[Truth To Power]

... already did that ...

No you didn't.

Recall that landownership / feudalism allowed the population growth that enabled progress to industrialization.

That must be why when Roman government disappeared from Western Europe and was replaced by feudalism, the population declined by 1/4 over the next century....

A vital link in the chain leading to modern society. Slavery on the other hand was a regression to barbarity, it added nothing positive to the rise of humanity.

No, landowning was a quick and dirty solution to the problem of securing property in fixed improvements, just as slavery was a quick and dirty solution to the problem of labor shortage resulting from warfare. The quick and dirty solutions were better than no solution, but today we know there are better solutions.

The alternative to slavery was to kill captives so they could never fight you again. That wasted labor, which was often very scarce after a war, and kept population small. Evil as it was, slavery was better than genocide, and definitely added enormously to the rise of humanity. Classical civilization was built on slavery.

Likewise, the alternative to landowning was violating the property rights of those who made fixed improvements. That made investment in fixed improvements too risky, keeping production and population down and poverty high. Evil as it was, landowning was better than the permanent poverty and intermittent starvation of hunter-gatherer and nomadic-herding economies; so like slavery, it definitely added to the rise of humanity.

Alexander and the Romans had begun to learn that assimilation was more efficient than slavery, but they did not know how to manage it. Today we know that trading with or assimilating defeated enemies works way better than enslaving them. Similarly, we know that requiring landholders to make just compensation to the community of those whom they deprive of the land works way better than just giving them something for nothing.

Maybe Mr. T's ( ) attitude can be attributed to it (indirectly). I guess maybe "The -A- Team" was before your time... He called everybody he respected enough to speak to "fool." Good show, but you probably wouldn't have liked it, hard on delicate sensibilities I suppose.

It was actually pretty silly. I was never a big fan of George Peppard.

Yep ... good ole "root of all evil" ...

The actual quote says greed -- unfortunately mistranslated as "love of money" -- is the root of all manner of evil, which is true almost by definition.

We'd still be swapping fish for beer without it.

Yeah, but without the wheel, we'd be walking or riding horses. Lack of money would certainly have been inconvenient, but not an insuperable barrier. Modern data processing technology would make it quite feasible to do without money. We CANNOT do without the wheel, clothing, mathematics, written language, etc.

[Zamuel]

That must be why when Roman government disappeared from Western Europe and was replaced by feudalism, the population declined by 1/4 over the next century.

Sure, you think the feudal society was waiting in the wings to run onstage as the Romans exited? A couple of generations and a lot of warfare (which does tend to decrease population) were necessary before an aristocracy was established and feudalism took root. Did you miss a few weeks from history class when you were young ?

If so, please note, the Romans didn't withdraw due to any organizational problems ... their colonial adventure simply wasn't profitable. They pulled out in the same manner Trump want's to exit Syria, (but keep the oil.)

Zam

[Victoribus Spolia]

@Zamuel,

Dude, don't even bother with TTP.....hes not a serious opponent, he dumps veiled insults in ad verbosium arguments sometimes made in response to single words or commas quoted from your original post that you have to tediously try to figure out what the fuck hes actually responding to.

Its pointless.

Besides, Georgists are silly.

They are the filthy half-breeds of economic theory.

[Zamuel]

@Zamuel,
Dude, don't even bother with TTP.....hes not a serious opponent, he dumps veiled insults in ad verbosium arguments sometimes made in response to single words or commas quoted from your original post that you have to tediously try to figure out what the fuck hes actually responding to.

I understand ... I respond, on a limited basis. My hopes are to offer alternative reasoning and clarify the truth for those predisposed to being misled. I'll get to the point where it's wearisome (as I am with POD) and disengage.

Thanks for the thought though.

Zam

[Victoribus Spolia]

I understand ... I respond, on a limited basis. My hopes are to offer alternative reasoning and clarify the truth for those predisposed to being misled. I'll get to the point where it's wearisome (as I am with POD) and disengage.

Thanks for the thought though.

Zam

Yeah, POD and TTP debating would be quite amusing...like two insects you'd like to put in a jar and shake rapidly too see which one comes out on top.

[Zamuel]

Yeah, POD and TTP debating would be quite amusing...like two insects you'd like to put in a jar and shake rapidly too see which one comes out on top.

I seem to recall a few such debates from them a few years back ... Like two posts were a complete Pofo page ...

Zam

[Victoribus Spolia]

Like two posts were a complete Pofo page

I can see it now

TTP: "Your are perpetuating injustice! Everything you say is false, I destroyed you! <Yawn>"

POD: "Please provide evidence for this claim. Thanks"

[Truth To Power]

Dude, don't even bother with TTP.....hes not a serious opponent, he dumps veiled insults in ad verbosium arguments sometimes made in response to single words or commas quoted from your original post that you have to tediously try to figure out what the fuck hes actually responding to.

No, I quote what I am responding to directly, verbatim, and in context, so it is always easy to see what I am responding to.

Its pointless.

If you prefer to be ignorant and evil.

Besides, Georgists are silly.

I'm not a Georgist. What's silly -- and disingenuous -- is calling people Georgists when they aren't, as a smear tactic.

They are the filthy half-breeds of economic theory.

Gaining both the liberty and productivity of capitalism and the justice and equal individual rights of socialism.

I can see it now

TTP: "Your are perpetuating injustice! Everything you say is false, I destroyed you! <Yawn>"

POD: "Please provide evidence for this claim. Thanks"

Except for the spelling mistake, that's actually pretty good.

PoD's problem is that he thinks a url, any url, is evidence for his claims, but nothing is ever evidence for the opposing claims.

[Truth To Power]

Sure, you think the feudal society was waiting in the wings to run onstage as the Romans exited?

Yes, it most definitely was. The roots of feudalism were deep in the Roman landowning system. For example, in the Late Empire, large landowners often maintained substantial standing armies, just as feudal landowners would after the fall of the Western Empire. European feudalism actually began with the Edicts of Diocletian in the early 4th century, which attached serfs (coloni) to the land. This measure was taken to prevent abandonment of land whose tax liability exceeded its rent.

A couple of generations and a lot of warfare (which does tend to decrease population) were necessary before an aristocracy was established and feudalism took root.

Nope. The landed aristocracy and feudal institutions were already in place before Rome fell. In fact, they caused Rome's fall: the noble landowning families were exempt from taxation, which over the centuries drove all the good land into their tax-exempt hands. It was the Empire's inability to tax this land that led to imposition of economically harmful taxes, frequent resort to inflation, etc. that ruined the Late Empire's economy and led to its fall. The fact is, the tax-exempt nobles owned almost all the land, and became immensely rich thereby. As a result, the Empire could no longer afford to pay the legions, and the barbarians in most cases overran deserted fortifications that a much wiser empire had built centuries before out of land tax revenue.

Did you miss a few weeks from history class when you were young ?

You did. And more than a few. See above.

If so, please note, the Romans didn't withdraw due to any organizational problems ... their colonial adventure simply wasn't profitable.

Garbage. Almost all wealth was by then being taken by the tax-exempt landowning nobles, so the Empire had no money to pay the legions -- in defiance of Septimius Severus's famous injunction.

They pulled out in the same manner Trump want's to exit Syria, (but keep the oil.)

Flat false. The subsidy to landowners was so immense the Late Empire could not pay the legions, so the barbarians did not even have to fight them to take Rome.

[Zamuel]

The roots of feudalism were deep in the Roman landowning system.

Sorry, no, slavery did not beget feudalism

For example, in the Late Empire, large landowners often maintained substantial standing armies, just as feudal landowners would after the fall of the Western Empire.

Wrong again ... The maintenance of "private troops" was tantamount to treason under Roman law.

Feudal Aristocracy didn't actually own any lands. The crown owned everything and "entrusted" it to aristocrats who promised to provide trained and drilled troops and bowmen. They also guaranteed the crown specific "rents." for the property they controlled. This system was pyramidal down through the level of lords to the local Yeomanry who oversaw small sections of real estate.

Please try and discover what you are talking about before displaying your misleading stories.

Zam

[annatar1914]

Zam, do try to give other people the benefit of a doubt. For example, your comment here;

Sorry, no, slavery did not beget feudalism

Actually, It kind of did. The Latifundia System, look it up.

Wrong again ... The maintenance of "private troops" was tantamount to treason under Roman law.

No, you are incorrect just a bit. Sure, under Roman Law it was illegal to have private troops, but the time in question is the late period of the Western half of the Roman Empire, everything was getting privatized under the strain of West Roman collapse.

Feudal Aristocracy didn't actually own any lands. The crown owned everything and "entrusted" it to aristocrats who promised to provide trained and drilled troops and bowmen. They also guaranteed the crown specific "rents." for the property they controlled. This system was pyramidal down through the level of lords to the local Yeomanry who oversaw small sections of real estate.

De Jure, this may be true about the Feudal Aristocracy, but de Facto, they owned the land as sure as the sun rises in the East and sets in the West.

Please try and discover what you are talking about before displaying your misleading stories.

Zam

No need to be rude or condescending to other contributors.

[Truth To Power]

Sorry, no, slavery did not beget feudalism

I said the landowning system, not the person owning system. Do you really expect to be taken seriously after such a blatant strawman?

Wrong again ... The maintenance of "private troops" was tantamount to treason under Roman law.

No, I am correct, you are objectively wrong:

https://arizona.openrepository.com/bits ... sequence=1

The Late Empire had no power to enforce the traditional ban on private armies.

Feudal Aristocracy didn't actually own any lands.

Wrong, their ownership was often actual, just not formal. I.e., it satisfied the four defining characteristics of ownership: exclusion, control, benefit and disposition.

The crown owned everything and "entrusted" it to aristocrats who promised to provide trained and drilled troops and bowmen.

The "crown" was in fact effectively just a private landowner who discharged some of the functions of government.

They also guaranteed the crown specific "rents." for the property they controlled. This system was pyramidal down through the level of lords to the local Yeomanry who oversaw small sections of real estate.

Vassalage. So? Doesn't contradict anything I said.

Please try and discover what you are talking about before displaying your misleading stories.

<yawn> As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

And that's in addition to the spanking annatar1914 gave you.

[Zamuel]

No, you are incorrect just a bit. Sure, under Roman Law it was illegal to have private troops.

Geeze I've put worms on hooks that wiggle less than you and TTP ...
Treason is Treason ... or it was until you guys got involved.

No need to be rude or condescending to other contributors.

OK, when you contribute something I'll consider that.

I said the landowning system, not the person owning system.

I'm pretty sure most 6th graders can confirm for you that the "Serfs" came with the land. Which, as previously mentioned, the tenants did not own, but worked for the lords, who acted as custodians for the King. Find yourself a 6th grader, you're boring me.

Zam

[annatar1914]

Geeze I've put worms on hooks that wiggle less than you and TTP ...
Treason is Treason ... or it was until you guys got involved.

''Treason'' against what, pray tell? A Gallo-Roman Landowner, with self sufficient estates in Gaul or Spain, has an increasingly feeble government that cannot defend him or his interests, and plenty of bandits and barbarians to deal with. So, he raises his own troops, and/or makes a deal with the barbarians and bandits of some sort, something which saves his property for the future of his progeny, something on a small scale that his ''government'' does on a larger scale.

Sound familiar? It should... There is no Treason against government when government does not exist.

OK, when you contribute something I'll consider that.

I'm not beholden to you for judgement of what I say or do, or anyone mortal, none of us are. I have a responsibility before God, or History if you prefer, that I might say or do things of value and merit for the judgement of God and future generations. That not all of us of this generation were spoiled and arrogant self absorbed morons. Some might find what I say useful if not wise, or if not useful or wise, a set of opinions that indicate things are much more serious than your flippant and silly replies would warrant. To me, you're just whistling past a graveyard, metaphorically/politically speaking.

[Truth To Power]

Geeze I've put worms on hooks that wiggle less than you and TTP ...

We'll see who has been wiggling:

Treason is Treason ... or it was until you guys got involved.

Good start on the wiggling. The fact is, both Julius and Augustus got their start raising private armies when they were still teenagers. Treason...?

OK, when you contribute something I'll consider that.

He has contributed more of value than you. By far.

I'm pretty sure most 6th graders can confirm for you that the "Serfs" came with the land.

But when you bought slaves, land did not come with them. So serfs were part of the landowning system, not landowning part of the slavery system. Proving that I am objectively right and you were objectively wrong.

Which, as previously mentioned, the tenants did not own, but worked for the lords, who acted as custodians for the King.

Wrong again. Roman law was the first to consider land as private property. It was not owned by the Emperor in any way. Feudal tenure binding serfs to the land emerged only with the Edicts of Diocletian.

Find yourself a 6th grader, you're boring me.

<yawn> I'm the one who has been schooling you, pal, and I will thank you to remember it.

[Zamuel]

Wrong again. Roman law was the first to consider land as private property. It was not owned by the Emperor in any way.

That's the stupidest assertion I've heard in a long time ... The concept of private property goes back at least as far as Noah ... (not a paid advertisement.) Land wasn't owned by the empire. TRUE - Rome was not a feudal society. AND - it was a system of slavery, not servitude (very different things.)

I'm the one who has been schooling you, pal, and I will thank you to remember it.

Ha-ha ... TTP's school of wiggling ... No thanks.

[Zamuel]

''Treason'' against what, pray tell? A Gallo-Roman Landowner, with self sufficient estates in Gaul or Spain, has an increasingly feeble government that cannot defend him or his interests, and plenty of bandits and barbarians to deal with. So, he raises his own troops.

No. He petitions the regional governor for permission to raise a personal guard of specified and limited size. If his petition is granted it's likely a legionnaire or two are assigned to train the guard and insure the maintenance of Roman authority. WAY different than raising a private army.

Sound familiar? It should... There is no Treason against government when government does not exist.

The Roman government definitely existed and guarded it's prerogatives jealously.

you're just whistling past a graveyard, metaphorically/politically speaking.

That whistling you hear is just the leaking of the windbag ...

Zam

[annatar1914]

No. He petitions the regional governor for permission to raise a personal guard of specified and limited size. If his petition is granted it's likely a legionnaire or two are assigned to train the guard and insure the maintenance of Roman authority. WAY different than raising a private army.


The Roman government definitely existed and guarded it's prerogatives jealously.


That whistling you hear is just the leaking of the windbag ...

Zam

I'm talking about the late Roman Empire, as it's civilization was crumbling, law and order crumbling, and you're engaging in fantasy roleplaying. Oh well, you've never had much of consequence to say anyway and why should today be any different?

[Truth To Power]

That's the stupidest assertion I've heard in a long time ...

It is fact. Obviously.

The concept of private property goes back at least as far as Noah ...

To the Paleolithic, no doubt. But not private property in land. See Leviticus 25:23.

Land wasn't owned by the empire.

Thanks for admitting I was right and you were wrong.

TRUE - Rome was not a feudal society.

But by privatizing landowning and then legally attaching serfs to the land, it set the stage for feudalism.

AND - it was a system of slavery, not servitude (very different things.)

But it introduced serfdom and thus feudalism with the Edicts of Diocletian, binding serfs to the land.

Ha-ha ... TTP's school of wiggling ... No thanks.

<yawn> I don't wiggle; you have to, and you know it. Simple.

[Zamuel]

But it introduced serfdom and thus feudalism with the Edicts of Diocletian, binding serfs to the land.

You probably should do a little more reading about those "Edicts." Here's a fairly detailed report on them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletianic_Persecution The Diocletianic or Great Persecution was the last and most severe persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire.[1] In 303, the Emperors Diocletian, Maximian, Galerius, and Constantius issued a series of edicts rescinding Christians' legal rights and demanding that they comply with traditional religious practices. Later edicts targeted the clergy and demanded universal sacrifice, ordering all inhabitants to sacrifice to the gods.

It seems the Edicts were a massive religious persecution ... I don't doubt you want to wiggle some sort of "Feudal" implication into it ... so why don't you try?

<yawn> I don't wiggle; you have to, and you know it. Simple.

your argument wiggles like a hula girl who's had to much poi ... (for Pofo readers: - it seems the wiggle usually starts with a yawn, but beware there's also a sneaky "covert" wiggle.)


Zam