Hello. My first and last post. - Page 2

Easy Mac · 02-04-2003, 12:06 AM

So somehow an idiotic topic has turned into the do's and don't of Icelandic feudalism. This sounds like my prom night all over again.

God I love Football messageboards

sabotai · 02-04-2003, 01:13 AM

"So somehow an idiotic topic has turned into the do's and don't of Icelandic feudalism. This sounds like my prom night all over again."

LOL

"I think that feudalism is a form of government, it led to monarchy which is a form of government."

This might just be an arguement over semantics, but I would not catagorize feudalism as a form of government. To me, feudalism is a system much like that of capitalism, while monarchy would be the government in the same catagory as democracy. Feudalism is the system by which the politics and economy functions, while monarchy would be the governing body.

Feudalism and Monarchy are not bound together. You can have one without the other. Which is why I seperate it it into system and government.

"from your account it seems that every dispute was resolved without war"

Oh, I'm sure there were some bloody encounters. It was the middle ages, after all. But there are plenty of bloody encounters between land owners in our society too.

"What are rights in anarchy anyway, there is no vote, you are born under a lord's house, you are obligated to that lord, wouldn't that be correct?"

Umm, is this a general anarcho question or a question about Iceland?

Iceland, yes. Anarcho, no. Technically, you are obliged to your parents in our system until you become of age.

"The problem is that the rich would own everything, what would the poor get. Would there be affordable housing for the poor? Would they be renters to the rich for life? From what scant knowledge of this that I know, the power would lie with the rich (as if it doesn't now)."

You pretty much answered it yourself.

The rich own everything now! I don't see why there wouldn't be affordable housing. There will still be charities and people giving donations. There will still be people who will figure out how to build affordable housing and still make a profit. There will still be volunteers to help build the houses without pay.

"What would the incentive of the average worker be if there was never better pay. Unions aren't all bad, they keep corporations honest. Yes, some are corrupted, but this philosophy wouldn't protect the workers' rights from anything, the owner would have full control of conditions, you could have it really nice, or as bad as the turn of the century industrial revolution...if you disagreed you'd be fired."

The incentive would be with the company. If you are a good worker, your employer will want to keep you. Therefore, it's in his best interest to offer you a competative salary. If you didn't get a competative salary, you would quit and go to the job that did offer a competative salary.

Most strikes I see are unions demanding unrealistic, or uncompetive, salary increases. Like teachers that striked recently in my state. They were the highest paid teachers in the state. Yet, they still went on strike and demanded higher salaries. Under the anarcho-capitalist model, this school is offering the best salaries, so ideally, the teachers would want to keep their jobs and their good pay.

Under our current system, things like this are allowed to occur. A school that pays their teachers the highest salaries in the state is not allowed to fire those teachers who demand a higher salary. I just don't think that is very fair.

So under the anarcho-capitalist model, those teachers would be insane to strike, because then they get fired, replaced and then have to go to teaching jobs with lower salaries.

On the other hand, a school system would try their best to be able to pay their teachers as much as the school above did so they could attract the best teachers they could. So basically, it's not just prices of products that companies fight over, it would be the quality of the workforce they would compete over as well.

In many areas, unions destroy this part of the competativeness. Companies sign agreements with unions and then have to hire and keep those workers, regardless of quality. And thus they don't compete for quality of workforce. And in the end, the end product suffers.

I might have gone off on a tangent and not even answered your statement. In fact, I know I'm babbling. What's my point?

Oh yes, under a system with no unions, it is in the corperation's best interest to offer the best pay and best conditions in order to attract the best workers. I think in some areas, unions are detrimental to this process.

Not saying there wouldn't be some corrupt and bad companies, but then again, there are bad and corrupt companies now.

"too me it sounds very much in the same vein as communism or socialism"

please...don't compare this to communism. Communism is just.... a horrible idea. That is the worst idea I've ever heard! Yes, this is horrible, this idea!

(Little Office Space reference for the kids)

See, a lot of arguements I hear against anarcho-capitalism are in some way true. However, the people making those arguements fail to see that their argument is happening now anyway.

"It'll lead to people taking the law into their own hands and lead to bloodshed." That happens now...

"Compnaies will be corrupt and take advantage of honest citizens." That happens now...

"The rich will own everything." They own everything now...

I think a lot of ideas of anarcho-capitalism would decrease a lot of these problems. But as I said before, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist (and I wouldn't say that I am an expert on the subject either). There are some ideas of theirs that I don't agree with. But I do see the rational and reasoning behidn those ideas.

It's communism that has no reasonign to their ideas. Damn pinko commie bastards...

Qwikshot · 02-04-2003, 01:42 AM

Yes, but then there is no incentive to change.

It would not be in a companies best interest to keep a good worker, but to keep a cheap worker...

It sounds to me that this anarcho-capitalism wouldn't change things...but I'll read up on it...I've enjoyed the debate...and I will look into those two books you recommened...

Julio Riddols · 02-04-2003, 03:31 AM

Down at Fraggle Rock..

ctmason · 02-04-2003, 09:51 AM

Seat Open!

Fireball · 02-04-2003, 10:49 AM

FWIW,

Couple of sites relevant to anarcho-capitalism:

http://www.mises.org
http://www.lewrockwell.com

Enjoy! (or don't enjoy!)

clintl · 02-04-2003, 10:59 AM

Feudalism is a form of government. Feudal lords were nothing more than small-time kings that ruled the peasants underneath them (usually with an iron fist and outrageous tax rates), and as a system of government, feudalism was pretty much a complete failure that held back the advancement and enlightenment of civilization for centuries.

sabotai · 02-04-2003, 02:33 PM

"Yes, but then there is no incentive to change."

Of course there would. Companies that constantly improve their products sell more products. Companies that offer new, better products sell more products.

"It would not be in a companies best interest to keep a good worker, but to keep a cheap worker..."

If the cheap worker was a good worker, then yeah, the company would try to keep him. But if he was a bad worker, his ability would reflect on the product. And if the product was less quality than that of your competitor, then your competitor would get sales you did not. So the way you increase sales is to increase quality of the product. You do that by hiring good workers.

"Feudalism is a form of government. Feudal lords were nothing more than small-time kings that ruled the peasants underneath them (usually with an iron fist and outrageous tax rates), and as a system of government, feudalism was pretty much a complete failure that held back the advancement and enlightenment of civilization for centuries."

Whatever, this is coming down to an arguement over symantics. You view feudalism as a government, I view it as a poltiical and economic system in the same catagory as capitalism. Does it really matter what we call it? The whole point was that Iceland didn't have a central government which rules over the nation.

02-04-2003, 01:42 AM	#53
Qwikshot Pro Starter Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: ...down the gravity well	Yes, but then there is no incentive to change. It would not be in a companies best interest to keep a good worker, but to keep a cheap worker... It sounds to me that this anarcho-capitalism wouldn't change things...but I'll read up on it...I've enjoyed the debate...and I will look into those two books you recommened... __________________ "General Woundwort's body was never found. It could be that he still lives his fierce life somewhere else, but from that day on, mother rabbits would tell their kittens that if they did not do as they were told, the General would get them. Such was Woundwort's monument, and perhaps it would not have displeased him." Watership Down, Richard Adams

02-04-2003, 03:31 AM	#54
Julio Riddols College Prospect Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Bryson Shitty, NC	Down at Fraggle Rock.. __________________ Recklessly enthused, stubbornly amused. FUCK EA

02-04-2003, 10:49 AM	#56
Fireball n00b Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Long Island, NY	FWIW, Couple of sites relevant to anarcho-capitalism: http://www.mises.org http://www.lewrockwell.com Enjoy! (or don't enjoy!) __________________ When things go a little bad nowadays, you go out and get yourself an 'ism' and you're in business.

02-04-2003, 01:13 AM	#52
sabotai General Manager Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The Satellite of Love	"So somehow an idiotic topic has turned into the do's and don't of Icelandic feudalism. This sounds like my prom night all over again." LOL "I think that feudalism is a form of government, it led to monarchy which is a form of government." This might just be an arguement over semantics, but I would not catagorize feudalism as a form of government. To me, feudalism is a system much like that of capitalism, while monarchy would be the government in the same catagory as democracy. Feudalism is the system by which the politics and economy functions, while monarchy would be the governing body. Feudalism and Monarchy are not bound together. You can have one without the other. Which is why I seperate it it into system and government. "from your account it seems that every dispute was resolved without war" Oh, I'm sure there were some bloody encounters. It was the middle ages, after all. But there are plenty of bloody encounters between land owners in our society too. "What are rights in anarchy anyway, there is no vote, you are born under a lord's house, you are obligated to that lord, wouldn't that be correct?" Umm, is this a general anarcho question or a question about Iceland? Iceland, yes. Anarcho, no. Technically, you are obliged to your parents in our system until you become of age. "The problem is that the rich would own everything, what would the poor get. Would there be affordable housing for the poor? Would they be renters to the rich for life? From what scant knowledge of this that I know, the power would lie with the rich (as if it doesn't now)." You pretty much answered it yourself. The rich own everything now! I don't see why there wouldn't be affordable housing. There will still be charities and people giving donations. There will still be people who will figure out how to build affordable housing and still make a profit. There will still be volunteers to help build the houses without pay. "What would the incentive of the average worker be if there was never better pay. Unions aren't all bad, they keep corporations honest. Yes, some are corrupted, but this philosophy wouldn't protect the workers' rights from anything, the owner would have full control of conditions, you could have it really nice, or as bad as the turn of the century industrial revolution...if you disagreed you'd be fired." The incentive would be with the company. If you are a good worker, your employer will want to keep you. Therefore, it's in his best interest to offer you a competative salary. If you didn't get a competative salary, you would quit and go to the job that did offer a competative salary. Most strikes I see are unions demanding unrealistic, or uncompetive, salary increases. Like teachers that striked recently in my state. They were the highest paid teachers in the state. Yet, they still went on strike and demanded higher salaries. Under the anarcho-capitalist model, this school is offering the best salaries, so ideally, the teachers would want to keep their jobs and their good pay. Under our current system, things like this are allowed to occur. A school that pays their teachers the highest salaries in the state is not allowed to fire those teachers who demand a higher salary. I just don't think that is very fair. So under the anarcho-capitalist model, those teachers would be insane to strike, because then they get fired, replaced and then have to go to teaching jobs with lower salaries. On the other hand, a school system would try their best to be able to pay their teachers as much as the school above did so they could attract the best teachers they could. So basically, it's not just prices of products that companies fight over, it would be the quality of the workforce they would compete over as well. In many areas, unions destroy this part of the competativeness. Companies sign agreements with unions and then have to hire and keep those workers, regardless of quality. And thus they don't compete for quality of workforce. And in the end, the end product suffers. I might have gone off on a tangent and not even answered your statement. In fact, I know I'm babbling. What's my point? Oh yes, under a system with no unions, it is in the corperation's best interest to offer the best pay and best conditions in order to attract the best workers. I think in some areas, unions are detrimental to this process. Not saying there wouldn't be some corrupt and bad companies, but then again, there are bad and corrupt companies now. "too me it sounds very much in the same vein as communism or socialism" please...don't compare this to communism. Communism is just.... a horrible idea. That is the worst idea I've ever heard! Yes, this is horrible, this idea! (Little Office Space reference for the kids) See, a lot of arguements I hear against anarcho-capitalism are in some way true. However, the people making those arguements fail to see that their argument is happening now anyway. "It'll lead to people taking the law into their own hands and lead to bloodshed." That happens now... "Compnaies will be corrupt and take advantage of honest citizens." That happens now... "The rich will own everything." They own everything now... I think a lot of ideas of anarcho-capitalism would decrease a lot of these problems. But as I said before, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist (and I wouldn't say that I am an expert on the subject either). There are some ideas of theirs that I don't agree with. But I do see the rational and reasoning behidn those ideas. It's communism that has no reasonign to their ideas. Damn pinko commie bastards...

02-04-2003, 09:51 AM	#55
ctmason High School JV Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Mesa, AZ	Seat Open!

02-04-2003, 10:59 AM	#57
clintl College Starter Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Davis, CA	Feudalism is a form of government. Feudal lords were nothing more than small-time kings that ruled the peasants underneath them (usually with an iron fist and outrageous tax rates), and as a system of government, feudalism was pretty much a complete failure that held back the advancement and enlightenment of civilization for centuries.

02-04-2003, 02:33 PM	#58
sabotai General Manager Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The Satellite of Love	"Yes, but then there is no incentive to change." Of course there would. Companies that constantly improve their products sell more products. Companies that offer new, better products sell more products. "It would not be in a companies best interest to keep a good worker, but to keep a cheap worker..." If the cheap worker was a good worker, then yeah, the company would try to keep him. But if he was a bad worker, his ability would reflect on the product. And if the product was less quality than that of your competitor, then your competitor would get sales you did not. So the way you increase sales is to increase quality of the product. You do that by hiring good workers. "Feudalism is a form of government. Feudal lords were nothing more than small-time kings that ruled the peasants underneath them (usually with an iron fist and outrageous tax rates), and as a system of government, feudalism was pretty much a complete failure that held back the advancement and enlightenment of civilization for centuries." Whatever, this is coming down to an arguement over symantics. You view feudalism as a government, I view it as a poltiical and economic system in the same catagory as capitalism. Does it really matter what we call it? The whole point was that Iceland didn't have a central government which rules over the nation.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)