a lot more people the death tole of the well recorded 20th century will be high but that is a pointless figure. You cited the bible, how do you rate Jericho? Sure numbers were smaller and the story is just a story but that culture was clearly on board with the same methods as Stalin. Also you really can't play that game fair. You want to live in a tiny decentralized feudal society than you loose all the benefits of a big one. Have fun with all the down sides and deaths from that as well. I was born 3 month early - for most of history I'm just a miscarriage. I don't think 9th century feudal farmer peasants were going to change that. Or at least eventually only for the lords and the betters.

Allot smaller time scale as well. But tell me how many people did the king massacre of his own people during the feudal system? why was not mass killings common until the rise of centralization, nationalism, and the modern state? I cover all of this in detail see under

Warfare - Total war or Chivalry?
The Power of the Crown in a Feudal Monarch
You Shall Know Them by Their Fruits
Democracy- the Enemy of the Church? The People?



Jericho? you comparing that to mass genocide of democracies? please see here

https://www.christianforums.com/thre...anaan.8099846/

From you rather nauseating lost cause source:

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/b...entralization/

"Virginia conquered the vast Northwest territory"

Ha har ha no it did not except on a some map of its own devising. So it had nothing to give back in defense of republicanism.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._1782-1802.png

Sorry the Northwest Territories were not really conquered till after the war of 1812 and that would be the USA doing it.

"nauseating" perhaps you could use some tolerance towards those who hold heretical opinions in your view. But i do feel bad you have become so desperate as to attack anything possible of an article that has nothing to do with why i quoted it, not only that you are incorrect. I think with less emotion and anger you could avoid such mistakes in the future. Have a beer, calm down, and understand some to not think the idol [democracy] you hold so high is divine, in fact we see it as evil. Accept it and move on. You will be better for it arguing. So to answer the article meant the "northwest" as in the day of Virginia when it [Virginia] conquered it. Not the northwest as you are referring to it. Nor the northwest as we would call it today

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northw..._United_States.


I dont want to be rude but this is not a class i am not a teacher to correct so simply and small mistakes. If you wish to debate/discus the topic at hand or my op, I would love that. Please dont nit pick trying to find anything you can it looks desperate and shows you are not critically thinking of your own posts. Rather think it out and if you have an objection, please do share.

Hey look its Jefferson

"“the wit of man cannot devise a more solid basis for a free, durable well-administered republic.” "

Along with my black slaves and racism. That way the poor white dumb crackers have somebody look down and not notice thay are living in an aristocratic state dressed up as a republic that vaguely allows them to vote sometimes assuming they are not really poor.

"the largest was Athens with around 200 thousand people"

Rather a large undercount by maybe 50% at the low end and vastly more if you consider the state Athens aimed to make out of the Delian league.

"If you want to know why the South seceded, read the Confederate Constitution it is merely the US Constitution reformed to bring it into closer accord with the Jeffersonian vision of reconciling republicanism with extensive territory"

Or you could read the state documents of succession that made it clear it was slavery that was the issue first and last.

Honestly this is a bit of rambling against your heretics [the south] to me. It does seem threads are needed on the civil war. I accept the offer. However one issue at a time. Democracy/monarchy than it seems god, than the civil war. My 3 favorite topics. Slavery and causes of the war need priority.

----

And no your other thread is just more poorly cited text walls.

Please give me an accurate place and time where feudalism and a monarchey is clearly the best option for most people than a democracy

It is my opinion that all the time, feudal monarchies are better than democracies. That i thought was clear.

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...k-at-Democracy
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...dal-Monarchies

Because I think you are tad confused.

You seem to arguing for smaller polities but that does not imply that have to be of any particular nature nor have you fully dealt with in any systemic way the value of size.
But you than have some strange poorly defend ideal one what those should be a republic, no good defense for not democracy and you keep saying Atheistic so you want religion but are you sure yours is right? So you want a religions monarchy but small? As long as its your religion and what you think you going to topple that monarch and a what half a Sunday if you don't like it as a counter balance?

One thing you could do is read my posts, that would help much. I yes like decentralization and self government vs centralization and control forced conformity. I want all to have self government so yes i would prefer a small scale organic christian society but i dont want to force an atheist liberal to live under it. they should have there own self governing area. I also dont want them to impose their force on me and make me live in an atheistic, moral relativist society either. Its a bit scrambled and hard to read but I have many reasons to reject democracy but i have no issues with others if they want to live in one, just i dont want to be forced into it.

[18611096]

One look at British royal family with all the degenerate behavior and apathetic attitude to erosion of its nation's values and sovereignty shows that monarch simply can give up his nation to be at mercy of those officials, due to being too stupid or simply because he/she doesn't care. Again, it all comes down to putting all your eggs into one basket.

I dont fully disagree here. look at out politicians and how corrupt and immoral they are. Elected officials are of the worst kind. Far worse than hereditary inheritance. I would suggest reading my section

Vote for me- Democracy Creates Professional Politicians aka Psychopaths


But also I am not referring to our modern secular royalty. No rather the medieval catholic royalty. I suggest reading a section from this thread

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...dal-Monarchies

read the section

Catholic Monarchs

[Sar1n]

You have not made a vital distinction from what you said and your examples. For example the Liberian muslims had invaded catholic lands, so Catholics retook the land through warfare. This is not forced conversion of the population under your control. Can you give any one example of forced conversion under catholic law? or from the bible?meanwhile in democracy all are indoctrinated in its philosophies with include its religious beliefs of atheism/ moral relativism etc etc

I suggest you educate yourself before spouting such...well, I don't think that on these forums I'm allowed the words to properly describe that.

A brief history of Iberian peninsula after fall of Roman Empire.
Visigoths establish their kingdom over much of peninsula and southern France. After a bit of mutual raiding, muslims from Morroco, including Moors and Berbers, seized an opportunity given by decisive victory to conquer most of the Iberian peninsula. While the Visigoth leaders perished in the conflict, the change in leadership didn't affect the non-combatant inhabitants much. They were allowed to to keep their religion and their customary law. Over time, the territory fragmented and there were some conflicts between the territories, which gave Christians enough opening to start waging prolonged campaign against muslims. The last stronghold to fall was Granada. The treaty that handed Granada to christians guaranteed, among other things, religious freedom-the same consideration that muslims showed when they conquered Iberia. However, a short time later, christians broke the treaty and began forced conversion of muslims and jews, imprisoning or executing those who refused. Even later, the new converts were expelled due to fears that their conversion was only pretense.
There is ample literature available on the subject, if you desire to learn.

And like I wrote, there were many more cases. Albigensian crusade, northern crusades, Hussite wars (that's a very interesting read, though most detailed literature is in Czech language) that ended with settlement after five unsuccessful crusades, only to be outlawed two hundred years later when most of Czech nobility died at and after Battle of White Mountain. Just begin with reading on those topics on Wikipedia, they're well sourced and you can track down detailed literature from there.

As i said not only is this illogical but untrue on all accounts. I think this better fits a thread being done in the religion section. One topic at a time my friend. Remember you said you enjoy debate but lack time so you avoid christian forums, and how i said i fully get where you are coming from. Same here. When that is the topic i want to come with material and make the case in my op and when I have time to focus on that very important subject. But this thread is monarchy and democracy. A big topic itself.

I would say that is not the case at all. You are allowed beliefs contrary to democratic philosophy, just not in public. And never to be preached by the state witch holds its religious beliefs and philosophies 100% to be preached and cannot be challenged. And history shows us what happened when you challenge the state with competing beliefs. Just ask those Catholics and monarchist that were murdered by the millions. We are allowed only to preach nonsensical illogical philosophies, because they are PC. Because they support the state. And these are the only beliefs/worldview that is allowed above all others. And we [those who disagree] must pay for it or go to jail.

It's not illogical or unture. And while you make this claim central to your argumentation, you avoid discussing this. Well, I'll force it.
One of universal properties of all ideas of god is that god is capable of exercising free will against a natural system (commonly called laws of nature). It is not wholly subject to it. This is taken to extreme with monotheistic gods, which are commonly considered omnipotent-and thus, not subject to any system or logic. But in order to objectively prove anything, it must be part of some kind of system, some kind of logic that connects it to the rest of the world. God is not, as it can override the system at will. Thus it's unprovable. Another consequence is that god is entirely arbitrary. There is no limit to what form, commandements, demands, behavior and change thereof can it have. Christianity demonstrates that well with the huge disparity between Old Testament and New Testament god.

It's obvious that you don't understand what secular state means. It means that every religious belief is given same treatment-as a belief. It cannot be proven or disproven. Therefore, things that can be and are proven are given higher consideration. Religion is an individual's choice, and not something that can be imposed on others. Science and its results are given precedence over beliefs, which are considered individual choice. But neither are the beliefs themselves persecuted-as long as you don't act on those that would violate rights of others. For example, teaching creationism in schools is banned in most secular countries (some backward US states being the exception) because it puts specific religious belief above science and imposes it on children, thus violating their right of religious freedom. By the way, you claim that people in secular democracies are put to jail for their beliefs. I challenge you to prove it, because that's false. What happens is that people are jailed because they acted on their beliefs in a way that harmed others.
Secularism does not rely on arbitrary idea of god to provide their rights-which is, ultimately, controlled by those who claim to speak for that specific god, and by deriving their power from belief that they represent ultimate power, they are without any check. Instead, it relies on virtually universal agreement based on humanistic ideals.

I believe you are referring to the inquestions under absolute monarchies that come from secular/renaissance thinking.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index....itions.564748/
http://www.politicalforum.com/index....k-ages.564747/

Calling Inquisition secular is among most hilarious errors you've committed here. Inquisition was based on desire to retain and enforce the power of a religious organization, and thus total antithesis to secular ideas. In fact, it was one of worst expressions of theocracy and religious brainwashing, as at least for its lower ranking members who did the dirty job of torturing and burning people, the unshakeable belief in specific dogma about hell (or, failing that, being total psychopath, but those tended to rise through hierarchy quickly) was a job requirement.
As I wrote, ultimately the power of any god is in fact power of those who claim to speak for it. Inquisition is the best proof of that.

Your narrow minded for saying it is not so. Truth is by definition narrow minded. 2 plus 2 is 4 no matter who says it is 3 or 5 or 72. I would rather be correct and be called narrow minded. You have no no way substantiated your claim an atheistic society can allow freedom as i pointed out [you ignored my post] there is no justification within the atheist worldview that sees man as nothing but evolved animals that need to be controlled by the state. There are no god given rights, the state becomes god the highest authority and history shows us the atheistic governments are the most tyrannical and allow the least freedom. Only if their is higher authority that gives man liberty and that is followed by those in authority [like medieval Europe] can actual liberty [not freedoms] happen. Just the reason the most christian time period was the most libertarian. I have gone into good detail on both of these . Please read

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...k-at-Democracy
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...dal-Monarchies

Secular society is entrenched in humanistic ideals, just like religious society is entrenched in its religious commandments. Humanistic ideals are interesting read, especially the reasoning behind them. Devote some time to it.
You've committed here another fallacy. You are apparently incapable of properly understanding the terms "atheistic" and "secular". They're vastly different. I've explained the term secular above. It's what most modern governments are.
There were, and still are, atheistic governments. They're the ones who replaced god with an ideology that is enforced just as harshly as religion was in medieval Europe. USSR, PRC, and couple of other now defunct ones. You could even count North Korea as special case of those.

You seem to be quite confused on terms of liberty, freedoms and libertarianism. Because what you write about them honestly does not make sense.

And once more God is followed by our own free will if we chose, he does not force. So we are no more less free if we reject him.

Gods don't force anyone. Those who follow them, however...
As Charles I justified the forced conversion of muslims in Iberia: They had choice. They could have chosen death.

Great, come support your claims and show why the leading medieval scholars got it wrong. I have a thread all ready for you to argue the counter of your claims above. Come show me wrong.

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...dal-Monarchies

If that was well written, I might go refuting it piece by piece. But really, it's a drivel that's justified by noting more but disjointed, out of context quotes, as previously noted here:
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?801857-Monarchy-vs-Democracy-A-Critical-Look-at-Democracy&p=15862272&viewfull=1#post15862272

You do not show any objectivity, criticizing one side without comparison with the other, and praising the other arbitrarily without putting it into context while you do not give any consideration to advantages of the other side. Your premises are demonstratively false and you do not give considerations to negatives of your imagined alternative. Fragmented, decentralized agrarian society has many drawbacks. The huge variety of laws between territories are detrimental to sustained long range private cooperation, trade and individual specialization that are among pillars of modern technological society. The net of international treaties and laws was main reason why countries entering EU experienced huge boost, something I've witnessed myself as my coutry entered EU during my life. Agrarian society, while self-sufficient in basics, is incapable of producing too complex things. There's a good reason why Amish communities maintain a link with the society, because if the axe slips or someone falls seriously ill, there is only so much they can do.
Law based on tradition is, depite your belief, absolutely awful. World changes, and law has to change too to reflect that. Basing it on tradition makes it too inflexible in that regard. And it's not entrenched any better than secular or religious law. As you keep forgetting, ultimately it's always humans who are in charge. Religious law is controlled by those who are on top of religious hierarchy. Tradition is controlled by those charged with keeping the tradition. Compared to either of those, democratic republic has far better system of checks and balances to slow down runaway corruption.
And finally, your "voting with feet" is absolute bull...well, you know. In order to be effective, the people must have enough information about alternatives, and be effectively capable of moving. That means owning no estates, not even a house, and yet, they have to be guaranteed access to that once they move. These conditions were not fulfilled in medieval feudal societies, and even in modern societies, achieving that would be nigh impossible-and the solution rather unlibertarian, as unmovable property would all have to be controlled by someone distributing it, going against the freedom of personal property.

[18611096]

I suggest you educate yourself before spouting such...well, I don't think that on these forums I'm allowed the words to properly describe that.

A brief history of Iberian peninsula after fall of Roman Empire.
Visigoths establish their kingdom over much of peninsula and southern France. After a bit of mutual raiding, muslims from Morroco, including Moors and Berbers, seized an opportunity given by decisive victory to conquer most of the Iberian peninsula. While the Visigoth leaders perished in the conflict, the change in leadership didn't affect the non-combatant inhabitants much. They were allowed to to keep their religion and their customary law. Over time, the territory fragmented and there were some conflicts between the territories, which gave Christians enough opening to start waging prolonged campaign against muslims. The last stronghold to fall was Granada. The treaty that handed Granada to christians guaranteed, among other things, religious freedom-the same consideration that muslims showed when they conquered Iberia. However, a short time later, christians broke the treaty and began forced conversion of muslims and jews, imprisoning or executing those who refused. Even later, the new converts were expelled due to fears that their conversion was only pretense.
There is ample literature available on the subject, if you desire to learn.

And like I wrote, there were many more cases. Albigensian crusade, northern crusades, Hussite wars (that's a very interesting read, though most detailed literature is in Czech language) that ended with settlement after five unsuccessful crusades, only to be outlawed two hundred years later when most of Czech nobility died at and after Battle of White Mountain. Just begin with reading on those topics on Wikipedia, they're well sourced and you can track down detailed literature from there.

So once more you have failed to give a proper example. Spain was christian before the Muslim invasion. They simply retook the lands. As for claims of forced conversion of Muslims, well that would be a myth. Great sources out there for those willing to learn.

https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Schola.../dp/B001JHT8A6
https://www.amazon.com/Bearing-False...7763581&sr=8-1
https://www.amazon.com/Real-Story-Ca...MZ0A0AYYFG2SM8

Meanwhile you cannot deny this happens in democracy around the world. And are you saying the crusades were to convert?

https://www.christianforums.com/thre...sades.8136591/

It's not illogical or unture. And while you make this claim central to your argumentation, you avoid discussing this. Well, I'll force it.
One of universal properties of all ideas of god is that god is capable of exercising free will against a natural system (commonly called laws of nature). It is not wholly subject to it. This is taken to extreme with monotheistic gods, which are commonly considered omnipotent-and thus, not subject to any system or logic. But in order to objectively prove anything, it must be part of some kind of system, some kind of logic that connects it to the rest of the world. God is not, as it can override the system at will. Thus it's unprovable. Another consequence is that god is entirely arbitrary. There is no limit to what form, commandements, demands, behavior and change thereof can it have. Christianity demonstrates that well with the huge disparity between Old Testament and New Testament god.

The truthfulness has nothing to do with my argument, the belief that it is true [vs secular] is. There is no justification within atheism to grant liberty to people and no safety net to protect liberty outside of a biblical society that has higher law than the state. These are the truths/arguments i made. And history shows this true. That is the debate regarding this thread and the debate you have ran away from. As for your claims above and arguments. I would love to debate them here when a relevant thread is on the topic that you have inspired me to do. But if you cannot wait. here is a great 1v1 debate forum where I will be glad to do just that. You have brought up many topic that should be debated alone. Here is the sight i am sighed up register and we shall debate proper.

https://www.debate.org/


Its really a wonderful site and format. Lots of fun.

It's obvious that you don't understand what secular state means. It means that every religious belief is given same treatment-as a belief. It cannot be proven or disproven. Therefore, things that can be and are proven are given higher consideration. Religion is an individual's choice, and not something that can be imposed on others. Science and its results are given precedence over beliefs, which are considered individual choice. But neither are the beliefs themselves persecuted-as long as you don't act on those that would violate rights of others. For example, teaching creationism in schools is banned in most secular countries (some backward US states being the exception) because it puts specific religious belief above science and imposes it on children, thus violating their right of religious freedom. By the way, you claim that people in secular democracies are put to jail for their beliefs. I challenge you to prove it, because that's false. What happens is that people are jailed because they acted on their beliefs in a way that harmed others.
Secularism does not rely on arbitrary idea of god to provide their rights-which is, ultimately, controlled by those who claim to speak for that specific god, and by deriving their power from belief that they represent ultimate power, they are without any check. Instead, it relies on virtually universal agreement based on humanistic ideals.

I would say you have blind eyes to what democracy has produced on this matter. The only allowed state religion is secular. You cant have a "religion" so you must adhere to and teach/preach atheism/evolution, moral relativism and the other philosophies that help master democracy/ the state consolidate power. You claim Religion is an individual's choice, and not something that can be imposed on other" without realizing in saying so you have accepted secular thinking and presuppositions that you have been taught in a secular state. And than claim we are not secular. No science is not given priority over the secular religion of the state [evolution] as you claim.


“Thewestern world have never had the chance to learn creation thinkingand know only evolution. Naturalism enjoys a virtual monopoly intoday's classrooms, while instructors who have been schooled only innaturalistic worldview play the part of evolutionary evangelist.”
-JohnD Morris and Frank J Sherwin The Fossil Record 2017

“Absolutestranglehold materialistic atheism has on every thought that isallowed to be considered in the scientific and educational realms.This makes the American classroom one of the most censored,thought-controlled locations on the planet.”
-JohnMorris and Frank Sherwin The Fossil Record: Unearthing Nature'sHistory of Life 2017


You than claim " But neither are the beliefs themselves persecuted-as long as you don't act on those that would violate rights of others." unless the rights violated are say christian or monarchist, than we genocide them by the millions. And of course they dont have rights to a monarch or christian society, no only secular societies in democracies that teach/preach atheism and related philosophies using tax money we force from the people to teach against their beliefs. We use christian dollars to build secular temples. And than claim "For example, teaching creationism in schools is banned in most secular countries (some backward US states being the exception) because it puts specific religious belief above science and imposes it on children, thus violating their right of religious freedom"

and claim its for religious liberty. So the state can teach anti-science false claims/lies in textbooks etc to convince its people of its religion evolution/atheism yet creation is "religious" and so its banned for freedom. So Christians have no rights to teach truth instead must pay money to teach lies and wont be allowed to raise as they want and we call it freedom. And you claimed we are in a free society and not a secular one? Please use logic for that one.

Jail. Sure, dont pay your taxes that go to funding a religion [secularism.atheism/evolution] in public schools. Dont pay the fine since it is unjust since we are a "free" society and treated equal. Than dont show up to court because we are a free fair society, see what happens.

Calling Inqenforce the power of a religious organization, and thus total antithesis to secular ideas. In fact, it was one of worst expressions of theocracy and religious brainwashing, as at least for its lower ranking members who did the dirty job of torturinuisition secular is among most hilarious errors you've committed here. Inquisition was based on desire to retain and g and burning people, the unshakeable belief in specific dogma about hell (or, failing that, being total psychopath, but those tended to rise through hierarchy quickly) was a job requirement.
As I wrote, ultimately the power of any god is in fact power of those who claim to speak for it. Inquisition is the best proof of that.

I said they come from secular law, from roman state law, not christian. Perhaps the most fun I have had was the claim that " the power of a religious organization, and thus total antithesis to secular ideas"
how do you explain the enforcement of power by secular/democracies? they are the single best example of enforced power and cohesion. But where do you get all these ideas about the inquestions? it is because you are raised in a secular state. So you are told to believe certain things as a form of brainwash to keep you secular. To continue to support the democratic atheistic state.


The Winner Writes the History

“It is so easy, in fact, to manipulate history... for a public that is not knowledgeable about it. We have nearly daily evidence of this on television”
-Regine Pernoud Those Terrible Middle Ages Debunking the Myths Ignatius press San Francisco

“Official” history is always written by its victors I.e from the perspective of the proponents of democracy.”
-Hans- Hermann Hoppe Democracy the God that Failed The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order Routledge 2001

"The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its history. Then have somebody write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history"
-Milan Hubl, Czek communist

“Why do myths persist despite the exsistance of authentic scholarship that refutes them? because avowed enemies of the church find them useful in discrediting the church and limiting its influence in the world.”
-Steve Weidenkopf The real Story of Catholic History Catholic Answers press 2017

“Many vicious distortions and lies had entered the historical cannon with the seal of distinguished scholarly approval, so long as they reflect badly on the catholic church.”
-Rodney Stark Bearing False Witness Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History Tempelton Press 2016

“Great historical myths die hard....writers continue to spread traditional myths....even though they are fully aware of the new findings. They do so because they are determined to show that religion, and especially Christianity, is a dreadful curse upon humanity.”
-Rodney Stark Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History

“What the proponents of the enlightenment actually initiated was the tradition of angry secular attacks on religion.”
-Rodney Stark Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History

”The period of time when Europe was “Christianized” was renamed the dark ages. Enlightenment scholars began a campaign to associate the church with superstition and ignorance, including the outright lie the church in the middle ages taught a flat earth. Jeffery Burton Russel sets the record straight in his book inventing the flat earth myth...it is sad the conquerors write the history books. Over the next century secularist ideas replaced the christian worldview in Europe that continues to this day.”
-Micheal J ord and John K Reed How Noahs flood Shaped our earth



for those who wish to learn.

https://www.christianforums.com/thre...tions.8136588/

“If you can cut the people off from their history, then they can be easily persuaded.”
-Karl Marx

Secular society is entrenched in humanistic ideals, just like religious society is entrenched in its religious commandments. Humanistic ideals are interesting read, especially the reasoning behind them. Devote some time to it.
You've committed here another fallacy. You are apparently incapable of properly understanding the terms "atheistic" and "secular". They're vastly different. I've explained the term secular above. It's what most modern governments are.
There were, and still are, atheistic governments. They're the ones who replaced god with an ideology that is enforced just as harshly as religion was in medieval Europe. USSR, PRC, and couple of other now defunct ones. You could even count North Korea as special case of those.

You seem to be quite confused on terms of liberty, freedoms and libertarianism. Because what you write about them honestly does not make sense.

I would suggest your confusing a secular state with outlawing a religion entirely and persecuting it as so many democracies did while they killed millions of Christians for their faith or beliefs in monarchies.

Gods don't force anyone. Those who follow them, however...
As Charles I justified the forced conversion of muslims in Iberia: They had choice. They could have chosen death.

How about the millions killed or told to accept atheism and democracy in Russia? However this is a common myth of the forced conversion of muslims. For those who wish to learn ....

https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Schola...7765881&sr=8-1

If that was well written, I might go refuting it piece by piece. But really, it's a drivel that's justified by noting more but disjointed, out of context quotes, as previously noted here:
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?801857-Monarchy-vs-Democracy-A-Critical-Look-at-Democracy&p=15862272&viewfull=1#post15862272

You do not show any objectivity, criticizing one side without comparison with the other, and praising the other arbitrarily without putting it into context while you do not give any consideration to advantages of the other side. Your premises are demonstratively false and you do not give considerations to negatives of your imagined alternative. Fragmented, decentralized agrarian society has many drawbacks. The huge variety of laws between territories are detrimental to sustained long range private cooperation, trade and individual specialization that are among pillars of modern technological society. The net of international treaties and laws was main reason why countries entering EU experienced huge boost, something I've witnessed myself as my coutry entered EU during my life. Agrarian society, while self-sufficient in basics, is incapable of producing too complex things. There's a good reason why Amish communities maintain a link with the society, because if the axe slips or someone falls seriously ill, there is only so much they can do.
Law based on tradition is, depite your belief, absolutely awful. World changes, and law has to change too to reflect that. Basing it on tradition makes it too inflexible in that regard. And it's not entrenched any better than secular or religious law. As you keep forgetting, ultimately it's always humans who are in charge. Religious law is controlled by those who are on top of religious hierarchy. Tradition is controlled by those charged with keeping the tradition. Compared to either of those, democratic republic has far better system of checks and balances to slow down runaway corruption.
And finally, your "voting with feet" is absolute bull...well, you know. In order to be effective, the people must have enough information about alternatives, and be effectively capable of moving. That means owning no estates, not even a house, and yet, they have to be guaranteed access to that once they move. These conditions were not fulfilled in medieval feudal societies, and even in modern societies, achieving that would be nigh impossible-and the solution rather unlibertarian, as unmovable property would all have to be controlled by someone distributing it, going against the freedom of personal property.

Great, come make all those claims and support them here.

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...dal-Monarchies


BTW I can tell you never read my thread by what you posted. Hope you join. If all else fails ill just post the material over here.

[18611096]

Since it has bee brought into the discussion here i will post my material on feudal monarchies.

Feudal Monarchy or Absolute Monarchy?

“The feudal order, in fact, was very different from the monarchial order that replaced it [absolute monarchy] and to witch succeeded, in a still more centralized form, the order of state control that is found today.”
-Regine Pernoud Those Terrible Middle Ages Debunking the Myths Ignatius press San Francisco

“However In the course of many centuries these originally stateless societies [Feudal ] had gradually transformed into absolute – statist- monarchies.”
--Hans- Hermann Hoppe Democracy the God that Failed The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order Routledge 2001

“Patriarchal monarchy unfortunately gave sway at a later period to absolute monarchy, which became entangled in nationalist etatistic movements, a process which finally led to a suicide of the monarchical form of government.”
-Erik von Kuehnelt- Leddihn The Menace of the Herd or Procrustes at Large Bruce Publishing Company Milwaukee 1943

As an important clarification I am here going to compare the christian feudal monarchies of the medieval time period to modern democracy- rather than the later Renaissance time period of absolute monarchies witch were a turn towards centralization. It was during the Renaissance and the reemergence of ancient Roman/Greek law that transformed the medieval feudal system to a system of centralized power of either absolute monarchies or later democracies and republics. Urban merchants, power hungry Kings, and Reformationist studying Roman law and needing or looking to justify centralization of power left the middle ages Feudal political system behind and moved into the Renaissance of centralized power.

“If an unjust government is carried on by one man alone, who seeks his own benefit from his rule and not the good of the multitude subject to him, such a ruler is called a tyrant—a word derived from strength—because he oppresses by might instead of ruling by justice. Thus among the ancients all powerful men were called tyrants.”
-Thomas Aquinas On Kingship to the king of Cyrus 1225-1274

“[Roman law] it was the law par excellence of those who wanted to affirm a central state authority”
-Regine Pernoud Those Terrible Middle Ages Debunking the Myths Ignatius press San Francisco

Decentralization and Self Government During the Feudal Monarchical Middle Ages

“By the end of the tenth century the kingdom of France remained a legal and ideological construct, but it's kings exerted little genuine power outside their own family lands. The main political foci were the great counties ruled as autonomous principalities by comital families...contrast mirrored different histories customs and laws. The far south retained a tradition of written law.... there was no uniformity of rules of landowning, judicial systems, weights, measures or currency. A kingdom often in name alone.”
-Christopher Tyerman Gods war a new history of the Crusades Harvard U Press Cambridge Mass 2006

“Medieval civilization was also decentralized, and it was vast in scale. It was a mosaic of thousands of independent and quasi-independent political units: kingdoms, principalities, dukedoms, bishoprics, papal states, republics, free cities, and tens of thousands of titled manors. The medieval contribution to politics is the idea of a federated polity where various independent political units are held together in a larger realm by compacts and traditional hierarchy.”
- Donald Livingston The Southern Critique of Centralization

The agrarian western european christian middle ages were the most decentralized libertarian societies ever known. Medieval scholar Thomas Madden in The Medieval World, Part II: Society, Economy, and Culture says “ Feudalism was a set of practices that arose....during the middle ages.” Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote “Federalism in the European anti-centralistic sense has always been part and parcel of Catholic political ideologies.” There were various forms of monarchies usually hereditary but some were elected by Lords and Bishops, or a mix of both. For example France elected Kings until Hugh Caput in 987 and than started a hereditary monarchy. Decentralization was at a peak, Lords controlled within their own spheres, as did dukes, princes, barons etc and held autonomy. Each realm had their own laws and courts and near everything was done by the local village with no influence from the Kings Capital. In describing France in the middle ages medieval scholar and Oxford professor Christopher Tyerman said “few of the great princes in France bothered to pay homage and feality to the King” and “the vast majority of Frenchmen, their spheres of economic, public and private life operated entirely beyond the reach of necessity of royal influence or power.” and the region of France had an“absence of national instincts.” “a Europe that contained no nation states in the modern understanding” Thomas Asbridge in his book the first crusade described France as a national identity as “endured only in imagination” Erik von Kuehnelt- Leddihn in his great work The Menace of the Herd said of the mindset of medieval man as first and foremost his loyalty was to his family, witch had its own flag and arms, second was to their local town or village, than to their region. Any sense of a nation was almost mystical. In his book Liberty or Equality the Challenge of our Time he stated “The Middle Ages and their aftermath were characterized by a multitude of such autonomous and semi-autonomous spheres; medieval man frequently belonged to a variety of these.” The greatest power in the middle ages was custom and tradition and these were local. These traditions and customs were fixed and could not be altered by any ruler including a King. In the Holy Roman Empire Dukes and Archbishops elected their kings and the states [such as Saxony Swambia Bavaria etc] and had near complete autonomy where they were “dominated by its own Duke.” Often wars such as the Germans into into Poland were funded and controlled by local Lords and Dukes with no input from the King. Famed French historian Regine Pernoud in her book Those terrible middle ages debunking the myths wrote “Only local powers reined.”

“As people came before courts or before judges they would have to declare witch they were and what law they lived under”
-Thomas Madden The Modern Scholar: The Medieval World, Part II: Society, Economy, and Culture

“They stand as monuments to the intense localism of the High Middle Ages, when every man’s country’ was not the kingdom, duchy, or county in which he lived, but his own town or village... Even the law might change from village to village; a thirteenth-century judge pointed out that in the various counties, cities, boroughs, and townships of England he had always to ask what was the local customary law and how it was employed before he could successfully try a case... Davis describes medieval civilization as “firmly rooted. It grew out of the earth, as it were.” The Road from Serfdom “
-Bionic Mosquito Decentralization Hidden in the dark Ages

Unlike in a democracy actual self government by consent rather than force was practiced. The people had the choice of witch Lord to follow and what political system to live under. Generally men would swear an oath to the Lord of their choice who would give the peasant land to work and protection. In return the peasant would give a small % of his produce back to the Lord. And also at times volunteer military service to the Lord. Lords protected the people in their domain who in return would swear an allegiance to the lord. It was a mutual beneficial situation that encouraged Lords to serve his/her people well as he would have more and more loyal men who would willingly fight under his banner. This was a loyalty by choice not a forced servitude. Thomas Aquinas said “ Good kings, on the contrary, are loved by many when they show that they love their subjects and are studiously intent on the common welfare, and when their subjects can see that they derive many benefits from this zealous care, government of good kings is stable, because their subjects do not refuse to expose themselves to any danger whatsoever on behalf of such kings.” Likewise a wicked ruler will have no support from his people and his kingdom will not last. French historian Leon Gautier writes in his book Chivalry the Everyday Life of the medieval Knight on the bonds between Lord and his men “The bonds of feudalism were stronger than family ties. The Lord was greater than a father, and a vassal was more than a son.”

“Secular histories report that, when it was observed that Dionysius, the tyrant of Sicily, surrounded his person with guards, Plato inquired: ‘Have you committed so much evil that you need to have so many guards?’ This is in no way fitting for the prince, who in doing his duty so wins the affection of all that every one of his subjects would expose his own head to imminent peril for him ... and would sacrifice his own skin for the sake of the royal skin; and all that a man has he will give up for the life of the prince.”
-John of Salisbury 1115-1180 Policraticus

A local government is more accountable to the people, and more in line with the local people. Decentralization allows diversity in government that a centralized government cannot offer. If one area wishes to provide universal health care, socialist tax code it can. If the area next town/county/state over wishes to have a libertarian society and a fair tax code, it can. The people can decide for themselves. This would also stop so much fighting between separate groups because neither could force themselves on the other as we do today in our modern centralized democracy. Wars would not be needed as there would be no cause when all can live as they wish. No cohesion. People could literally vote with their feet. Think of east Germans of the centralized soviet socialist who blocked in their runaway slaves [citizens] and shot them for running away from the tyranny. Decentralization also would allow multiple ways of dealing with a certain problem be tried and tested. We could have a dozen separate ways to do education, we could than test the results. The areas that “failed” in their way could adopt another more successful way if they chose to. But If the centralized government does education a certain way, and it fails, than everyone suffers. Since there are so many different opinions on how to better the education system in America, all could have it their own way instead of being forced by a central dictatorship in Washington- centralization forces conformity. Further this would force competition on government to behave and treat its citizens well and avoid corruption as this would give people choice and they could move to an area of like minded people. This is also the reason corrupt governments always seek centralization to avoid choice so as to be able to become more corrupt. True diversity would blossom as would free markets.

“A highley decentralized power structure composed of countless independent political; units explains the origin of capitalism- the expansion of market participation and of economic growth. It is not by accident that capitalism first flourished under conditions of extreme political decentralization.”
-Hans- Hermann Hoppe Democracy the God that Failed The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order Routledge 2001

“”secession/decentralization Increases ethnic, linguistic, religious, and cultural diversity, while centuries of centralization have stamped out hundreds of distinct cultures.”
-Hans- Hermann Hoppe Democracy the God that Failed The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order Routledge 2001

A power structure of a centralized democracy can not be removed easily, where as a tyrant king [a single person] can be. Think of a town mayor turning tyrannical, he will be easily resisted, a strong military and centralized democracy turns evil it will lead to mass destruction. Centralized governments and the modern state can turn as tyrannical as they wish and have a monopoly on force through police and the military. If a monarchy did so it would pit him against all his population who could than turn against him and in a decentralized system, such as the medieval time period, he would be hopelessness outnumbered and the people would truly rule. Thomas Aquinas in on Kingship said kingdoms should be arranged so if a King turned into a tyrant, he can be easily removed and his power should not be absolute but limited so as to avoid his potential to become a tyrant. ” This is the medieval decentralized system. So today what a centralized authority declares law, it is so, with no hope of recourse no matter how tyrannical or contrary to previous laws. In the decentralized medieval system [as in antebellum America as well] laws were the authority.

democracies “has placed the state above the law – the state self-defines and self-interprets the constitution; the state has a monopoly on the adjudication of its dictates. This places the state in a position to decide what law is, and how law is applied. The only hope one has to influence this is to turn a minority into a majority. Such a concept was unknown to the mediaeval mind – each individual held a form of veto. No majority was necessary, and minority rights were fully protected – even for the minority of one.”
-Bionic Mosquito Decentralization Hidden in the dark Ages


Liberty During the Middle Ages

“A period, about 900, when there was no empire, no state, and no public authority in the West. The state disappeared, yet society continued. It was discovered that economic life, religious life, law, and private property can all exist and function effectively without a state. … In Rome, in Byzantium, and in Russia, law was regarded as an enactment of a supreme power. In the West, when no supreme power existed, it was discovered that law still existed as the body of rules which govern social life.”
-Carroll Quigley Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time Jun 1 1975

“Before the advent of absolutism, monarchs were often in dire financial straits which could only be alleviated borrowing and not by taxation. Taxes were more or less voluntary contributions by cities and estates.”
-Erik von Kuehnelt- Leddihn The Menace of the Herd or Procrustes at Large Bruce Publishing Company Milwaukee 1943

The “state” as we think of it today did not exists. Tax were not a regular occurrence and were usually only at various times in dire need and were not forced but agreed upon. Private property was actually your property, not rented from the government [ property tax] and you could do with your property as you pleased as there was no government regulations. Or a mans home was really his castle. Before the second half of the nineteenth century under absolute monarchies tax never rose above 5-8%. In medieval monarchies it was far lower. The peasants rights were as good as the kings. “on his own ground entitled to hold off the king” To covet another property and to than steal it [democracy] would be seen as sinful in a christian monarchy not raised in a democratic education system. Hoppe in his book Democracy the God that Failed The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order wrote “All members of society learned to regard the taking and redistribution of another man's property as shameful and immoral.” And Bionic Mosquito in Decentralization Hidden in the dark Ages wrote ““...The idea of destroying a village to save it, or abrogating property rights to preserve them, or stealing from one to help another in more need would be quite foreign to the medieval mind”

“monarchs will tend to support a free market to gain competitiveness on a global scale. Prince Hans Adam II of Liechtenstein does exactly this. As a result, his economy thrives. A monarch looks for the best, most prosperous system, because ideological lines are not his or her goal. Rather, a monarch’s goal is to bring prosperity to the owned country.”
-Daniel Szewc The Case for Libertarian Monarchism

A King or Lord would only benefit from uniting his people. A King took an oath to protect and serve all his people unlike a democrat who serves those who elected them and numbers rule as a tyrant. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote “The monarchic principle is thus, as St. Thomas characterized it in his De regimine principum, a uniting, not a dividing principle.—Every election, on the other hand, is a solemn manifestation of division.” Kings did not need to social engineering for more power or steal money [tax] to buy votes as they inherit the position. In a monarchy power seekers [aka politicians] will not receive power since it is inherited and not gained by campaigns, manipulation and money from special interests. Think of the time, money, and energy saved by avoiding campaigns. In a monarchy public opinion would not be manipulated by educators/media to sway a majority this way or that. Indoctrination would not gain any ground in its efforts as it would wholly useless. A Lord due in part to multiple competitors in any given area, would support free markets and low taxes specifically of the merchant class.

“The Lords is not interested in messing with the profitability of these towns... and if that means to let the town manage itself, than most of these Lords are willing to go along with that. And since they are in competition with other Lords, in other towns, its in their interest to make there's work to the best benefit. These towns....become self governed.”
-Thomas Madden The Modern Scholar: The Medieval World, Part II: Society, Economy, and Culture


But who Will Purchase the Votes of the Poor Masses – Sorry, I Meant What About Welfare?

“The church provided education, literacy, civil services.”
-Christopher Tyerman Gods war a new history of the Crusades Harvard U Press Cambridge Mass 2006

Rodney Stark in his book Bearing false Witness wrote of the middle ages “all schools as well as most hospitals and charities were provided by the church.” In Feudal times as in the biblical model the church was to care for the needy leading people to Christ rather than dependency and political slavery as the wasteful corrupt government welfare system does [only 40% of money used by the federal for welfare reaches it target- it is said not to donate to an organization under 60%]. So in other words they gave to the poor not created them. Also the [than existing in a biblical agrarian society] extended family cared for the poor and medical needs of their family. As well as private contracts also provided services. In those times peoples wealth was there own [no fear of government taking it] and they believed God would judge them on how they treated the poor. Further Lords and Knights often swore oaths to protect the weak and poor as well as monks and priests. In a christian decentralized kingdom such as the medieval ages the local area would be family and like minded people willing to help each other. Look at the Amish today. When a house burns down the entire town helps out and rebuilds the house. This system avoids all the negatives of state welfare and works to uniting families and local continuities to Christ as well.

“If each person laboured upon his own improvement and counted the affairs of others as outside his concerns, the circumstances of each and every person would be absolutely optimal, and virtue would flourish and reason would prevail, mutual charity reigning everywhere, so that the flesh would be subjected to the spirit and the spirit would be a servant in full devotion to God.”
-John of Salisbury 1115-1180 Policraticus

[18611096]

The Power of the Crown in a Feudal Monarch

“a man of our time cannot conceive the lack of real power which characterized the medieval King, from witch it naturally followed that in order to secure the exaction of a decision he needed to involve the other leaders whose say-so reinforced his own.”
-Bertrand De Jouvenel

“the feudal king was one Lord among other Lords.... the title of King did not signify that his economic or military power was greater than that of some particular vassal....The feudal King possessed none of the attributes reorganized as those of a sovereign power. He could not decree general laws nor collect taxes on the whole of his Kingdom nor levy an army”
-Regine Pernoud Those Terrible Middle Ages Debunking the Myths Ignatius press San Francisco

“Feudal lords and kings did not typically fulfill the requirements of a state; they could only “tax” with the consent of the taxed, and on his own land every free man was as much a sovereign as the feudal king was on his. Tax payments were voluntary. ...The subordination of king to law was one of the most important of principles under feudalism. The king was below the law”
-Bionic Mosquito Decentralization Hidden in the dark Ages

Absolute monarchies and the “divine right of Kings” were later protestant and enlightenment inventions. In the middle ages Kings did not create laws or legislate as do modern states to their own benefit they were under the law and local tradition, the true rulers of the middle ages. Medieval laws were not created by bureaucracies but were “given” and “fixed” by tradition and custom. All Lords, Dukes, and Kings were bound by the same laws. If a King was to become tyrannical, he was resisted and could be tried for violation of the laws.

“The subordination of King to law was one of the most important of principles under feudalism.”
-Nisbet Prejudices A Philosophical Dictionary Cambridge Mass Harvard U Press quoted in Democracy the God that Failed

“There is wholly or mainly this difference between the tyrant and the prince: that the latter is obedient to law, and rules his people by a will that places itself at their service, and administers rewards and burdens within the republic under the guidance of law in a way favourable to the vindication of his eminent post..the prince is the public power and a certain image on earth of the divine majesty. ….For all power is from the Lord God, and is with Him always, and is His forever. Whatever the prince can do, therefore, is from God, so that power does not depart from God, but it is used as a substitute for His hand, making all things learn His justice and mercy.”
-John of Salisbury 1115-1180 Policraticus

Decentralization was such that Oxford scholar Christopher Tyerman said “few of the great princes in France bothered to pay homage and feality to the King” and “the vast majority of Frenchmen, their spheres of economic, public and private life operated entirely beyond the reach of necessity of royal influence or power.” Medieval scholar Thomas Madden in the medieval world part 2 sums up the Kings power by saying “Medieval kings are pretty weak” and Christophe Buffin de Chosal in the end of Democracy says “The law was not at the monarchs disposal, for most rules of common life were fixed by custom”Kings were under the law only, not above it nor could they change law. Thus they function very different than a politician. Leland B Yeager in his article A Libertarian Case for Monarchy writes ““The king stands in contrast with legislators and bureaucrats, who are inclined to think, by the very nature of their jobs, that diligent performance means multiplying laws and regulations”Kings did not tyrannize their own people but provided protection and enforcement of the laws as a compact as with other Lords and peasants and the Lord would in return lend the King help out of loyalty or family ties and tradition. The King as the [usually] largest land owner would also be the number one protector of private property laws.

“State expenditures, as we call them, were thought of in feudal times as the Kings own expenditures. It is somewhat as if a government of our times were expected to cover its ordinary expenditures from the proceeds of state owned industries”-
-Bertrand De Jouvel Sovereignty quoted in Democracy the God that Failed

A king was more accountable. He would be alone reliable for debt and it would pass on to his kids not to all of “we the people.” He could not force tax on his people for his own benefit. John of Salisbury wrote of the Kings money as not being his “he must count his wealth as the people’s. He does not, therefore, truly own that which he possesses in the name of someone else, nor are the goods of the fisc, which are conceded to be public, his own private property. Nor is this a surprise, since he is not his own person but that of his subjects.” A monarch has reason to leave his holdings better than when he began for his family. Monarchs seek the best for his Kingdom in low tax, high production efforts. The better his domain's situation the better off he is. If a King were to become tyrannical, he and he alone, would be to blame. And with other competing local Lords, he would be forced to treat people in his domain well. Most of the Kings army were men sent from Lords and allies to help the King out of their own free will. As John of Salisbury wrote “The fighter and the farmer were identical; but they would merely exchange their equipment.” The King himself did not own a massive army. G.K Chesterton wrote in Heretics ““The middle ages, when no King had a standing army. But every man had a bow or sword.”

“The Kings of France struggled even to control small territory centered around Paris, while the Frankish realm fractured into murmurous dukedoms and counties whose power eclipsed that of the Royal house.”
-Thomas Asbridge the First Crusade Oxford University Press 2004

All governments tend towards expansion of territory and power. However the monarch has the option to do so through marriage. Nobels would marry other nobles to increase power [also why incest happened to keep power within the family] instead of warfare. The medieval wars were usually disputes over complex inheritance issues and extinct dynasties. Warfare was for the most part guided by the christian principles of chivalry. Wars were the domain of the King and his allied nobles- not of the country as a whole, nor of the people. The typical citizen would not realize a war was going on in either country. Prisoners of war instead of being locked up in concentration camps or prisons [at tax payer exspence] were released on their word of honor and were allowed to go home. The King was responsible to finance the expedition himself and civil life was left alone. If territory expansion was conducted by government [king] it benefits only him and he should pay experiences alone. This made wars very costly and a King would be reluctant to engage in long or large scale disputes. Add to that foreign policy was far more stable in monarchy unlike newly elected officials who change policy every four years, and we get reduced causes of international disturbance. Hoppe quotes Palmer in “A history of the eastern world” as saying of warfare in the medieval time period “Never had war been so harmless.”

“definitely regarded as a kind of single combat between two armies, the civil population being merely spectators. Pillage, requisitions, acts of violence against the population were forbidden the home country as well as the enemy country... soldiers being scarce and hard to find...meticulous trained, but as this was costly, it rendered them very valuable, and it was necessary to let as few be killed as possible... generals tried to avoid fighting battles. The object of warfare was the exacustion of skillful maneuvers and not the annihilation of the adversary... war became a kind of game between sovereigns”
-Guglielmo Ferrero Peace and war

“wars were largely the occupation of Kings, courtiers and gentlemen. Armies lived on their depots ….soldiers were paid out of the kings privy purse they were too costly to be thrown away lighltey on massive attacks..”
-Fuller war and Western Civilization quoted in Democracy the God that Failed

In the feudal age nobles were expected to not just fight, but lead the armies into battle. Unlike in democracy were politicians send out none relatives conscripts to fight for them. Because of the costs to the King directly [does not have ability to steal through tax like a democracy] , limited numbers, and because of decentralization in the political system causalities were far lower. But also wars were far less frequent or total. Further the soldiers under the King were not forced mercenaries/slaves [conscripts] made to fight for a cause that does not benefit them and that they might disagree with or think evil. Instead Lords protected the people in their domain who in return would swear an allegiance to the lord. It was a mutual beneficial situation that encouraged Lords to serve his/her people well as he would have more and more loyal men who would willingly fight under his banner. A much better situation for the people rather than modern democracies forcing men to fight for them or using state power to persecute them for “treason.” The king could not extract contributions only solicit subsides from loyal subjects who through their own free will supported the king and used it as an opportunity to make deals . Often deals were made to save each Lord from continuation of the expensive war and wars were won or lost based on small scale objectives.

“Monarchy in the Christian world is an international institution.As long as it was a living force the wars between political units were of a relative and restricted nature— Kabinettskriege, as the Germans say. Between 1100 and 1866 A.D. no Christian kingdom was eliminated permanently from the map. (Naturally we exclude from consideration the Napoleonic period, and the casualties among the Italian republics, and the Rzeczpospolita Polska, the " Polish Commonwealth " under an elected King who was—to the greatest misfortune of the country—" nobody's " relative.) No monarch was thoroughly dispossessed, and the price to be paid for military defeat was merely a city, a county, a province. After the battle of Solferino the Emperor Francis Joseph said simply: " I have lost a battle and I pay with a province." He was not progressive enough to believe in " unconditional surrender " and in the guerre aux allures déchaînées—nor did Napoleon III. Conscription was an invention of the French Revolution, and so were wars on a nation-wide basis with great collective passions.”
-Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn Liberty or Equality the Challenge of our Time Caxton Printers LTD Galdwell Idaho 1952

Kings were not just under tradition and laws, but also there own vassals. To be able to have the power to do anything such as a war, he needed his allies to help. So he must through diplomacy and gifts or other actions due to some degree the will of his vassals in return for service. If he were to try and force a vassal or become tyrannical this would push more and more resistance within his own kingdom against himself. To become powerful a feudal king must literally be the servant of others and a model rather than a dictator. As Thomas Madden in the medieval world part 2 says “ It is not possible for him to command them [vassals]...some are more powerful and quit dangerous to him.”

“then every subject, every section of the people, and even the whole community was free to resist him..whereas today it is an illegal act for the people to resist the government authority, during this period after the fall of Rome the lords had a duty to resist the king who overstepped his authority. ... the act of resistance in and of itself was not considered illegal. It was a duty respected by king and people alike. …
-Bionic Mosquito Decentralization Hidden in the dark Ages

Warfare itself was far different than modern wars. The Medieval Knight had its origins in Catholic Europe during the feudal time period. Anyone could become a Knight, it was not only for the nobility. Along with the nobels, the knight was the celberty of the day leading people to christian lifestyels. They would join voluntarily and were free to leave whenever they wanted. The medival Knight was a christian soilder who followed the 10 comandmnets of knighthood as outlined in Leon Gautier book Chivalry the Everyday Life of the medieval Knight.

“Chivalry is the christian form of the military profession. The knight is the christian soldier...nor are the religion and the profession at all separate from each other....no one could become a knight without first becoming a christian, without having been baptized ”
-Leon Gautier Chivalry the Everyday Life of the medieval Knight Tumblar House 2015

Among them was to obey the church, defend the church, defend the weak such as orphans, widows, monks, priests, hospitals, charity organizations, to have love the country of their birth, no retreat, perform feudal duties if not contrary to the laws of God, never lie, be generous and donate, and be the champion of the right against injustice and evil. A knights life consisted of prayer in the mornings, daily mass, fasting, swearing an oath to the church. Knight were the guardians of the church and those who could not defend themselves. His model knight to imiate were king David, Joshua, Judas Maccabess, Charlemagne, Micheal the archangel, Godfrey of Bouillon and Richrad the Lionherted. John of Salasbury summerized as “The armed soldier is by necessity bound to religion.”

“Wherever the church was, there the knight also was to be found to accompany and to protect...the knights mission was to defend all weaknesses”
-Leon Gautier Chivalry the Everyday Life of the medieval Knight Tumblar House 2015

“Feudal wars which in no way resembled modern wars....previously war was above all a matter of taking prisoners, now it was an attempt to kill the adversary””
-Regine Pernoud Those Terrible Middle Ages Debunking the Myths Ignatius press San Francisc

The “divine right of kings” teachings started with protestants in the 17th century never accepted by the catholic church. The Magna Carta of 1215 was written by a mix of nobles and church leaders. Absolute monarchies [such as what the colonies resisted] started after the Renaissance. From Agustin and Aquinas to John of Salisbury to the church fathers and councils, the catholic church held the biblical doctrine of resistance to tyranny. John of Salisbury states it very simple “by the authority of the divine book it is lawful and glorious to kill public tyrants.”

Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God

It was protestants and the enlightenment who when come into power steadily increase the power of the state weather to absolute monarchies or various republic/democracies. Thomas Aquinas in on kingship wrote “If to provide itself with a King belongs to the right of a given multitude, it is not unjust that the King be disposed or have his power restricted by that same multitude, becoming a tyarant, he abuses his royal power.” Erik von Kuehnelt- Leddihn in his book The Menace of the Herd wrote “The theory of the Divine Rights of Kings, as we see it under debate in the seventeenth-century England, is naturally not a part of Catholic theology.” John of Salisbury the great medieval political scholar wrote around 1159 in Policraticus “ I submit to his [the king] power... so long as it is exercised in subjection to God and follows His ordinances. But on the other hand if it resists and opposes the divine commandments, and wishes to make me share in its war against God; then with unrestrained voice I answer back that God must be preferred before any man on earth.” and

“Furthermore, the law is a gift of God, the likeness of equity, the norm of justice, the image of the divine will, the custodian of security, the unity and confirmation of a people, the standard of duties, the excluder and exterminator of vices, and the punishment of violence and all injuries It is attacked either by violence or by deceit and, one might say, it is either ravaged by the savagery of the lion or overthrown by the snares of the serpent. In whatever manner this happens, the grace of God is plainly being assailed and God is in a certain fashion being challenged to a battle. The prince fights for the laws and liberty of the people; the tyrant supposes that nothing is done unless the laws are cancelled and the people are brought into servitude. The prince is a sort of image of divinity and the tyrant is an image of the strength of the Adversary and the depravity of Lucifer, for indeed he is imitated who desired to establish his throne to the north and to be like the Most High, yet with His goodness removed. For if he had wished to be like Him in goodness, he would never have endeavoured to snatch away the glory of His power and wisdom. Yet perhaps he aspired to be rewarded by being raised to the same level. As the image of the deity, the prince is to be loved, venerated and respected; the tyrant, as the image of depravity, is for the most part even to be killed. The origin of tyranny is iniquity and it sprouts forth from the poisonous and pernicious root of evil and its tree is to be cut down by an axe anywhere it grows.”
-John of Salisbury 1115-1180 Policraticus

"The Church never endorsed the notion of the divine right of kings. That was first proclaimed by James I of England (1566– 1625), a Protestant...From St Augustine through St Thomas Aquinas, the great Church theologians denied the moral authority of the state and condemned tyrants, warranting their overthrow....in 1215 the English bishops participated in forcing King John to sign the Magna Carta... Indeed, Luther fully supported ‘the development of strong centralized states and absolute monarchies’."
-Rodney Stark Reformation Myths Five Centuries of Misconceptions and (Some) Misfortunes SPCK Publishing

[18611096]

Catholic Monarchs

“That the ruler must have the law of God always before his mind and eyes, and he is to be proficient in letterss... The law of Deuteronomy,... And the prince properly writes Deuteronomy in a book because he may thus reflect upon the law in his reason without the letter disappearing from before his eyes....All censures of law are void if they do not bear the image of the divine law; and the ordinance ( constitutio ) of the prince is useless if it does not conform to ecclesiastical discipline. Nor did this escape the notice of the most Christian prince, who pro¬ claimed that his laws were not to disdain imitation of the sacred canons. And not only should one aspire to be ruled by the examples of priests, but the prince is dispatched to the tribe of Levi in order to obtain its benefits. Note how diligent in guarding the law of God should be the prince, who is commanded to hold it, to read it and to reflect upon it always.”
-John of Salisbury 1115-1180 Policraticus

“The medieval society... was obsessively dedicated to this faith [Catholicism], almost every feature of daily exsistance being conditioned to its doctrines...in Urban's day, this faith dominated and dictated everyday life to an extent that can seem almost inconceivable to a modern observer.”
-Thomas Asbridge the First Crusade Oxford university Press 2004

“One must add that the idea of a Christian monarchy is quite distinct from the monarchical idea of antiquity, not only on account of the concept of legitimacy but also due to certain qualities which are intrinsic characteristics of a Christian monarchy.”
-Erik von Kuehnelt- Leddihn The Menace of the Herd or Procrustes at Large Bruce Publishing Company Milwaukee 1943

Unlike democracy that desires moral relativist and atheist. The medieval monarch built up the church and promoted it. The kings Christianity also effected his politics. Christianity in the middle ages was not relegated to a personal belief system of an individual or placed within the four walls of a church. It was seen as the guide to all life's activities. Education, family, politics, culture, music, science, art etc etc everything was influenced and revolved around Catholicism. As French historian Leon Gautier in his book the Everyday Life of the medieval Knight wrote “ The fatal separation which consists in isolating the faith from all other knowledge did not exists” and “It is no exaggeration to compare the church during the middle ages to the sun, witch illuminates everything...The thought of God then filled and animated all and it was as the breath of their nostrils in those believing centuries.” In the middle ages democracy and it accompanying philosophies had not convinced Christians that the Bible and the church were a spiritual personal belief of theirs not fit for public life. To the middle ages christian the Bible and church law were divine commands to form your every thought and action around. And monarchy encouraged this.

“It goes without saying that, as all presidential republics or parliamentary democracies see authority as primarily coming up temporarily to elected rulers from the people of the nation themselves and not down from God upon divinely anointed and consecrated king and queens, no elected system can theoretically or practically embody, manifest, or make real the solemn and covenantal three-way relationship that exists between God, a crowned and anointed monarch, and his or her people.”
-Quoted from A Theological and Political Defense of Monarchy Ryan P. Hunter

“logic suggests and history demonstrates that monarchies have been much more stable than democracies in their adherence to Christian faith and morality. The history of democracy since the French Revolution shows an ever-accelerating decline in faith and morality, and an ever-expanding undermining of the natural hierarchical relations that God has placed in human society, whether these be between parents and children, husbands and wives, teachers and pupils, or political rulers and their subjects. And by undermining these natural heirarchical relations, it implicitly undermines the most important heirarchical relationship of all, that between God and man. The Orthodox monarchy, on the other hand, strengthens all these relationships, and orients society as a whole to spiritual goals rather than the exclusively secular and material goals of contemporary democracy.”
-Vladamir Moss

A King who believed the church and the bible's view was Governments are instituted among men to protect those unalienable rights that come from a higher authority than man [government] that is God. The medieval king constantly acknowledged that biblical higher power that they were accountable to. Man was not the ultimate authority. A monarch authority comes from God not a magic blood line [pagan] or a Roman republic [government] the King was under the churches and Gods authority. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote “Kingship was not only an office with religious implications (the coronation of a Catholic ruler is a sacramental), but the whole traditional Christian monarchy was deeply imbued with a religious spirit.” John of Salisbury in Policraticus summed up the difference of a prince and tyrant as one former had the holy spirit and the latter did not. And later “The prince is, therefore, to fear the Lord and he is to profess his servility to Him by an evident humility of mind and by the performance of pious works. For indeed a lord ( dominus ) is the lord of a servant. And so the prince serves the Lord provided that he faithfully serves his fellow servants, namely, his subjects.” This philosophy that reorganizes a creator, produces a limited government. “the Christian European monarchy was through most of its history of a constitutional pattern, which circumscribed and limited the ruler's sphere of action by the law of God and the law of the land.” wrote Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn in Liberty or Equality the Challenge of our Time.Government is not the ultimate authority but is to protect all citizens god given liberty and law. It also believes that man should alter and abolish a government that is destructive to those rights of the people.

“He who receives power from God serves the laws and is the slave of justice and right. He who usurps power suppresses justice and places the laws beneath his will. Therefore, justice is deservedly armed against those who disarm the laws, and the public power treats harshly those who endeavour to put aside the public hand. And, although there are many forms of high treason, none of them is so serious as that which is executed against the body of justice itself. Tyranny is, therefore, not only a public crime, but, if this can happen, it is more than public.
-John of Salisbury 1115-1180 Policraticus

“In the traditional order, the source of power is God, the almighty. In him power resides in its essence, all other power is delivered from this essential power....power is delegated by the creator to human beings, and this is expressed symbolically and most lucidly in the traditional monarchical order where the King governs “by the grace of God” and is responsible before his celestial principle.”
-Tage Lindbom the Myth of Democracy Wm. B Eerdmans Publishin Co 1996

In a christian monarchies Christ was the true king and Kings obeyed God and law and reigned in the fear of the Lord. Thomas Aquinas in on kingship said a King who's actions benefited himself was not a King at all and in fact the best example of a hypocrite. He quoted another church leader Augustine as writing

““we do not call Christian princes happy merely because they have reigned a long time, or because after a peaceful death they have left their sons to rule, or because they subdued the enemies of the state, or because they were able to guard against or to suppress citizens who rose up against them. Rather do we call them happy if they rule justly, if they prefer to rule their passions rather than nations, and if they do all things not for the love of vainglory but for the love of eternal happiness. Such Christian emperors we say are happy, now in hope, afterwards in very fact when that which we await shall come to pass....Therefore it is God alone Who can still the desires of man and make him happy and be the fitting reward for a king.”

“In the Europe of the Middle Ages, the noble was concerned with his eternal life and God’s eternal kingdom and this concern shaped his behavior; no longer the case since the Enlightenment.”
-Daniel Ajamian the Cost of the Enlightenment

The Bible speaks of the eternal King to come who will rule from Jerusalem the model for an earthly King. Further the Old testament was not viewed as a collection of fables or myths but was taken as actual history and fully Gods word and authoritative on its politics. Thomas Aquinas On Kingship quotes constantly from the bible and the overwhelming majority are from the Old testament. The other great political work of the middle ages Policraticus by John of Salisbury as well overwhelmingly uses the Old Testament for justification of political rulers. Leading crusade scholar Christopher Tyerman in his massive book Gods war a new history of the Crusades wrote ““the medieval church placed considerable importance on the old testament.” To quote Leon Gautier agagin, “the spirit of atheism was not fitted, to enter into the mind of the feudal baron.”

“Tamar the Great ...At the beginning of her reign, Tamar convened a Church council and addressed the clergy with wisdom and humility: “Judge according to righteousness, affirming good and condemning evil,” she advised. “Begin with me — if I sin I should be censured, for the royal crown is sent down from above as a sign of divine service. Allow neither the wealth of the nobles nor the poverty of the masses to hinder your work. You by word and I by deed, you by preaching and I by the law, you by upbringing and I by education will care for those souls whom God has entrusted to us, and together we will abide by the law of God, in order to escape eternal condemnation.… You as priests and I as ruler, you as stewards of good and I as the watchman of that good.”
-Fr. Zakaria Machitadze The Lives of Georgian Saints quoted from A Theological and Political Defense of Monarchy Ryan P. Hunter

Kings reigned by biblical standards and did not rule or control its people as we have today. John of Salsibury said the King must have wisdom, justice, mercy, humility, charity, selfishness, prudence, charity, he must be reluctant to punish and quick to reward. In on Kingship Thomas Aquinas wrote “ From this it is clearly shown that the idea of king implies that he be one man who is chief and that he be a shepherd, seeking the common good of the multitude and not his own.” Instead they led by example as moral christian royal families. To live godly lives. Unlike today's modern pagan celebrities who lead the masses away from Christ. '

“Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes, or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.”
- C.s Lewis

Even today kids grow up pretending naturally to be princess, queens, knights and kings, not presidents or lobbyist. Disney makes a killing off of its princesses and castles. Something of the monarchist system in mankind looks to royalty as a positive influence and christian morals. Every family has a father and mother just as a monarch serves as a form of father/mother to the country. This helps unification of the country rather than division from politicians like in democracies. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn in his book Liberty or Equality the Challenge of our Time wrote “Families, for instance, are minor kingdoms—ideal spheres for the development of personality; and free societies always have strongly developed hierarchically built family cells” They also symbolize christian ideals of marriage, family and unity. Like nature a monarchy seems to make sense as Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn in his book Liberty or Equality said “Monarchy seems to be the most natural sort of government, for whatever nature produces with more than one head is esteemed monstrous.” And Aquinas wrote "There is only one queen among the bees and in the whole universe one God, Creator and director of all," Aquinas mentions the Kings only just functions as

-To exsersize just judgment in his kingdom.
-To have his rule under the authority of the church and the bible
-To make suitable for his people to seek heavenly happiness and forbid the contrary
-Protect his realm from foreign invasion
-Restrain men from wickedness and push them to virtuous deeds following the example of God
-And finally

“the Book of Deuteronomy (17:18-19) that “after he is raised to the throne of his kingdom, the king shall copy out to himself the Deutoronomy of this law, in a volume, taking the copy of the priests of the Levitical tribe, he shall have it with him and shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, and keep his words and ceremonies which are commanded in the law.” Thus the king, taught the law of God, should have for his principal concern the means by which the multitude subject to him may live well.”
-Thomas Aquinas On Kingship

And like the biblical decentralized/tribal model, the people remained in power and the King did not control an entire “nation”.

“It is plain, therefore, from what has been said, that a king is one who rules the people of one city or province, and rules them for the common good.
-Thomas Aquinas On Kingship to the king of Cyrus 1225-1274

“Ancient Jewish society, even in the heyday of monarchy, never gave way to abolitionism [absolute monarch] . The “people” always remained, directly and indirectly a body of influence on the affairs of the state”
-Chaim Herzog and Mordechai Gichon Battles of the Bible GreenHill Books London 2002

The similarity in Catholicism also led to more peace and less war.

“The first monarchs, the founders of the European dynasties, were all outstanding people who excelled either through their wisdom, virtue, bravery, sanctity, or at least through their shrewdness, diplomacy, brutality, or daredevil courage. None of them was insignificant. The families of these rulers constantly intermarried; even back in the early Middle Ages the tendency was clearly one of intermarriage between the royal and imperial houses with the result that we find at the end of this epoch in the Christian Occident one large family of rulers with many different branches, united by the common faith as well as by the ties of common ancestors, of common tombs, of common blood.”
-Erik von Kuehnelt- Leddihn The Menace of the Herd or Procrustes at Large Bruce Publishing Company Milwaukee 1943

[18611096]

Agrarian Society

“a feudal society was also essentially a country, rural society”
-Regine Pernoud Those Terrible Middle Ages Debunking the Myths Ignatius press San Francisco

“Urban populations without any real religion or culture, like much of the U.S today, cling to government as the source of identity and the meaning of their exsitance”
-Clyde Wilson Nullification Reclaiming the Consent of the Governed

The medieval world was also an agrarian society witch saw a drastic increase in farm and food production. With the fall of Rome cities started to empty as people moved to the country. Big cities being unnatural need large scale infrastructure to survive and need large amounts of goods moved from the country into the city to survive witch needs massive government.

“Then we meet the feudal system, and the castle was born.”
-Leon Gautier Chivalry the Everyday Life of the medieval Knight Tumblar House 2015

The medieval society centered around the castle as the center of culture, protection, civilization, code of honor, court, laws, trade etc in a rural setting surrounded by small farms in no need of cities or urban areas. The agrarian nature went hand in hand with the form of monarchies and the church. Oxford scholar Christopher Tyermann in his book Gods war wrote the “Religious and political structures rested on settled agrarian economics and populations.” Regine Pernoud in her book Those Terrible Middle Ages Debunking the Myths wrote “the authority was able to reside elsewhere than in a city.” Rural monasteries were the center of learning. Monks worked the land and were self sufficient [while making beer and wine] while maintain a place of learning and prayer. In ancient Rome farming was thought the work of slaves unlike the christian west. Not until the 16th century during the Renaissance does education moved to urban areas and culture moves towards cities and the origins of the modern state appear. To see the impact of centralization, democracy, urbanization and industrialization on the southern united states decentralized christian agrarian society and how hostile democracy is towards agrarianism, liberty, decentralization and Christianity in the united states context, see this link.

I Wish I Was In The land Of Cotton- Southern Agrarian vs Northern Industrialization

also see

THE MENACE OF THE HERD or Procrustes at Large THE BRUCE PUBLISHING COMPANY MILWAUKEE 1943 Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
https://cdn.mises.org/The Menace of the Herd, or Procrustes at Large_5.pdf

“Authentic country life with its rugged spirit of Independence...its traditions, its distrust of modernity, and its self sufficiency, has compete disappeared, and with it, the most robust opposition to all state centralization.”
-Christophe Buffin de Chosal the end of Democracy Tomblar House 2017

“The age of the rule of the plains and the cities, which put an end to the rule of the mountains and castles, was indeed the beginning of the decline of Europe. The association of Berlin with Moscow, of nationalism with socialism, was, even in a geographical sense, a league of monotony against diversity.”
-Erik von Kuehnelt- Leddihn The Menace of the Herd or Procrustes at Large Bruce Publishing Company Milwaukee 1943


The Winner Writes the History

“It is so easy, in fact, to manipulate history... for a public that is not knowledgeable about it. We have nearly daily evidence of this on television”
-Regine Pernoud Those Terrible Middle Ages Debunking the Myths Ignatius press San Francisco

“Official” history is always written by its victors I.e from the perspective of the proponents of democracy.”
-Hans- Hermann Hoppe Democracy the God that Failed The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order Routledge 2001

Because the winner wrote the history we are fed that the western catholic system of monarchy was not the most decentralized, libertarian, self governing time period. But was instead ruled by tyrant kings who had complete control of the populace. Yet it was the return to centralization under roman law that led to king tyrants during the Renaissance.

“Centralizing power in the extreme, that of the Roman empire.The revival of Roman law brought about legal standardization in the interest of centralized nation states”
-Regine Pernoud Those Terrible Middle Ages Debunking the Myths Ignatius press San Francisco

“Everywhere men are leaving behind the liberty of the Middle Ages, not to enter into a modern brand of liberty but to return to the ancient despotism; for centralization is nothing else than an up-to-date version of the administration seen in the Roman Empire.”
-James Madison quoted in Donald Livingston The Southern Critique of Centralization

“The revival of Roman law brought about legal standardization in the interest of centralized nation states”
-Regine Pernoud Those Terrible Middle Ages Debunking the Myths Ignatius press San Francisco

The middle ages are the time period of actual self government and liberty, the “evil” time when centralized governments did not rule and thus they are punished in the winners version of history. To dare set up an extended time period that allowed mankind to live under anything but a centralized dictatorship such as ancient Rome or our modern times, receives wrath from statist today and must be made to vanish from people mind and only be remembered as the worst of sins. As it was the middle ages that

“The idea of authority faded away, the notion of centralization was wiped out. The power declined into the hands of numerous petty sovereigns”
-Leon Gautier Chivalry the Everyday Life of the medieval Knight Tumblar House 2015

Instead of acts of defense against Muslims aggressors for the purpose of saving their own lives and culture and persecuted Christians in lands taken by Islam, the crusades were violent unjust acts of aggression against peaceful Muslims and early colonialism led by brutal Lords and Kings and catholic bishops. The Jewish ghetto's were not area given Jews to fully observe the Torah and self govern themselves but instead examples of bigotry discrimination intolerance and segregation. The Inquisitions were not done to prevent wrongful accusations and save lives but were a tyrannical force of a mad church sent to burn innocent people at the stake. And on and on. Overall the medieval monarchist time period was the “dark ages” violent, backwards, tyrannical, and one would not wish to repete those time periods so be glad our savior democracy is here. Democracy has not been the most tyrannical time period, nor caused the most wars and death, nor moral decay, and the destruction of family unit and culture. No it has enlightened us, given us peace, progress, liberty, better health , longer lives, advancements and economic gains. The single greatest thing to happen to mankind. Democracy. Besides, if we did not bash other cultures that differ from us who cant defend themselves it would deprive us moderns of the aristocratic pleasure of despising earlier medievalist.

"The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its history. Then have somebody write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history"
-Milan Hubl, Czek communist

“If you can cut the people off from their history, then they can be easily persuaded.”
-Karl Marx

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

...In ancient Rome farming was thought the work of slaves unlike the christian west. ... The middle ages are the time period of actual self government and liberty...

That is the romantic fantasy and now the hard truth for good old time dreamers:

SERFDOM

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Serfdom, condition in medieval Europe in which a tenant farmer was bound to a hereditary plot of land and to the will of his landlord. The vast majority of serfs in medieval Europe obtained their subsistence by cultivating a plot of land that was owned by a lord. This was the essential feature differentiating serfs from slaves, who were bought and sold without reference to a plot of land. The serf provided his own food and clothing from his own productive efforts. A substantial proportion of the grain the serf grew on his holding had to be given to his lord. The lord could also compel the serf to cultivate that portion of the lord’s land that was not held by other tenants (called demesne land). The serf also had to use his lord’s grain mills and no others.

The essential additional mark of serfdom was the lack of many of the personal liberties that were held by freedmen. Chief among these was the serf’s lack of freedom of movement; he could not permanently leave his holding or his village without his lord’s permission. Neither could the serf marry, change his occupation, or dispose of his property without his lord’s permission. He was bound to his designated plot of land and could be transferred along with that land to a new lord. Serfs were often harshly treated and had little legal redress against the actions of their lords. A serf could become a freedman only through manumission, enfranchisement, or escape.

From as early as the 2nd century ce, many of the large, privately held estates in the Roman Empire that had been worked by gangs of slaves were gradually broken up into peasant holdings. These peasants of the late Roman Empire, many of whom were descendants of slaves, came to depend on larger landowners and other important persons for protection from state tax collectors and, later, from barbarian invaders and oppressive neighbours. Some of these coloni, as the dependent peasants were called, may have taken up holdings granted them by a proprietor, or they may have surrendered their own lands to him in return for such protection. In any case, it became a practice for the dependent peasant to swear fealty to a proprietor, thus becoming bound to that lord.

The main problem with the coloni was that of preventing them from leaving the land they had agreed to cultivate as tenant farmers. The solution was to legally bind them to their holdings. Accordingly, a legal code established by the Roman emperor Constantine in 332 demanded labour services to be paid to the lord by the coloni. Although the coloni were legally free, the conditions of fealty required them to cultivate their lord’s untenanted lands as well as their leased plot. This not only tied them to their holdings but also made their social status essentially servile, since the exaction of labour services required the landlord’s agents to exercise discipline over the coloni. The threat, or the exercise, of this discipline was recognized as one of the clearest signs of a man’s personal subjection.
By the 6th century the servi (= latin for slave), or serfs, as the servile peasants came to be called, were treated as an inferior element in society. Serfs subsequently became a major class in the small, decentralized polities that characterized most of Europe from the fall of the Roman Empire in the 5th century to the initial reconstitution of feudal monarchies, duchies, and counties in the 12th century.


By the 14th century, economic conditions in western Europe were favourable to the replacement of serfs by a free peasantry. The growth of the power of central and regional governments permitted the enforcement of peasant-landlord contracts without the need for peasant servility, and the final abandonment of labour services on demesnes removed the need for the direct exercise of labour discipline on the peasantry. The drastic population decline in Europe after 1350 as a result of the Black Death left much arable land uncultivated and also created an acute labour shortage, both economically favourable events for the peasantry. And finally, the endemic peasant uprisings in western Europe during the 14th and 15th centuries also forced more favourable terms of peasant tenure. Although the new peasants were not necessarily better off economically than were their servile forebears, they had increased personal liberties and were no longer entirely subject to the will of the lords whose lands they worked.

This favourable evolution was not shared by the peasants of eastern Europe. Peasant conditions there in the 14th century do not seem to have been worse than those of the west, and in some ways they were better, because the colonization of forestlands in eastern Germany, Poland, Bohemia, Moravia, and Hungary had led to the establishment of many free-peasant communities. But a combination of political and economic circumstances reversed these developments. The chief reason was that the wars that devastated eastern Europe in the 14th and 15th centuries tended to increase the power of the nobility at the expense of the central governments. In eastern Germany, Prussia, Poland, and Russia, this development coincided with an increased demand for grain from western Europe. To profit from this demand, nobles and other landlords took back peasant holdings, expanded their own cultivation, and made heavy demands for peasant labour services. Peasant status from eastern Germany to Muscovy consequently deteriorated sharply. Not until the late 18th century were the peasants of the Austro-Hungarian Empire freed from serfdom, thus recovering their freedom of movement and marriage and the right to learn a profession according to personal choice. The serfs of Russia were not given their personal freedom and their own allotments of land until Alexander II’s Edict of Emancipation of 1861.

Throughout Chinese history, land-bound peasants were considered freemen in law but depended entirely upon the landowner for subsistence. In this system of serfdom, peasants could be traded, punished without due process of law, and made to pay tribute to the lord with labour. All serfs were freed, however, upon the creation of the People’s Republic of China in 1949.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/serfdom

...Can you give any one example of forced conversion under catholic law?...

Yes, i can:

The Burning of Beziers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_at_B%C3%A9ziers