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

When most people think of "Feudal" they think of the middle ages but when researching an article (A1912213) I came accross the fact that that within the British Isles the Island of Sark still has in place a Feudal system of government. This leads to my question 'does the Feudal system of government has any place in modern society'

If by feudal, you mean characterised by the power of elite political land*-owning families, the importance of patronage, and the acquiesence of the masses with widely-held religious superstition, then it is fairly obvious that the USA has the "Feudal" system of government.

*oil is a kind of land.

Jowot: That's a deliberate misinterpretation of feudalism and a trolling statement to boot.

Quite right, it's more oligarchic than feudal.

No, sorry, nothing serious to contribute to the debate...

I think a feudal government could have a lot to offer if certain rights were guaranteed. As long as citizens had the right to move, access the courts etc, and change their fealty, I think it has great potential.

Feudal lords could run their local areas as they see fit. People could choose the style of government that suits them best. It could be something like the Free State Project. Subjects could move to a place that was run to their liking.

In some ways, it might be more responsive than democracy. In the United States, the division between the right and left is pretty even. Which means that we're all drowning in political compromises. With local lords, you could have a more diverse political landscape.

"oil is a kind of land"

then kindly go and live on an island of it.

"That's a deliberate misinterpretation of feudalism and a trolling statement to boot."

Not quite. And I think Two-bit's naive admiration for feudalism backs me up here. I think the US already expresses his sentiments to some extent, and that is the cause, not the solution, of its problems.

You've only barely scratched the surface of feudalism. That's why your interpretation is deliberately misleading. The ways in which the US is unlike a feudal system are abundant. But I'll name a few:

1) In a feudal system, a handful of nobles own all the land. But in the US, land ownership is distributed, and almost anyone can own their own land.

2) In a feudal system, the serfs are compelled to take up arms whenever they are called by their lord. But in the US, military service is entirely voluntary.

3) In a feudal system, the lord rules absolutely. But Bush is checked by Congress and the courts, is being intensely criticized, and unless the Democrats screw it up royally, he's out of a job in a year.

Blatherskite

Do your assumptions about a modern Feudal state stand up?

"1) In a feudal system, a handful of nobles own all the land. But in the US, land ownership is distributed, and almost anyone can own their own land."
In Sark all the land is owned by the Seigneur of Sark but there is a complex system of property tenure with all land being held on perpetual lease.

"2) In a feudal system, the serfs are compelled to take up arms whenever they are called by their lord. But in the US, military service is entirely voluntary."
The UK Military is responsible for defence of Sark, all arms of the UK military are voluntary.

"3) In a feudal system, the lord rules absolutely. But Bush is checked by Congress and the courts, is being intensely criticized, and unless the Democrats screw it up royally, he's out of a job in a year."
Sark has its own independent legislature and court and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the UK acts as a final independent court of appeal.

more info at http://www.sark.gov.gg/

1) Lease is not the same as own.

2) The US does not have the luxury of allowing someone else to provide their defense.

3) The US federal government is not in a position to be overruled by a senior body.

Sark's unique position as a feudal body is modified by its subject position to the the UK, which is not a feudal body.

It sounds like a really interesting place to visit. I find myself thinking of the Mouse that Roared.

As for my post about a feudal government, I disagree that it's naive. I do think it could be workable. Electing leaders isn't the only way to go. I'm not even sure it's that relaible. We had 277 votes cast in our city's election last night. That's out of about 10,000 residents. What is it that makes democracy so great?

"1) In a feudal system, a handful of nobles own all the land. But in the US, land ownership is distributed, and almost anyone can own their own land.

2) In a feudal system, the serfs are compelled to take up arms whenever they are called by their lord. But in the US, military service is entirely voluntary.

3) In a feudal system, the lord rules absolutely. But Bush is checked by Congress and the courts, is being intensely criticized, and unless the Democrats screw it up royally, he's out of a job in a year.
"
1. Only a handful of "nobles" in America control over half the resources, esp. money. For example: Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and twenty out of the last twenty five Presidents have been related in one way or another to one of two major families.
2. If the US pushed hard enough, and their need was desperate enough, they could freely introduce conscription.
3. But it was the same with kings and lords; they'd all be out of the job when they died. Besides, anyone remember the old saying, "Whoever you vote for, the Government gets in"?

1) 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.

2) Good luck. The military is strongly against conscription, as is the public, and it could be overruled by Congress.

3) The difference is that Bush is out of a job in one year. He'll probably live another 30.

It's hard to believe the citizens of a monarchical government are levying these kinds of strange accusations against a real republic.

America isn't a "real republic". On what basis do you make this claim, even compared to the UK?
It is, as has been said, an oligarchy, with elements of feudalism. No one in America is free from their government, and what freedoms they do have they possess only because of the power their government holds over others.
And besides, the UK isn't a monarchy. While, for example, the Queen's signature is needed on any bill to be passed as legislation, it is for decorative purposes only and she does not actually have the right to forbid it. The public and the Royals both recognise their increasing figurhead role, and the reason that they haven't been ousted from their throne is that they're not doing any harm where they are, they have barely any power, and we don't have to pay for them anyway. Plus we get the money from their taxes.

A republic is a form of government in which the public democratically elects people to represent them in the government. The representatives will naturally be a certain elite of the population, so elements of oligarchy will exist.

However, it has not been shown that there are elements of feudalism.

As for the UK, I suggest you look at your government closer. That the crown uses its power with a light hand is a credit to the current monarch. However, closer examination reveals that she is still very much a power to be reckoned with... should she choose to exercise it more vigourously.

If that is all that a republic is, then the UK is a republic. As for the queen, I suggest that you look at your own president harder. I personally do not see what power the Queen has - it is certainly less that what George Bush wields.

The only republican portion of the the UK national government is the House of Commons. You do not elect Lords nor do you elect a monarch.

The most prominent manner in which the queen exercises her very real power is in the many, many governing positions which are filled by her appointment. Thomas Paine said it best:

"that it (the crown) derives its whole consequence merely from being the giver of places and pensions is self-evident, wherefore, though we have been wise enough to shut and lock the door against absolute monarchy, we at the same time have been foolish enough to put the crown in possession of the key."

For, indeed, the situation has not changed appreciably since Paine's time.

Language, language.

The Taliban was a republic. Republics don't have to have elections, they just can't have inherited offices.

The US is a republic, the UK isn't. That does not mean that the US is more democratic or freeer than the UK.

I really don't want to try to arbitrate a debate between you two because I have a lot of respect for your opinions in general, but this is getting crazy.

For one thing, the UK doesn't have citizens. Unless things have changed (apologies if they have), they're subjects.

Also, you're both misusing the word republic.

A republic is not necesarliy democratic. The origional republic, Plato's, was less democratic than the UK, unless I'm much mistaken. A republic just can't have offices determined by geneology.

I will not get into a discussion about which is more democratic, the US or the UK, because I don't know much about the UK government.

I will say this:

The US is a constitutional republic that is at least somewhat democratic.

The UK is a constitutional monarchy that is at least somewhat democratic.