[SolarCross]

What I for one welcome is the return of free market standards of quality on various food products like dairy. It makes logical sense for a business owner who sells milk to try to get as much return on his investment as possible (in this case, let's call getting the supply an investment) by watering down the milk or adulterating it with the preservative formaldehyde like many a shopkeeper did a century ago, giving milk that lovely shade of pale blue. No one is forcing poor people to buy toxic milk, and there's no coercion. Poors buy the blue milk freely, of their own volition. This is the beauty of free enterprise: the wondrous world of free choices and lack of coercion.

A business owner's main interest is in pleasing his customers actually, it is in this way he scores his profit. Lefties who insist that businesses should make a loss and eventually go bankrupt are literally demanding businesses fail to please their customers. I am not familiar with the historical situation regarding formaldehyde in milk a century ago but I can easily see you are misrepresenting (a usual lefty trick) the situation. A century ago there was no electric refrigeration nor had anyone yet thought to use the technique of pasteurization on milk to slow spoilage. Milk spoils fast, that isn't a capitalist conspiracy its just a natural fact. Formaldehyde as preservative was just a primitive attempt to slow spoilage. The fault was a technological one not an economic one. You probably know that but don't care for truth or fair play one iota. It is these sorts of comments that increasingly causes me to utterly despise lefties.

[Pants-of-dog]

Your problem is imaginary. I will not discuss your perverted and wildly incorrect notions about a market economy, at least not here, this thread is not about that.

I will answer your question on whether the knights will be or become "the richest of the propertied class.. etc" as it is relevant.

It seems relevant to me.

Anticlimacus makes the point that in your neo-feudalist society, the keepers of order would work in that field because it is in their economic interest to do so.

And the simplest reason why it would be in their interest to do so is if they were the richest of the propertied class and they could ensure that they would keep and expand their property by forcibly maintaining your neo-feudalist society.

I will ensure that only characters of good intentions and some spiritual inclination can join. In addition basic training will include certain meditation techniques developed by Siddhārtha Gautama (better known as the Buddha) which will ensure knights will have the very greatest moral sensibilities, fearlessness and selflessness.

Like the Buddhist military dictatorship of Burma, that raped and killed Muslims en masse?

That does not necessarily mean the order will be poor. Enterprise will be one of our sacred tasks and to the extent that we are successful in our enterprises we may indeed have wealth at our disposal. There is no evil in wealth, where there may be evil is in the manner of its acquisition and the uses to which it deployed. The knights will create wealth by virtuous means and use it for virtuous purposes, this will be guaranteed not by some principle or by some agreement but by our cultivated virtue and there is no surer guarantee than that.

Does ransacking and pillaging (traditional wealth gathering pursuits for knights) count as virtuous? What if you defined it as "liberating resources from filthy statist democrats"?

[AFAIK]

Formaldehyde as preservative was just a primitive attempt to slow spoilage.

Wiki "China milk scandal" for a more recent example (2008).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_milk_scandal

[anticlimacus]

It seems relevant to me.

Anticlimacus makes the point that in your neo-feudalist society, the keepers of order would work in that field because it is in their economic interest to do so.

And the simplest reason why it would be in their interest to do so is if they were the richest of the propertied class and they could ensure that they would keep and expand their property by forcibly maintaining your neo-feudalist society.

Exactly--and it is strange that Tax thought this was irrelevant since the Laissez-faire doctrine he seems to hold so dear is based on the principle of self-interest, not protecting the weak, which he assumes his knights would do. Why would these knights be motivated by anything other than maintaining their own propertied interests, as well as the interests of the propertied class? How would these knights protect the weak? I mean the whole free-market philosophy is based on the idea that rational self-interest will simply take care of everything by itself. All the knights would have to do is protect property, and therefore be little more than the henchmen of the wealthiest, and richest in society. If there is a poor person stealing some bread, these knights don't come in and make sure this poor person (the weak!) finds something good to eat and a suitable means of self-provision. The knights, in this aptly described "neo-fedualism", would then enforce the custom punishment for thieving, be it cutting off hands or prison or in-debt servitude.

[SolarCross]

lol at lefties. Its like some kind of sport or something to you isn't it? Randomly spewing up delusional accusations. It would be a mercy to the world to put you all out of your misery.

[Pants-of-dog]

lol at lefties. Its like some kind of sport or something to you isn't it? Randomly spewing up delusional accusations. It would be a mercy to the world to put you all out of your misery.

If by "delusional accusations", you mean "historical facts", I completely agree.

You seem to be modelling all this on European monarchies. In Europe, back when monarchs actually had power, the keepers of order were the knights. You would have them as your Vanguard Elite.

In the real actual history of the world, the knights would go around raping and pillaging and generally doing the king's (or noble's) bidding and then get paid in land and gold and titles.

This was good for the knights because the knight could increase the amount of land and gold and titles they have, and the nobles and kings thought it was good because they had more land and more power. In other words, the two groups both had financial incentives for maintaining a social order where they were on top and everybody else was basically a slave working for them.

This social order was called feudalism and if someone tried to make my society a feudal one, I would pick up a gun and shoot him in the extremely unlikely case that anyone actually listened.

[SolarCross]

This social order was called feudalism and if someone tried to make my society a feudal one, I would pick up a gun and shoot him in the extremely unlikely case that anyone actually listened.

Well I used the term chivalric order of knights. knight by itself just means soldier. Yeah soldiers are sometimes thuggish and criminal, like you precious Red Gaurds or whatever. But see how can bad soldiers be countered? There is no other way but good soldiers. Waving cardboard placards and hysterically screaming "baby killer!" is just not going to do much. What is a good soldier? It is a soldier with a moral code, a chivalric knight. I don't know why I am bothering explaining this to you, because you don't care. You are here just to troll, as usual.

[anticlimacus]

You are here just to troll, as usual.

Just because somebody disagrees with you and explains their rational and is not likely to agree with you, does not make them a troll.

[SolarCross]

Just because somebody disagrees with you and explains their rational and is not likely to agree with you, does not make them a troll.

Yeah but he is trolling and so are you. Neither of you care about doing good or helping people really, its all just a smokescreen for petty whining.

[anticlimacus]

yeah but he is trolling and so are you. Neither of you care about doing good or helping people really, its all just a smokescreen for petty whining.

now that is trolling

[Pants-of-dog]

Well I used the term chivalric order of knights. knight by itself just means soldier. Yeah soldiers are sometimes thuggish and criminal, like you precious Red Gaurds or whatever. But see how can bad soldiers be countered? There is no other way but good soldiers. Waving cardboard placards and hysterically screaming "baby killer!" is just not going to do much. What is a good soldier? It is a soldier with a moral code, a chivalric knight. I don't know why I am bothering explaining this to you, because you don't care. You are here just to troll, as usual.

"Chivalric" means "on horseback". It from the French word for horse: cheval. It has nothing to do with morality.

The chivalric code you discuss seems to be a product of the poems and romances of the late Medieval era rather than a product of the actual behaviour of Christian knights.

[SolarCross]

"Chivalric" means "on horseback". It from the French word for horse: cheval. It has nothing to do with morality.

The chivalric code you discuss seems to be a product of the poems and romances of the late Medieval era rather than a product of the actual behaviour of Christian knights.

Yes I know the etymological origins of the word.

Chivalry, or the chivalric code, is a code of conduct associated with the medieval institution of knighthood. Chivalry arose from an idealised German custom. It developed first in the north of France among horse soldiers who served in Charlemagne′s heavy cavalry. It was originally conceived of as an aristocratic warrior code — the term derives from the French term chevalerie, meaning horse soldiery — involving gallantry, individual training, and service to others. Over time its meaning has been refined to emphasise more ideals such as the knightly virtues of honour, courtly love, courtesy, and less martial aspects of the tradition.

What other pettiness would you like to share with us?

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes I know the etymological origins of the word.

So we agree thatit has nothing to do with morality. Good.

What other pettiness would you like to share with us?

Are you going to address my claims concerning the vested interests of the knights as a class that is financially interested in keeping the serfs oppressed, as history shows?

You may think that British history is petty and irrelevant, but those of us who have actually studied the history of politics and money find that it is very informative.

[SolarCross]

Are you going to address my claims concerning the vested interests of the knights as a class that is financially interested in keeping the serfs oppressed, as history shows?

You may think that British history is petty and irrelevant, but those of us who have actually studied the history of politics and money find that it is very informative.

Combine harvesters POD, combine harvesters.

[Pants-of-dog]

Combine harvesters POD, combine harvesters.

And? What does this have to do with anything?

[SolarCross]

And? What does this have to do with anything?

There will be no serfs. There will be agribusiness and professional farmers.

[Pants-of-dog]

There will be no serfs. There will be agribusiness and professional farmers.

And the wage slaves who work for the agribusiness and professional farmers will be serfs in all but name, if history has anything to teach us.

You seem to have this odd idea that feudalism will turn out to be magically different now that we no longer have bubonic plague. What you don't seem to understand is that feudalism is an economic order as well as form of gov't. If you recreate the latter (i.e. the monarchy and its hierarchy of power), you will probably recreate the former (i.e. the feudalistic economic class system). This will happen because you are recreating the incentives to have people go around and make such a class system.