World's Smallest Political Quiz

[Deepflow]

you see qdeathstar. I said anarchy had never happened effectively and wouldnt until we got far more resources than we have now.

feudalism however, is something COMPLETELY different.

people in feudalism have none of the freedoms they have in anarchy, can be called upon by their superiors and are effectively owned by them. Anarchists have pretty much every freedom possible, probably too much.

there is such a massive difference in those 2 ideologies its impossible to work out how you came to the conclusion they were the same. Feudalism is possibly one of the systems furthest from anarchy, as it is pretty much totalitarian in most cases where it is the system of govt used. Of course there are exceptions and the power is often in the hand of a lot of people aside from the leader, but the ruling classes RULE completely unequivocally. In anarchy there ARE no ruling classes.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

The reason only the rich will be albe to afford goods/services is because people act on their own self interest=greed. If they can make more by giving their services to someone else, thats what they will do..

Isn't that the point of a free market system?

[Qdeathstar]

A. The arguement wasnt about fuedalism/anarchy
B. Some of your assertions are wrong
C. You all refuse to accept that some of my assertions are correct
D. You pick certain parts of post without adressing the arguement (i know that has to be one of those logical falicies)

I however, have no problem admiting when im wrong... And i do, when i am. As evident at certain points in the thead and in other threads. Your oppinions do not make me wrong. Additionally, to say that America is horrible, US debt is bad for the world Economy, OPEC doesnt control the price/profit ratio, or that fuedalism isnt akin to anarchy (which btw, is not important to the argument) is wrong.

America has done great things (too many to menchion them all), US debt keeps foreign governments afloat by prommising future revenue, OPEC is in control of determining output and thus determing price. Although if America pulled out of the market, prices ::might:: fall, OPEC would still be making an unfair ammount of proffit., And America does account for around 50% of the top 5 oil consumers. Fuedalism is akin to anarchy in the since that there is no national-army, no trade outside of the manor, no education system, and no healthcare. There may be a leader on top of a single mannor, but outide of that thats all there was. In anarchy their may be gangs who have a leader.. so same thing. The difference between the Greek City-states and the Fuedal manors is that the City-states were larger, had a more organized military (though not national), had a system of education, and they had access to health care. The ppl on the manor's did not.

[Deepflow]

for ****s sake...

the king/emperor/shogun WHATEVER has control in feudalism... there IS someone above the lord of the manor.

there IS a national army, how do you think all those wars were fought in feudal europe? with 2 kings slugging it out in the middle of the ring?

there was no centralised education or healthcare system, but thats true in most pre-modern societies, and they werent all feudal.

btw, im not arguing about the other points because i have relatively little interest/knowledge in them. I suggest you do the same, and leave. (actually, dont leave, its fun )

[Qdeathstar]

Isn't that the point of a free market system?

There are few completely- free markey systems in the world. The United States is not purely a free-market system as the goverment does have the power to controll prices of certain things .

The only freedom that surfs didnt have was the ability to leave. They could do pretty much whatever else the wanted to.. In addition, surfs did not want to leave, because there was no where to go, and the barbians would have kiled them...

[Leshy]

Yes. The Greek poleis are a fine example of a feudal system

[Phang]

STOP POSTING, QDEATHSTAR. STOP POSTING, QDEATHSTAR. STOP POSTING, QDEATHSTAR. STOP POSTING, QDEATHSTAR. STOP POSTING, QDEATHSTAR. STOP POSTING, QDEATHSTAR.
STOP POSTING.

[MrL_JaKiri]

[quote=QdeathstarThe arguement wasnt about fuedalism/anarchy[/QUOTE]

We've said it before and we'll say it again.

DO NOT INTRODUCE THINGS IF YOU'RE GOING TO IGNORE THE FACT THAT YOU WERE WRONG BY SAYING 'THAT'S NOT THE ARGUMENT GUYS!!!!!!' AT A LATER DATE.

[Deepflow]

do you envisage feudal england as manors surrounded by hordes of rampaging barbarians? They had a few less freedoms than those given today actually, how many from the UN charter of human rights (or whatever) do you think they actually enjoyed?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

The only freedom that surfs didnt have was the ability to leave. They could do pretty much whatever else the wanted to.. In addition, surfs did not want to leave, because there was no where to go, and the barbians would have kiled them...

Are we talking about feudalism or anarchy?

In either case you're wrong, but it's good to know where we stand.

[Qdeathstar]

but thats true in most pre-modern societies

no its not, most of the empires had a centralized education...and even compulsatory...

there IS someone above the lord of the manor

A duke, In theory. However, the duke had no real authority over the lord.

And your talkng about the king's of englad and france. When i started out, i believe i said after the roman empire. Those kings werent in power until several hundred years after the fall of rome.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

And your talkng about the king's of englad and france. When i started out, i believe i said after the roman empire. Those kings werent in power until several hundred years after the fall of rome.

Just because ALL of England or ALL of France weren't one body, controlled by a single guy, doesn't mean that the same stuff doesn't apply at a lower level.

[Qdeathstar]

IN feudalism, surfs were free. The were given land, and a house. The only thing that the lord required them to do was pay a small tax and promise not to leave. However the surfs had no desire to leave, because there was no where to go. Im 100% sure im not wrong about that, as i have just looked it up.

[Qdeathstar]

Just because ALL of England or ALL of France weren't one body, controlled by a single guy, doesn't mean that the same stuff doesn't apply at a lower level.


i dont get what your saying...

[Deepflow]

well... england was pretty much feudal for a long long time. Including both what you say and many other times.

if you want to change the definition of feudalism you should tell us. yknow, just so we know.

dukes etc DID have real authority etc.

[Deepflow]

i say etc too much...

btw, im going out to get drunk soon. Ill come back and debate with you in a few hours though.

[JonnyBGood]

Frankly the tricks of probability amaze me. How all qdeathstars opinions are right and ours are just wrong is a matter for the mathematicians among us to ponder. On a lighter note I hear feudalism is like pringles because without people neither would exist.


And in the name of all that is holy it's spelt serfs, not surfs.

[Qdeathstar]

lol surfs serfs :-/

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

IN feudalism, surfs were free. The were given land, and a house. The only thing that the lord required them to do was pay a small tax and promise not to leave. However the surfs had no desire to leave, because there was no where to go. Im 100% sure im not wrong about that, as i have just looked it up.

I hesitate to ask where seeing as the tax (it's actually a rent and they weren't given land) was far from small and that's only the free serfs. Indentured serfs had to work to stay on the lord's land. To describe where most of them lived as a house is to verge on the ridiculous. They were also sold along with the land if the lord so chose. He could also dictate punishments for crimes, raise rents, build a mill and force his serfs to use it. They were about as free as my left ass cheek.

[Qdeathstar]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. The arguement wasnt about fuedalism/anarchy
B. Some of your assertions are wrong
C. You all refuse to accept that some of my assertions are correct
D. You pick certain parts of post without adressing the arguement (i know that has to be one of those logical falicies)

I however, have no problem admiting when im wrong... And i do, when i am. As evident at certain points in the thead and in other threads. Your oppinions do not make me wrong. Additionally, to say that America is horrible, US debt is bad for the world Economy, OPEC doesnt control the price/profit ratio, or that fuedalism isnt akin to anarchy (which btw, is not important to the argument) is wrong.

And thats all i have to say about that..

Again, you have no humor.

[Leshy]

It's medieval england. A local farmer has had a really bad harvest, and he has no money for food. But he is so hungry, that he decides he has no choice. He goes into town, and finds a bakery shop. He walks in, grabs a bread from the counter, and makes a run for it. So the baker immediately chases him down the street. The farmer runs, and runs, and he manages to gain a lead on the baker. He decides to hide in one of the watchtowers, and quickly dashes past a guard into the tower. So the baker comes running up, sighing, and doesn't see the thief anywhere. So he asks the guard: "Where did that bread thief go?" At which the guard points at the tower and replies: "SERFS UP, DUDE!"

[JonnyBGood]

This is madness. Madness I says. I'm off to the oub anyways. Perhaps this will make more sense when I've returned to my natural state.

[Qdeathstar]

perhaps united states' account of history and europes "account" of history is different.. Because i have found things that support your arguements, but i have also read, seen, heard, discussed, what my history teachers have been teach us for years, even in college. . Case in point, the article about earths, roundness. Im assuming thats its credible alhtough its impossible to tell. It could just be some one elses attention. But regardless... havent we all had enough of this thread.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally Posted by pablissimo

Also left liberal. 90%, 30%, in whatever order it gave them.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Woah. Gayletastic.

[Leshy]

Oh yeah. That was what this thread was about

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

perhaps united states' account of history and europes "account" of history is different.

Well, we have much more of it for a start.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Woah. Gayletastic.

I crop up from time to time

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Gayle29uk

I crop up from time to time

[Insert hilarious and fascinating pun about the crop function in graphics programs]

Welcome back, sort of.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Gayle29uk

I crop up from time to time

Coincidentally, so does lettuce!

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Leshy

Coincidentally, so does lettuce!

You missed out the 'boom boom'.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Gayle29uk

I crop up from time to time

Just back to get your forum nick updated?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Just back to get your forum nick updated?

To Gayle28UK? I don't think anyone would force being thirty on themselves so much.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

You missed out the 'boom boom'.

BADANG

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

To Gayle28UK? I don't think anyone would force being thirty on themselves so much.

Oh I dunno; I wouldn't mind being 30. Again.

[KaneED]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

... but the test is oversimplified ....

nodrog proves his superiority over once again by pointing out the obvious!




edit: 60/20

[Proteus]

This thread is absolutely fantastic. It's like watching Einstein having an argument about relativity with a braindead gerbil.

How one person can be so incredibly wrong in every conceivable way is completely beyond me.

[Deathjam|wee]

how the **** did one of meh threads get to 5 ****ing pages, u bunch of stupid political ****heads

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

perhaps united states' account of history and europes "account" of history is different.. Because i have found things that support your arguements, but i have also read, seen, heard, discussed, what my history teachers have been teach us for years, even in college. . Case in point, the article about earths, roundness. Im assuming thats its credible alhtough its impossible to tell. It could just be some one elses attention. But regardless... havent we all had enough of this thread.

What is wrong with you? This isn't a matter of opinion. In history either something happened or it didn't (and my god nobody bring up quantum physics here or I'll kill you). If there's support for it happening and insufficient evidence to show it didn't happen then we assumed it happened. This isn't something I pulled out of my arse, go research it and you'll find it's all supported by various documents and so on. If you have any history books look at the back for the list of references and primary sources (although these are more rare in the type of history books most people outside of specific areas of historical research read) that are given. It's not my bloody opinion. It's bloody history.

[Deepflow]

hahhahaah!

im in my 'natural state' as jonny would say.

qdeathstar... wheeeeee

feudalism, anarchy.!

hoorah!

you see, that post still made more sense than all yours combined.

[Qdeathstar]

What is wrong with you? This isn't a matter of opinion. In history either something happened or it didn't

I said Account. Not oppinion. You cant know exactly what happend, so it has to be an account. Why do you think there are so many different bible. Because there are different accounts of how to translate them. Somewhat close.....

And as far as you not being able to comprehend what i have said..thats unfortunate for you. Read my posts again, while looking at the bigger picture.

[JonnyBGood]

The bible doesn't have sufficient evidence supporting it due to the paucity of written reports on the events it describes at that time. This is an entirely different state of affairs where a huge portion of the population has believed something that is quite untrue for many years. This, unlike the bible, is historically documented, well researched and backed up by a huge number of primary sources from the time periods in question.

And what ****ing bigger picture? You're worse than those shit trolls that used to come on here and tell everyone to "think outside the box".

[Nodrog]

I dont think the feudalism == anarchy point is really that ludicrous to be honest. I doubt that a left-wing commune based anarchy such as some proposed variants of anarcho-syndicalism would be that recognisably different from feudalism, on some communes at least. Obviously names and titles would be different (the role of Knight/Baron would be repaced by 'representitives of the people', and the serfs would be called 'civilians' or whatever), but the essential structure could be pretty much identical.

All land is 'owned' (but people pretend noone owns it) by a very small group (who claim it 'on behalf of the people'). No serfs ('civilians') can 'own' any land and work for themselves, but instead have to use the government (but its not actually a government!) owned (that isnt actually owned!) land and donate most of their earnings to the landowners (who then distribute it to the community). In return, there is military protection and other shenanigans involved, such as the government (that isnt actually a government) providing social welfare and suchlike. People arent classed as owning themselves, but exist only for the community (ie for the 'representatives of the people'), and their work takes the form of whatever the community (ie the representatives) declares that it 'needs'.

We arent exactly talking opposite ends of the spectrum here. Feudalism seems to be almost the perfect example of what some leftists (especially leftist anarchists) want society to look like.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

do you envisage feudal england as manors surrounded by hordes of rampaging barbarians? They had a few less freedoms than those given today actually, how many from the UN charter of human rights (or whatever) do you think they actually enjoyed?

I'm not convinced that talking about what rights they actually had is particularly relevant in a discussion about the structure of society - what seems to be important is where the rights are derived from and what mechanisms are in place to defend them. Under feudalism, serfs had whatever rights their owners chose to give them, which would be pretty much the exact same scenario as that arising under anarcho-syndicalism..

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

What is wrong with you? This isn't a matter of opinion. In history either something happened or it didn't (and my god nobody bring up quantum physics here or I'll kill you). If there's support for it happening and insufficient evidence to show it didn't happen then we assumed it happened. This isn't something I pulled out of my arse, go research it and you'll find it's all supported by various documents and so on. If you have any history books look at the back for the list of references and primary sources (although these are more rare in the type of history books most people outside of specific areas of historical research read) that are given. It's not my bloody opinion. It's bloody history.

I think it's only Marxists that still believe in objective history outside of interpretation mang

I dont think its exactly controversial to suggest that different cultures may frame historical events in (both minorly and radically) different ways.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I think it's only Marxists that still believe in objective history outside of interpretation mang

You're confusing causal explanations of history (eg the marxist version of the history of capitalism) with actual events (eg Columbus sailing across the Atlantic, WWII occurring, the vast majority of educated people not believing in the flat earth theory at any point).

Edit for your edit: Yeah but you'll rarely find someone who denies the accepted facts. As in we all accept that at Verdun huge numbers of French and German soldiers died but we don't all agree on the why and the whether or not it was worth it.

PS What you described was not anarchy

[Qdeathstar]

finally someone has gotten what i was trying to say about that one issue.


When i say big picture, i mean dont pick a sentence out of the argument and destroy the sentence. Thats pointless, instead focus on the arguemnt. The argument may crap, but dont tell what i spelt wrong, your not a robot. Is all. Some people have tendency to do that. And it gets on my nerves, because it doesnt add to the conversation.

PPS. Being that there was an extreamly high-rate of illiiteracy during the times of fuedalism, other than the church, written records were also scarce. Additionaly, i wasnt argueing the vadility of the bible, just the fact that their are different accounts of what actually happend. Let me come with another example. If your on the earth, the moon rises, if your on the moon, the earth rises. One event occured, but it was accounted differently depending on where you were. Explaining why their could be a difference between the veiwpoints of what the actual truth was. Dont you get it, i was telling you that you may be right, from your perspective, becaus i had found items online that support what you are saying. However, i had been taught, and have read publications that support my view as well. So what can explain this, differing perspectives. Perhaps if you would try beign just a bit less combative..

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

You're confusing causal explanations of history (eg the marxist version of the history of capitalism) with actual events (eg Columbus sailing across the Atlantic, WWII occurring, the vast majority of educated people not believing in the flat earth theory at any point).

The significance, casuality, and indeed occurrance, of events can be (and often is) interpreted in radically different ways.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

PS What you described was not anarchy

It was a type of (leftist) anarchy

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

The significance, casuality, and indeed occurrance, of events can be (and often is) interpreted in radically different ways.

I think it's safe to say that one of them, if not both, is wrong though. I mean maybe it didn't happen. Could be a giant conspiracy involving all other six billion people but for reasons of accuracy if there's sufficient proof and a lack of contradictory evidence it's fairly safe to assume these events occurred. Of course in some sort of Hume/Berkeleyist world we'd assume nothing and science would be ridiculed as much as religion or history but that's hardly going to accomplish anything. For the purposes of historical debates some events did occur and some didn't. This doesn't apply to all areas of history but in this case it's perfectly applicable.

It was a type of (leftist) anarchy

Christ, what do people get away with calling anarchy these days? Although to be honest the system you described could be used to relate leftist anarchy with pretty much any form of government, communism, capitalism, totalitarianism. I mean wow, different forms of government are similar to each other, someone call the President!

If your on the earth, the moon rises, if your on the moon, the earth rises. One event occured, but it was accounted differently depending on where you were. Explaining why their could be a difference between the veiwpoints of what the actual truth was. Dont you get it, i was telling you that you may be right, from your perspective, becaus i had found items online that support what you are saying. However, i had been taught, and have read publications that support my view as well. So what can explain this, differing perspectives. Perhaps if you would try beign just a bit less combative..

And then someone would come along and tell us we were both wrong and take us out in his spaceship and show us what's actually happening. The thing is most of the books you have read on this issue probably don't go into enough detail and don't support themselves adequately on this particular question. What you're doing is telling me pigs can fly because you read it somewhere. I'm throwing pigs off a tall building and thinking you're talking crap. Y'know?

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Christ, what do people get away with calling anarchy these days? Although to be honest the system you described could be used to relate leftist anarchy with pretty much any form of government, communism, capitalism, totalitarianism. I mean wow, different forms of government are similar to each other, someone call the President!

How is medium scale communal living with no private proprety rights fundamentally different from feudalism, aside from nomenclature.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I think it's safe to say that one of them, if not both, is wrong though. I mean maybe it didn't happen. Could be a giant conspiracy involving all other six billion people but for reasons of accuracy if there's sufficient proof and a lack of contradictory evidence it's fairly safe to assume these events occurred. Of course in some sort of Hume/Berkeleyist world we'd assume nothing and science would be ridiculed as much as religion or history but that's hardly going to accomplish anything. For the purposes of historical debates some events did occur and some didn't. This doesn't apply to all areas of history but in this case it's perfectly applicable.

What are 'these events'? You make it sound like reality divides itself up into easily digestible chunks. Even the decision to give something the importance of being called a 'historical event' is radically subjective, let alone their interpretation.