[Truth To Power]

You probably should do a little more reading about those "Edicts."

<yawn> No, you should. Watch:

Here's a fairly detailed report on them.

No it's not. That report is only about the Diocletian persecution, a completely different subject, and not the Edicts at all. Your claim is just baldly false.

It seems the Edicts were a massive religious persecution

No, that's false: only the persecution was religious persecution. That's why the Wikipedia article you linked was the one on, "Diocletian PERSECUTION" and not "Edicts of Diocletian." You tried to change the subject, and I caught you red-handed.

GET IT???

... I don't doubt you want to wiggle some sort of "Feudal" implication into it ... so why don't you try?

Why are you disingenuously trying to pretend that the Edicts -- which largely concerned economic policy -- were the same as the persecution?

your argument wiggles like a hula girl who's had to much poi

No, you are the one trying to change the subject, as I just proved.

[Zamuel]

<yawn> No, you should. Watch:

No it's not. That report is only about the Diocletian persecution, a completely different subject, and not the Edicts at all.

If you look, you will find that it covers all 4 "Edicts" in depth. The persecution -IS- what the Edicts are about ... not feudal reformation.

No, that's false: only the persecution was religious persecution.

Zam

[Truth To Power]

If you look, you will find that it covers all 4 "Edicts" in depth.

Huh?? "All four" edicts, you say?? BWAHAHHAAAA!! Are you really that innocent of Roman history? Diocletian issued literally HUNDREDS of edicts and rescripts, probably more than any other emperor, and only FOUR of them -- the ones described in the Wikipedia article on the PERSECUTIONS that you cited -- related to persecution of Christians. The rest covered many aspects of Roman law and administration, from price controls and taxation to coinage to the organization of provinces and the army, etc., etc. You are just objectively wrong. You will find that happening a lot, as long as you presume to dispute with me.

The persecution -IS- what the Edicts are about ... not feudal reformation.

No, you are just flat wrong. The vast majority of Diocletian's edicts, including the ones binding serfs to the land, had nothing to do with persecuting Christians. You are proving yourself to be an utter buffoon. So watch in good health:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiP14ED28CA

Clear?

[Zamuel]

Huh?? "All four" edicts, you say?? BWAHAHHAAAA!! Are you really that innocent of Roman history? Diocletian issued literally HUNDREDS of edicts and rescripts, probably more than any other emperor.

Sure, that's what administrators do ... However - you refered to "THE" Diocletian Edicts. "The" significant ones ... and These are them. You do seem reluctant to give direct reference and citation ... don't you? You've had a whole string of posts in which to do so ... and declined.

In retro spect

Zam

[Truth To Power]

Sure, that's what administrators do ...

Thank you for agreeing that you were objectively wrong again.

However - you refered to "THE" Diocletian Edicts. "The" significant ones ...

No, that's just you makin' $#!+ up again. The Edicts of Diocletian are all the edicts Diocletian issued, and I did not even mention the persecution edicts, let alone restrict the reference to them.

and These are them.

NO THEY ARE NOT. You are OBJECTIVELY WRONG. Those are ONLY the Christian persecution edicts, and they are ONLY considered more "significant" than Diocletian's numerous other edicts by Christians, because Christianity later became the official religion of the Empire and Europe. Here is the REAL most significant edict, the only one to have its own Wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_on_Maximum_Prices

You are AGAIN PROVED OBJECTIVELY WRONG.

You stand refuted, destroyed, humiliated. Why do you do this to yourself? You know that I am going to prove you wrong, that you will be reduced to trying to rescue your false claims with ever falser claims, and the end result will inevitably be your utter disgrace and humiliation.

You do seem reluctant to give direct reference and citation ... don't you?

No, that's just you makin' $#!+ up again. I usually only give references for facts that ordinarily educated people might not know. In this case, anyone with an ordinary education knows the Edicts of Diocletian embrace far more than the four Christian persecution edicts.

You've had a whole string of posts in which to do so ... and declined.

No, I just never imagined anyone could be so ignorant of history that they would need these facts referenced.

In fact, I invite all readers to Google "Edict of Diocletian" for themselves, and confirm that virtually all the hits are about the edict on prices, not the persecution edicts.

See? You are again refuted, demolished and humiliated. As you deserve.

[Zamuel]

Those are ONLY the Christian persecution edicts, and they are ONLY considered more "significant" than Diocletian's numerous other edicts by Christians

No, they are considered "significant" by historians (of many religious persuasions.)

The Edict you refer to "Edict on prices" is of such relevance that your own reference declares:

By the end of Diocletian's reign in 305, the Edict was for all practical purposes ignored.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_on_Maximum_Prices

I shall also note that it says absolutely nothing about land ownership, feudalism, or slaves / serfs ... This is supposed to be a reference? a citation ? Keep trying, keep wiggling !

Just to keep things in a Roman frame of reference

Zam

[Truth To Power]

Why do you do this to yourself, Zam? You know I am just going to demolish and humiliate you for your ignorance, disingenuousness and presumption again, as you deserve.

No, they are considered "significant" by historians (of many religious persuasions.)

But only because they were a dead letter within a decade (Edict of Milan, 313 CE), and Christianity became the Empire's official religion soon after. If they had been effective, Christianity and the Persecution Edicts would both be forgotten.

The Edict you refer to "Edict on prices" is of such relevance that your own reference declares:

BWAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!

No, invariably demolished one, it is of such relevance that unlike any of the persecution edicts, it has its own Wikipedia article, and accounts for almost all Google hits from "Edict of Diocletian." It is considered an instructive early example of regulatory failure. Hello?

I shall also note that it says absolutely nothing about land ownership, feudalism, or slaves / serfs ... This is supposed to be a reference? a citation ?

Yes, because I only cited it to disprove your absurdly uninformed claim that the Edicts of Diocletian refers only to the Persecution Edicts, not to the vast number of his other edicts and rescripts, including the ones establishing serfdom.

Keep trying, keep wiggling !

You are the one wiggling, squirming, and trying desperately to escape the hook of your own absurdly uninformed falsehoods, champ, and I will thank you to remember it.

Just to keep things in a Roman frame of reference

<yawn> Here's a Roman frame of reference quoting Will Durant, a Nobel laureate in Literature for his histories:

"Medieval feudalism, Durant argues, finds its chief root in the restrictions that Diocletian and his successors imposed as they attempted to tie people to the land in order to prevent them from fleeing:
"It was probably to check this costly mobility, to ensure a proper flow of food to armies and cities, and of taxes to the state, that Diocletian resorted to measures that in effect established serfdom in fields, factories, and guilds."

https://fee.org/articles/the-roman-road ... l-serfdom/

"The difference between a peasant and a serf is that the serf is ‘tied to the land’. The peasant can, at least in theory, move around, to another land holding or more frequently to the town; but the serf may not, he is tied. And this difference came about in the reforms of Diocletian."

http://www.civilization.org.uk/decline- ... tian/serfs

See? You are again demolished and humiliated for your despicable and disgraceful behavior. Really, at this point, if you have any shame (which you all too obviously do not), you will kneel in a cesspool and slit your belly to atone for your monstrous, nauseating attempts to justify your false and evil beliefs by distracting readers from the facts -- facts so well known, you can even find them in a high school history quiz:

Diocletian
...
- Economic Reforms: drained public funds so issued a price edict, failed; forced occupations, labor shortages, free farmers became bound to the land, serfdom began

https://quizlet.com/149637174/western-c ... ash-cards/

Stick a fork in yourself, Zam: you are just so, so done.

[Zamuel]

:roll: Why do you do this to yourself, Zam? You know I am just going to demolish and humiliate you.

Your ego is as absurd as your assertions ...

Amongst his other failures, Diocletian tried to create and enforce a controlled economy ... you quote a dubious forth party source that offers an opinion on a third parties passing mention -"It was probably" (which BTW - is not an argument, as you assert.)

You still haven't produced any credible references or citations

BWAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!

Spoken exactly like the third graders I know, do you slobber too?

Diocletian did his bit in the early 300s (AD) ... Feudalism became firmly rooted around 900 (AD).
That's only 5 or 6 hundred years later. Time to wiggle some more ...

Why do you do this to yourself, ttp?

Zam

[Truth To Power]

Your ego is as absurd as your assertions ...

I have demolished and humiliated you utterly for your deceitful and despicable behavior.

Amongst his other failures, Diocletian tried to create and enforce a controlled economy ...

Oh, OK, thank you for finally admitting that you were FLAT, OUTRIGHT WRONG, and I was OBJECTIVELY RIGHT when you claimed his edicts were limited to persecuting Christians and I informed you of the facts.

Doesn't it feel good, a blessed relief, when you confess your sin and admit that you were wrong and your behavior was disingenuous and disgraceful, and that your moral and intellectual superior was right, and has treated you with far greater kindness and consideration than you could ever deserve?

you quote a dubious

Another bald falsehood from you. The notion that YOU would call WILL DURANT a "dubious" source is grotesque. Google his name, then kneel in a cesspool and slit your belly in partial expiation of your disgrace.

forth party source

Another bald falsehood from you. In contrast to my IMPECCABLE sources, you have offered NOTHING WHATEVER to support your ever falser and more absurd claims.

that offers an opinion

Another bald falsehood from you. It states the facts, as I invite readers to confirm for themselves.

on a third parties passing mention -"It was probably" (which BTW - is not an argument, as you assert.)

More bald falsehoods. It was not a passing mention but the gravamen of his findings, and the "It was probably" was in reference to Diocletian's REASONS for establishing serfdom, which we can never be certain of, and not the FACT that he established it, which is uncontroversial historical fact, as I proved to you with sourced references.

You still haven't produced any credible references or citations

Another bald falsehood from you, as I invite all readers to confirm for themselves.

You are a disgrace. If aliens were to come to earth and find you among the population, they would immediately destroy the planet to try to contain the stench of your existence.

Spoken exactly like the third graders I know,

The ones who are tutoring you in European history...?

do you slobber too?

BWAHAHHAAAAA!!! This, from YOU, who have nothing to offer but infantile and swinish little videos as a substitute for fact, logic and honesty??

Diocletian did his bit in the early 300s (AD) ... Feudalism became firmly rooted around 900 (AD).

No, that is just your objectively false and permanently unsupported opinion again. I already proved to you with sourced references that Diocletian established the foundation of feudalism: the legal attachment of serfs to the land.

That's only 5 or 6 hundred years later.

In your unsupported opinion, which is known to be false.

Time to wiggle some more ...

<yawn> You are the one who has been wiggling, wriggling, and squirming to get off the hook of your own spew of deceitful filth, and everyone reading this knows it, including you.

Why do you do this to yourself, ttp?

<yawn> Aren't you tired yet of being bent over and getting your bottom striped with my cane?

[Zamuel]

Another bald falsehood from you. The notion that YOU would call WILL DURANT a "dubious" source is grotesque.

I didn't ... I refered to the forth party, who wrote the citation you posted as "dubious." Durant made a once sentence reference to there "probably" being a connection with feudalism in a book that otherwise ignores feudalism complete ... WOW ... empirical proof!

your wiggling is failing to impress.

Maybe this will inspire you.

Zam

[Truth To Power]

I didn't ... I refered to the forth party, who wrote the citation you posted as "dubious."

But that was also nothing but false, scurrilous and disgraceful filth from you. The Foundation for Economic Education has been a respected institution for many decades, and counts numerous eminent people among its contributors and directors, including Nobel laureates in economics. The author of the article in question is Donald Boudreaux:
Donald J. Boudreaux is a senior fellow with the F.A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, a Mercatus Center Board Member, and a professor of economics and former economics-department chair at George Mason University. He holds the Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism at the Mercatus Center. He specializes in globalization and trade, law and economics, and antitrust economics.

"Dubious"? You are a joke and a disgrace.

Durant made a once sentence reference to there "probably" being a connection with feudalism

No, that's also false, as I already proved to you. The "probably" was in reference to Diocletian's likely reason for establishing the legal attachment of serfs to the land that characterizes feudalism, not the indisputable fact that he did it, which my other sources also confirmed.

in a book that otherwise ignores feudalism complete ... WOW ... empirical proof!

No, you are again just spewing outright falsehoods. The book was Volume III of Durant's monumental Story of Civilization, and the very next volume, The Age of Faith, of course treats feudalism and its roots in Roman law and Diocletian's reign in exhaustive detail.

So your despicable garbage is again refuted, as always.

your wiggling is failing to impress.

BWAHAHAHAHAAAA!! I haven't wiggled; you have, prodigiously and relentlessly, and you know it.

Your infantile practice of posting irrelevant videos as if they somehow supported your falsehoods or contradicted my statements of fact effectively proves that you know you are offering nothing but bull$#!+.

[Zamuel]

The "probably" was in reference to Diocletian's likely reason

Oh good, it's both "Probably - AND - Likely" ... now we're getting some where !

[i]The Age of Faith, of course treats feudalism and its roots in Roman law and Diocletian's reign in exhaustive detail.

And of course this book, (the one you refer to but haven't quoted) it explains the 5 or 6 hundred years between Diocletian's death (both literally and influentially) and the emergence of actual feudalism ... ? He was just playing checkers with St. Peter until then I suppose ... "probably?"

you are offering nothing but bull$#!+.

I am offering only the observation that your assertion is ridiculous, absurb, and unsupported. If you're smelling BS, it's your own.

Wiggle away ... yea-hah

Zam

[Truth To Power]

Oh good, it's both "Probably - AND - Likely" ... now we're getting some where !

We can't say for sure why Diocletian established the legal basis for feudalism, but it is certain that he did it, as I proved to you with references whose credibility you cannot dispute (denying is not disputing, sorry).

And of course this book, (the one you refer to but haven't quoted) it explains the 5 or 6 hundred years between Diocletian's death (both literally and influentially) and the emergence of actual feudalism ... ?

No, because feudalism began long before you claim, even as the Western Empire fell in the 5th century.

He was just playing checkers with St. Peter until then I suppose ... "probably?"

No, your claim that feudalism didn't emerge until the 9th century is just objectively false.

I am offering only the observation that your assertion is ridiculous, absurb, and unsupported.

But as with all your other "observations," that is just objectively false. I have supported it with indisputable facts, and you have not provided ANYTHING WHATEVER to the contrary.

If you're smelling BS, it's your own.

I see it, and it's all from you:

Wiggle away ... yea-hah

See? You continue to wriggle, squirm, and post silly videos in your desperate attempts to evade the hook of your own false and disingenuous nonsense.

[Zamuel]

We can't say for sure why Diocletian established the legal basis for feudalism, but it is certain that he did it, as I proved to you with references whose credibility you cannot dispute (denying is not disputing, sorry).

So lets see, you've got one guy ... who's an economist, not a Historian ... who you think is "probably" saying feudalism started in 300 AD. And I've got the entire population of academic historians who say it "Definitely" began in the late 800s and early 900s AD ... Hmmmm I'd say you've been disputed. But hey why don't you wiggle that around a while and see what you can come up with ...

... a perk for you to wiggle it by ...

Zam

[Unthinking Majority]

And the problem is, some people are way smarter than others. And those people take advantageous of those of us who aren't as smart.

How is that fair? How is it fair that say someone like me, for example, who isn't very bright, can't figure out how to make money, but someone else who was born with skills that I don't have (such as intelligence) can use his brain to get rich? How is it fair that I can struggle and work really damn hard every damn day without anything to show for it, whereas someone who is a genius can work way more effectively with way less effort? Does he really deserve to have more than me?

Yes they do deserve more. Their work is more valuable, they are adding more value to the economy. How is it fair that they don't get more? Doctors are more valuable than medical secretaries and medical lab technicians, and their pay is reflected. Steve Jobs was more valuable than the people at Apple who cleaned the bathrooms. Rewarding achievement & value has been remarkably successful at creating incentive to attain those achievements.

[One Degree]

The people who clean the bathrooms are just as valuable as Jobs. His business would fall apart if all the bathrooms were filthy.
He is being rewarded for his contributions to capitalism, not for his value as a person.
The two are separate and it is silly to compare them. If you are unhappy with cleaning bathrooms, then do something else. If you choose to determine fairness based upon economic success, then that is a choice you make.

[Zamuel]

He is being rewarded for his contributions to capitalism, not for his value as a person.

Quite right.

Capitalism aims to produce progress, not fairness or equality. Democracy has been perverted by it to achieve it's goal. It works ... it produced an unbelievable jump in physical progress while social progress has lagged far behind.

Communism and Socialism are reactionary, they attempt to heal the wounds of Capitalism, which by its nature, continues to injure the social dynamic in the name of progress it can no longer produce. It's last great effort is now squarely aimed at creating real AI. Artificial intelligence will lay capitalism in it's grave and create a "New Dynamic" to replace it. None of us can predict exactly what it will do, because it doesn't exist yet. Maybe it can restore democracy and equality ... cross your fingers.

Zam

[Agent Steel]

Yes they do deserve more. Their work is more valuable, they are adding more value to the economy. How is it fair that they don't get more? Doctors are more valuable than medical secretaries and medical lab technicians, and their pay is reflected. Steve Jobs was more valuable than the people at Apple who cleaned the bathrooms. Rewarding achievement & value has been remarkably successful at creating incentive to attain those achievements.

I see what you're saying, but how is it fair that the people who try the hardest end up with the least (in some cases)?

[Pants-of-dog]

I see what you're saying, but how is it fair that the people who try the hardest end up with the least (in some cases)?

It is not fair.

It is not supposed to be fair.

It is supposed to be profitable.

[Crantag]

Here's the trouble with inheritance.

Business (or for that matter basic life) enterprise basically has to do with the conducting of series of tasks. In the case of most enterprises, the series of tasks are complex in nature.

For sake of simplicity, consider the task of digging holes as the model enterprise.

Say digging holes is the main enterprise for the propensity of society's members.

It is as if the vast majority can afford just a modest shovel to accomplish this task.

The wealthy minority however can afford backhoes and other sorts of machinery.

The desperately poor though have to make do with their hands to dig their holes.

Nevertheless, all are free to dig their holes and to dig their holes to the best of their ability. The harder they dig, a voice beckons, the more dug holes they will have to enjoy.

Therefore, the society is equal.

Except that it isn't.