h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"Money is not the same thing as land. Serfs couldn't own their own land, or their own businesses, or become consultants, or move to another state, or move to another country. They also didn't have any recognized rights."
not true
a serf is not a slave, is an agricultural labourer who paid the rent on his/her land by providing labour to work his/her landlords land. In addition in most Feudal systems of old there was a small middle class of land owning non-noble freemen (mostly in the cities). The citizens of Sark certainly do own their own businesses.

"Good luck. The military is strongly against conscription, as is the public, and it could be overruled by Congress."
A quick look through history will show that most nations abandoned the idea of everyone owing military service to their local Lord long before they abandoned the Feudal system.

"In a feudal system, the lord rules absolutely."
Not True, most Feudal systems have Legislature & courts

"I personally do not see what power the Queen has"
The Crown has enormous power, that the Crown chooses to follow custom and delegate most of that power to Privy Councillors (AKA Government Ministers) is fortunate, have ya ever wondered how the country is run at election time after one government is dissolved and before another sworn in. The one thing the crown cannot do though is tax us, only parliament can do that.



People please get ya facts straight before posting.





and finally ('cos this is opinion)

"The US federal government is not in a position to be overruled by a senior body"
I've always thought this is one of the US's big mistakes, the UK like most nations is signed to all sorts of binding International courts (e.g. the European Court of Human Rights, the UN International Criminal Court, etc).

"a serf is not a slave, is an agricultural labourer who paid the rent on his/her land by providing labour to work his/her landlords land." - The thing that made them slaves was the proportion of work the lord demanded. They spent so much time working their lord's land that there was little time left for their own... and their own wasn't enough to support them and their families even if it did get proper attention.

I'm sure things are different in Sark, but we are talking about feudalism in general, and this was the general condition of feudalism.

"In addition in most Feudal systems of old there was a small middle class of land owning non-noble freemen (mostly in the cities)." - The craftsmen, mostly. They may have owned the structures they lived in and conducted business from, but the lord still owned the city... and thus, the land the structure was built upon.

"A quick look through history will show that most nations abandoned the idea of everyone owing military service to their local Lord long before they abandoned the Feudal system." - This doesn't have to be about local lords. Many European nations practice compulsory military service today.

"Not True, most Feudal systems have Legislature & courts" - Which feudal systems were those? Formal courts didn't evolve in Western culture until the feudal system gave way to the monarchical system. In the feudal age, the local lord *was* the court (which is why we called a noble on the job in his audience chamber "holding court"). When the monarchs gained direct control of the country they appointed judges so they'd be under the crown, and not the local lord. And as the lords lost this and many other powers in the rise of the absolute monarch, they began to organize and formed the first legislatures.

Daneel: I stand corrected. The definition I gave of republic is actually the definition of a democratic republic.

Re: UK Crowned "Republic".

We are in a strange position in that, although all soverignty *theoretically* rests with the Monarch, in practice it rests with Parliament and therefore a republican system. The fact that the Monarch could not simply override parliament when they felt like it was made clear before the English (actually Britain-wide) Civil War in the 17th century, when the King declared his rule above that of Parliament and Parliament revolted and deposed and executed the King for treachery and installed a short-lived republic (incidentally, the English Commonwealth was not broken by the "need for a monarch" as some romanticists claim, but by Cromwell's disillusionment with Parliament and his disolving it and replacing it with the "English Protectorate" - effectively a religious dictatorship with himself as Lord Protector. This created resentment from the British people and created a scenario ripe for the return of the exiled Monarchy) . The Monarch is in the position of knowing that all government is carried out in her name, but were she to "overstep" her power and interfere with Parliament then Parliament would probably force her to abdicate or declare a "peaceful revolution" and annul the office of Monarch. As a result, she does not use her theoretical power.

"The thing that made them slaves was the proportion of work the lord demanded. They spent so much time working their lord's land that there was little time left for their own... and their own wasn't enough to support them and their families even if it did get proper attention"
Only in poorly run systems and in a modern system which is after all is what we are talking about I doubt there would be any serfs at all.

"but the lord still owned the city... and thus, the land the structure was built upon"
NO,NO,NO, I cannot comment for the rest of the world but cities in Feudal England were independent bodies with an elected administration (the structure of the English Parliament when it was formed was loosely modelled on the elected administration of the Corporation of London).

""A quick look through history will show that most nations abandoned the idea of everyone owing military service to their local Lord long before they abandoned the Feudal system." - This doesn't have to be about local lords. Many European nations practice compulsory military service today." A modern re-introduction AND that's the point I was trying to make compulsory military service' has b****r all to do with Feudal Government.

“Which feudal systems were those? Formal courts didn't evolve in Western culture until the feudal system gave way to the monarchical system.” the monarchical system was an intergral part of the medieval Feudal system. The Parliament in the Isle of Man was founded in 979 and the UK (English) legislature dates back to Runnymede and the Magna Carta in 1215.

"Only in poorly run systems and in a modern system which is after all is what we are talking about I doubt there would be any serfs at all." - We don't have any modern examples aside from Sark, and Sark, as I've said, is in a unique position.

"NO,NO,NO, I cannot comment for the rest of the world but cities in Feudal England were independent bodies with an elected administration (the structure of the English Parliament when it was formed was loosely modelled on the elected administration of the Corporation of London)." - Was London the exception, or the rule? The exception: http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/society7.htm

Compulsory military service: While not an integral part of any other form of government, compulsory military service was an integral part of feudalism. Indeed, it was the need for defense from marauding tribes in the wake of the fall of Rome that gave rise to the feudal system. The local lord protected his people, but they in turn had to contribute to that protection.

My point was that the lack of compulsory military service is one of many ways in which the US government is different from a feudal one.

"The Parliament in the Isle of Man was founded in 979 and the UK (English) legislature dates back to Runnymede and the Magna Carta in 1215" - History doesn't fall into nice black & whites. It's not like the kings woke up one day and said, "I'll be absolute," abolished many of the rights of the nobles, and the nobles formed their legislatures the next day.

Though Parliament has roots in the feudal age, let's not make the mistake of thinking it came into existence automatically with the Magna Carta. The first parliament wasn't called until 1265. A king didn't call one until 1275 (Earl Montfort called the first). Until the Long Parliament in 1640, Parliament met when called by the king, and was dissolved at his whim.

There are legislatures, and there are legislatures.

By the way, I should probably clarify my wording a bit. When I talk about feudalism, I'm talking about the era in which a pyramid structure governed the world... the local lord was an absolute ruler of his domain, but he owed allegiance, rents, and military service to his liege lord, who owed the same to his liege, who owed the same to his king.

The monarchical system is one in which the monarch had the right to overrule the local lord in his own domain. The king imposed laws which could uniformly be applied to the entire kingdom (or not, if he chose) and the local lord had no other choice but to obey and enforce them... unless, of course, he was able to get enough support from other lords to unite against him.

Out of curiousity, Blathers, on which side of the Atlantic do you live?

Why do you ask?

"Out of curiousity, Blathers".

But you're curious for a reason. I don't believe in Santa, the Tooth Fairy, or Idle Curiousity.

Oh, see, there we differ. I believe everything is equally idle .
Well, I was curious for the obvious reason that you are talking about two systems and (I assume) arguing how much better one is than the other. You must have live at least predominately in one of them; which?

See... not an idle curiousity, but a search for underlying prejudices!

I didn't think I was arguing one system over another. I thought I was talking about the historical realities of feudalism, and how the UK is closer to it than the US is... in response to the earlier attempt to turn this into yet another US bashfest.

That's not to say that either the US or the UK system is better or worse... that would be worthy of a different debate thread altogether.

Why am I so sensitive to the US bashing that is such a common element of this site? You guessed it... I'm American.

Ah! And there we have it. How much time, roughly, have you spent in the UK?
And yes, if anyone DOES want to turn this into another "What's Wrong With Americans", go there. And I suppose that this isn't really a place to compare systems, but all I was doing originally was drawing parallels.

"We don't have any modern examples aside from Sark"
yeah right ...
The last bits of the Feudal system was only abolished in Scotland in 2000 (Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000), hell Nepal is still pre-feudal and more to the point the original question used the word "Modern"

"Was London the exception, or the rule"
erm, we nicked the idea from the french (Paris)
and the small town I grew up in obtained a Charter of Freedom around the middle of the thirteenth century

"There are legislatures, and there are legislatures"
agreed

Malaclypse: This place was formed because some of us wanted to be able to have reasonable debates, most unlike the "What's wrong with ..." sort you get in Ask H2G2. So, no, let's *not* go there.

Happy: Perhaps you'd care to share more details of these modern feudalisms, then?

well Sark & er.. Sark and there is Sark but there was Scotland

The point is that constantly harking back to the worse elements of the Feudal System and throwing in a few fallacies does not help answer the question 'Does the “Feudal” system of government has any place in modern society?'

I felt that an examination of the feudal system was necessary before we could discuss its place in modern society. There were a lot of misconceptions floating around in here at first.

"There were a lot of misconceptions floating around in here at first" and (IMHO) quite a few of them belonged to you (if ya want to argue this, start a new thread 'cos I'd really like the debate to move on).

Going back to post 2
Are there any parallels between Feudal Systems and Modern Systems of Government

I didn't mean to turn this thread into a US bashfest. Blathers point on the British monarchy is well made, even if it is relatively powerless. The British constitution could learn an awful lot from the American one.

You could also point out that the UK has an established (part of the state) christian church, although it is culturally rather less religious than the US. However on reflection, the part played by the church in feudal times is now largely played by the mass media. And that institution is pretty awful in the both countries, but IMO better in the UK where the BBC competes on quality and isn't answerable to advertisers.

But surely there is a small parallel between the mayors, governors and presidents of the US system and feudal lords. This is not necessarily a bad thing. But in the UK there are few individual mandates.