Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
General Political Discussion
Monarchy vs Democracy -Feudal Monarch of the Christian Middle Ages
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tolkien R.R.J" data-source="post: 74566022" data-attributes="member: 411644"><p><strong>Liberty During the Middle Ages</strong></p><p></p><p>“<em>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.”</em></p><p><em>-Carroll Quigley Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time Jun 1 1975</em></p><p></p><p>“<em>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</em>.”</p><p><em>-Erik von Kuehnelt- Leddihn The Menace of the Herd or Procrustes at Large Bruce Publishing Company Milwaukee 1943</em></p><p></p><p>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”</p><p></p><p><em>“<em>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.”</em></em></p><p><em>-Daniel Szewc The Case for Libertarian Monarchism</em></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>“<em>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.”</em></p><p><em>-Thomas Madden The Modern Scholar: The Medieval World, Part II: Society, Economy, and Culture</em></p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>But who Will Purchase the Votes of the Poor Masses – Sorry, I Meant What About Welfare?</strong></p><p></p><p>“<em>The church provided education, literacy, civil services.”</em></p><p><em>-Christopher Tyerman Gods war a new history of the Crusades Harvard U Press Cambridge Mass 2006</em></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>“<em>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.”</em></p><p><em>-John of Salisbury 1115-1180 Policraticus</em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tolkien R.R.J, post: 74566022, member: 411644"] [B]Liberty During the Middle Ages[/B] “[I]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[/I] “[I]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[/I].” [I]-Erik von Kuehnelt- Leddihn The Menace of the Herd or Procrustes at Large Bruce Publishing Company Milwaukee 1943[/I] 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” [I]“[I]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.”[/I] -Daniel Szewc The Case for Libertarian Monarchism[/I] 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. “[I]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[/I] [B]But who Will Purchase the Votes of the Poor Masses – Sorry, I Meant What About Welfare?[/B] “[I]The church provided education, literacy, civil services.” -Christopher Tyerman Gods war a new history of the Crusades Harvard U Press Cambridge Mass 2006[/I] 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. “[I]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[/I] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
General Political Discussion
Monarchy vs Democracy -Feudal Monarch of the Christian Middle Ages
Top
Bottom