Writers who want to be paid are elitists

Discussion in 'Debate Room' started by Steerpike, Aug 9, 2018.

  1. Irina Samarskaya

    Irina Samarskaya New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    140
    Likes Received:
    54
    Governments, without citizens willing to reproach it or fight it, tend to become more tyrannical. Are you fine with that as a plausible future? I don't mean "do you prefer it" but do you accept it?

    I accept it because I would be alone if I didn't.
     
  2. BayView

    BayView Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    9,760
    Likes Received:
    10,178
    I've often been attracted to the anarchist ideal of a stateless society based on consensual relationships, but I've realized that I'm always imagining these in really low-population settings. A couple hundred people can maybe live that way, but not many more. So, for the modern world, we'd be looking at abandoning our cities, and spreading out to cover just about all of the globe with no room left for nature (assuming we don't lose a significant proportion of our population in the transition). And with no cities, we'd have trouble with higher education, advanced science, advanced medicine, advanced engineering, advanced technology... all of these things that require a certain population density to be viable. We'd have no central system to help each other in case of disaster, and nothing to regulate relations between communities.

    It'd have to be a hell of a lot less "free" in my current world before I'd even consider making the switch.
     
  3. Steerpike

    Steerpike Felis amatus Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    12,213
    Likes Received:
    6,478
    Location:
    California, US
    Whether that's true or not, it doesn't change the misperceptions you've shared about feudalism. Under the feudal system, serfs were legally bound to the land they worked. They didn't traipse around looking for the most fair lord. Their labor was forced.
     
  4. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,419
    Likes Received:
    10,435
    Massacres are not an inherent part of the structure of a representative democracy. They can be left in the past.

    Exertion of force on people who have no freedom is an inherent part of the structure of feudalism. It can't be left in the past; if it is, then we are no longer talking about feudalism.

    The removal of freedom from the majority of people is an inherent part of feudalism.

    Again, feudalism is, by definition, a structure of tyrants.

    Representative democracies may tend toward tyranny, but tyranny is not an essential part of the structure.

    I'll take the government that has freedom as a possibility (representative democracy) over the one that absolutely forbids it (feudalism).
     
  5. Irina Samarskaya

    Irina Samarskaya New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    140
    Likes Received:
    54
    And yet they migrated anyway. Whether it's because they lacked the technology to barcode citizens or a symptom of the system, I'm not sure.

    However there's nothing, really, stopping my government from doing the same thing. Or worse: people voting for it to happen.

    And selling freedoms is a very surefire way to become a true serf.

    On historical serfdom, I've noticed in Russia it began with Patriarch Filaret after the Time of Troubles. So before him, there was no serfdom (in Russia at least). Therefore feudalism does not require forced residents.
     
  6. Irina Samarskaya

    Irina Samarskaya New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    140
    Likes Received:
    54
    How is feudalism tyranny by definition? lol.

    If bloody pogroms aren't inherent of republics, why is abuse of power inherent of feudal states when it's not a common, universal part of the law?
     
  7. BayView

    BayView Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    9,760
    Likes Received:
    10,178
    When did feudalism in Russia begin?
     
  8. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,419
    Likes Received:
    10,435
    Who did? When? From where to where?

    If you're talking about a feudalism without forced residents, you're not talking about feudalism.

    I suspect that when you say "feudalism" you really mean "small monarchies with open borders".
     
  9. Irina Samarskaya

    Irina Samarskaya New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    140
    Likes Received:
    54
    Presumably with Rurik the Red, Verangian conqueror of the Russian peoples, based in Novgorod.

    However I cannot be sure the Russians before Rurik were not feudal. I do know many (especially in the Ukraine) were nomadic tribes.
     
  10. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,419
    Likes Received:
    10,435
    It's part of the definition of feudalism.

    You're not talking about feudalism, just as you weren't talking about writing quality in that other thread. You're talking about something else.
     
    BayView likes this.
  11. BayView

    BayView Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    9,760
    Likes Received:
    10,178
    What leads you to presume this?

    ETA: I don't know a lot of Russian history, but I searched for "Rurik" and "feudal" together and got no results.

    I'm wondering whether you really know when feudalism in Russia began, and therefore whether you really know whether it predates the advent of serfs. And like ChickenFreak, I'm wondering if you have a different definition of feudalism than the one commonly used. Because the one from dictionary.com specifically mentions serfs.

    (Feudalism, noun: the dominant social system in medieval Europe, in which the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, and vassals were in turn tenants of the nobles, while the peasants (villeins or serfs) were obliged to live on their lord's land and give him homage, labor, and a share of the produce, notionally in exchange for military protection.)


    ETA 2: Monty Python aside, I think you really MAY be thinking about an anarchosyndicalist commune. Yikes.
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2018 at 12:47 AM
  12. 123456789

    123456789 Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,921
    Likes Received:
    4,403
    Guys,
    I know we're page at 8 in this thing, so apologies if this was said or if we've moved on from the subject, but I think it's VERY important if you are at all interested in healthcare and live on the US that you at least entertain the following possibility:

    Single payer healthcare would NOT be more expensive than what we have now. Right now the money you spend on healthcare is largely being wasted on middlemen.

    You'd most likely be paying LESS if you paid strictly through taxes. As is, we are subsidizing insurance companies that provide us nothing in return. That's whose getting your hard earned money.
     
    John-Wayne likes this.
  13. BayView

    BayView Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    9,760
    Likes Received:
    10,178
    Anarchy, I think. Like, not the "chaotic hell" version, but the political philosophy version. With a weird overlay of "hereditary tax collectors" nonsense...
     
  14. 123456789

    123456789 Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,921
    Likes Received:
    4,403
    Right now we do not have individualism. We have collectivism for a small few at the top.
     
  15. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,419
    Likes Received:
    10,435
    Oh, yeah--the US would absolutely spend less on health care in a single payer system. Not just because of the lower cost of treatment, but because of the huge savings of timely treatment.

    As one tiny example, I knew a guy who couldn't afford a decent frequency of blood sugar testing for his diabetes, so he started losing his vision, lost his job because he couldn't see well enough (and therefore obviously stopped paying taxes), got on unemployment, got on the health insurance for his unemployment, and last I heard was going to get some expensive treatment for his eyes. He also spent several days in the hospital every year for pneumonia because his immune system was shot, again because he couldn't afford the needed supplies to manage his diabetes.

    If he'd been able to afford a decent blood sugar meter and as many test strips as he needed, all that money would have been saved.
     
    BayView and 123456789 like this.
  16. Irina Samarskaya

    Irina Samarskaya New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    140
    Likes Received:
    54
    Look up the Rurikid Dynasty's first founder. Feudalism is a system (as I will define it) wherein there are tax-collectors (nobles) who determine the affairs of state alongside a big daddy (royals). They're all hereditary, and more tax collectors can be made via a tax collector knighting or otherwise elevating a private citizen into semi-private nobility.

    Serfdom can be an aspect, just like slavery can be an aspect of republicanism.

    I don't advocate it and I don't praise it either. However it's definitely a lot easier to run off to an Imperial Free City and pay a bill to get citizenship (or be that thing that names somebody who is working to pay off a citizenship debt--I can't recall the proper words) than it is now. Whether that's technological restraints or aspects of a system that does not have so much power, I'm not sure.
     
  17. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,419
    Likes Received:
    10,435
    Who presumably wouldn't dream of using force in collecting those taxes. Feudalism is well known for its voluntary tax system. Yep.
     
    BayView likes this.
  18. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,419
    Likes Received:
    10,435
    That's not feudalism. You can also tell us that the word "apple" refers to a small short-haired cat with blue eyes, but we're not going to follow you there. Words already have meanings.
     
    BayView likes this.
  19. BayView

    BayView Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    9,760
    Likes Received:
    10,178
    It'll probably be easier, in the future, if you don't use established words that mean one thing and use them to mean something else.

    Wait. What's the antecedent for "it"? Do you mean you don't advocate and praise feudalism? By which definition? Or do you mean you don't advocate serfdom (b/c I'd damn well hope you wouldn't)? But if you're saying you don't advocate feudalism... what have you been doing for the last five pages?

    What does this mean? It's easier to run off to an Imperial Free City - is this another phrase for which you have your own definition? Can you share it, now?

    So it's easier to run off to one of those places and be an indentured servant than what is now? Than it is to be an indentured servant? Again, I'd hope so. Indentured servitude is outlawed in most of the world as a form of slavery...

    But if your argument is that it would be easier to become an indentured servant under some other system... why is that a good thing? What?
     
    ChickenFreak likes this.
  20. Mckk

    Mckk Moderator Staff Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    Messages:
    5,549
    Likes Received:
    3,286
    The amount of reports this thread is spawning is ridiculous. I'm closing this so you can all cool down and I can go to sleep knowing this thread can't burn any further than it already has. Go to bed, or go for a walk. Goodnight.
     

Share This Page