- 11 Apr 2018 15:14
#14905160
Actually, you are wrong.
The very wikipedia article cited DEFINES Prima Noctis as mythical. and your references confirm the historian's critique that there are not sufficient first hand legal or authorial accounts to justify the belief in its existence. Indeed, your sources are all at least two hundred years removed from when the practice was alleged to be most widespread, and some are up to 500 years removed from the alleged time-period. There is an utter lack of first-hand source material to confirm this practice. This is why the wikipedia article and other historical commentaries have concluded the practice to be myth. Likely propaganda from republican revolutionary types.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_du_seigneur
I thought you argued that there were few private property absolutist societies because they only occurred in the midst of major government collapse?
Furthermore, the hold of the papacy after it consolidated its power in the investiture controversy, combined with viking conquests and Islamic conquests earlier all delayed the proper development of medieval society. The renaissance and early enlightenment (before the age of absolutist monarchism) when economies and populations and learning all exploded resulted from private property absolutism unhindered. The Reformation, The Reconquista, and the influx of learning from the displaced Greeks allowed for Private property absolutism to develop properly as it should have all the way back in A.D. 650. and we would have colonized the galaxy by now had it not been for the rise of statism and especially democratic states which tend towards the destruction of real economic growth and moral fortitude in their inevitable evolution towards communism and animalist barbarism.
Several economists have reached this same conclusion, that the decentralized state of Europe at this time and its unprecedented trading (in combination with the discoveries in the Americas) fueled what might be called "early modern capitalism" which is semi-erroneously attributed to the protestant work-ethic (following the work of Max Weber).
No amount of Georgist tears will change this reality.
No, its because circumstances prevented the praexological necessity of things from reaching their true heights.
Indeed, it is in the nature of a flower to bloom, but if soil conditions are poisoned, water cut-off, etc., the blooming will not occur. However, it would be a mistake to say that in light of such factors that it is not in the nature of the flower to bloom. You are making the same mistake in your analysis.
That is only because individuals do not have the means to appropriate and divide it.
That is more or less the difference between solids and gases.
The atmosphere cannot be privately retained because of its very nature.....that being said, I wouldn't mind if Georgists quit breathing my air.
Hardly.
Correct. Just like with my wife, my ability to secure her for myself is my only natural guarantee against being forced to share her with others that might have incentive to use her for their own reproductive needs.
The same applies for my access to resources, if there is no government, and I don't want someone taking my water supply or my produce that I need in order to survive, I have to secure the land on which such exists, and typically from the same sort of people that would want to take my wife. My wife, my water, and my crops are all claimed by me and they are kept from others by my ability to defend them. Hence, they are mine and they are privately retained.
Sure I do, I claim it and if they try to take it, I will shoot them. If they are willing to give me a % of their produce and their loyalty, I won't shoot them and we can have a very pleasant relationship where I offer them a home, the ability to produce crops, and life where they can raise their families in safety without fear of the sort of aimless marauders they once were.
Its quite simple really.
"It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals... is incompatible with freedom."
- Patrick Henry
Truth To Power wrote:Wrong:
Middle ages
The medieval marriage fine or merchet has been interpreted as a payment for the droit de seigneur to be waived.
The supposed right was abolished by Ferdinand II of Aragon in Article 9 the Sentencia Arbitral de Guadalupe of 1486.
In 1527, Scottish historian Hector Boece wrote that the right had existed in Scotland until abolished by Malcolm III. William Blackstone mentioned the custom in his Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769),echoing Boece's claim.
The right was mentioned in 1556 in the Recueil d'arrêts notables des cours souveraines de France of French lawyer and author Jean Papon (1505–1590). Voltaire mentioned the practice in his Dictionnaire philosophique, published in 1764.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_du_ ... references
Actually, you are wrong.
The very wikipedia article cited DEFINES Prima Noctis as mythical. and your references confirm the historian's critique that there are not sufficient first hand legal or authorial accounts to justify the belief in its existence. Indeed, your sources are all at least two hundred years removed from when the practice was alleged to be most widespread, and some are up to 500 years removed from the alleged time-period. There is an utter lack of first-hand source material to confirm this practice. This is why the wikipedia article and other historical commentaries have concluded the practice to be myth. Likely propaganda from republican revolutionary types.
Droit du seigneur (/ˈdrɑː də seɪˈnjɜːr/; French pronunciation: [dʁwa dy sɛɲœʁ]) ("lord's right"), also known as jus primae noctis (/ʒʌs ˈpraɪmiː ˈnɒktɪs/; Latin pronunciation: [ju:s ˈpri:mae̯ 'nɔktɪs]) ("right of the first night"), refers to a supposed legal right in medieval Europe, and elsewhere, allowing feudal lords to have sexual relations with subordinate women (the "wedding night" detail is specific to some variants). There is no evidence of the right being exercised in medieval Europe, and all known references to it are from later time periods.[1][2] Overall, medieval jus primae noctis can be considered a historical fiction fabricated after that era.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_du_seigneur
Truth To Power wrote:That is a claim contrary to the evidence. History is replete with starvation in the midst of plenty in societies where private property was absolute, because private property in other people's rights to liberty lets the owners starve anyone who disobeys.
I thought you argued that there were few private property absolutist societies because they only occurred in the midst of major government collapse?
Furthermore, the hold of the papacy after it consolidated its power in the investiture controversy, combined with viking conquests and Islamic conquests earlier all delayed the proper development of medieval society. The renaissance and early enlightenment (before the age of absolutist monarchism) when economies and populations and learning all exploded resulted from private property absolutism unhindered. The Reformation, The Reconquista, and the influx of learning from the displaced Greeks allowed for Private property absolutism to develop properly as it should have all the way back in A.D. 650. and we would have colonized the galaxy by now had it not been for the rise of statism and especially democratic states which tend towards the destruction of real economic growth and moral fortitude in their inevitable evolution towards communism and animalist barbarism.
Several economists have reached this same conclusion, that the decentralized state of Europe at this time and its unprecedented trading (in combination with the discoveries in the Americas) fueled what might be called "early modern capitalism" which is semi-erroneously attributed to the protestant work-ethic (following the work of Max Weber).
No amount of Georgist tears will change this reality.
Truth To Power wrote:I see. That must be why in feudal societies, everyone is poor....
No, its because circumstances prevented the praexological necessity of things from reaching their true heights.
Indeed, it is in the nature of a flower to bloom, but if soil conditions are poisoned, water cut-off, etc., the blooming will not occur. However, it would be a mistake to say that in light of such factors that it is not in the nature of the flower to bloom. You are making the same mistake in your analysis.
Truth To Power wrote:The earth's atmosphere does not belong to anyone
That is only because individuals do not have the means to appropriate and divide it.
That is more or less the difference between solids and gases.
The atmosphere cannot be privately retained because of its very nature.....that being said, I wouldn't mind if Georgists quit breathing my air.
Truth To Power wrote: Feudal libertarianism therefore stands refuted.
Hardly.
Truth To Power wrote:"Your" land? What would make it "your" land but your intention forcibly to deprive everyone else of their liberty to use it?
Correct. Just like with my wife, my ability to secure her for myself is my only natural guarantee against being forced to share her with others that might have incentive to use her for their own reproductive needs.
The same applies for my access to resources, if there is no government, and I don't want someone taking my water supply or my produce that I need in order to survive, I have to secure the land on which such exists, and typically from the same sort of people that would want to take my wife. My wife, my water, and my crops are all claimed by me and they are kept from others by my ability to defend them. Hence, they are mine and they are privately retained.
Truth To Power wrote:You have no right to demand that they pay YOU for what NATURE provided to all
Sure I do, I claim it and if they try to take it, I will shoot them. If they are willing to give me a % of their produce and their loyalty, I won't shoot them and we can have a very pleasant relationship where I offer them a home, the ability to produce crops, and life where they can raise their families in safety without fear of the sort of aimless marauders they once were.
Its quite simple really.
"It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals... is incompatible with freedom."
- Patrick Henry