A Lesson on Socialism

[WinterBorn]

Wrong. Competition always benefits the consumer. That's business 101. That's like saying nobody wins in a price war. Of course there's a winner, the consumer.

If warlords or feudal lords fight over you, there is no benefit to you. Their competition is for who owns you, not who gets to court your favor.

If you are a slave to a feudal lord, it really doesn't matter if he is the only one around or if he had to defeat a dozen others to win you. You are still a slave.

You are making it sound like they compete for your allegiance, when they simply require it or they kill you.

 

[uscitizen]

Competition always benefits the consumer when that competition involves moving jobs and industry offshore?

 

[WinterBorn]

Competition always benefits the consumer when that competition involves moving jobs and industry offshore?

I think the problem with using "competition always benefits the consumer" when talking about feudal lords is determining who is the consumer.

If two feudal lords are competing for you, then you are not the consumer. You are the product to be consumed.

 

[uscitizen]

I think the problem with using "competition always benefits the consumer" when talking about feudal lords is determining who is the consumer.

If two feudal lords are competing for you, then you are not the consumer. You are the product to be consumed.

Yea and as recent history in the US has shown not a lot of difference with non feudal competition.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

I think the problem with using "competition always benefits the consumer" when talking about feudal lords is determining who is the consumer.

If two feudal lords are competing for you, then you are not the consumer. You are the product to be consumed.

Governments serve the people. We are a consumer of services, and there are different amounts freedom depending on competing ideology of the ruling class. As consumers of government services we cannot allow a monoply to form. The world must be composed of competing governments, to serve us best. And when a monoply forms, markets cease to serve the consumer, so we must bust the trust.

 

[WinterBorn]

Governments serve the people. We are a consumer of services, and there are different amounts freedom depending on competing ideology of the ruling class. As consumers of government services we cannot allow a monoply to form. The world must be composed of competing governments, to serve us best. And when a monoply forms, markets cease to serve the consumer, so we must bust the trust.

From the view of the serf, the feudal lord is a monopoly. No one is competing for his allegiance. His allegiance is required for his survival.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Governments serve the people. We are a consumer of services, and there are different amounts freedom depending on competing ideology of the ruling class. As consumers of government services we cannot allow a monoply to form. The world must be composed of competing governments, to serve us best. And when a monoply forms, markets cease to serve the consumer, so we must bust the trust.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

From the view of the serf, the feudal lord is a monopoly. No one is competing for his allegiance. His allegiance is required for his survival.

Not if he can escape to the neighboring region, which was highly possible. the power of the average feudal warlord was less absolute than the government we have today. There could be strongmen in several areas, maybe even with overlapping territories, and the average person could ally with whoever he chose and embolden who gives him the most, or provides the most freedom. That's real choice.

 

[WinterBorn]

Not if he can escape to the neighboring region, which was highly possible. the power of the average feudal warlord was less absolute than the government we have today. There could be strongmen in several areas, maybe even with overlapping territories, and the average person could ally with whoever he chose and embolden who gives him the most, or provides the most freedom. That's real choice.

Yes, some peasant sneaks into a feudal lord's territory seeking shelter from the neighboring feudal lord, and this was seen as an asset?

A serf was bound to his feudal lord. If he left he left with nothing.

I think that can be done today, except they call it "illegal immigration".

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Yes, some peasant sneaks into a feudal lord's territory seeking shelter from the neighboring feudal lord, and this was seen as an asset?

It's a choice.

A serf was bound to his feudal lord. If he left he left with nothing.

I think that can be done today, except they call it "illegal immigration".

Sometimes just having a more just lord is worth it.

Any lord can set his immigration policy, a wise lord weighs the input of his current serfs.

 

[WinterBorn]

It's a choice.


Sometimes just having a more just lord is worth it.

Any lord can set his immigration policy, a wise lord weighs the input of his current serfs.

"a wise lord weighs the input of his current serfs"

You obviously have not read much history of the feudal systems.

The lords didn't care about the serfs except as property and a means of producing what was needed.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

"a wise lord weighs the input of his current serfs"

You obviously have not read much history of the feudal systems.

The lords didn't care about the serfs except as property and a means of producing what was needed.

Wow. Now we aren't even valued for that. Outsourcing and all.

Sounds secure. Sounds like a person's well being might be considered, and he might not just be viewed as part of the "population problem", slated for democide.

 

[Damocles]

From the view of the serf, the feudal lord is a monopoly. No one is competing for his allegiance. His allegiance is required for his survival.

The serf is property, and from the view of the serf the "liege" is simply his owner.

When the property they work on is sold, the serf goes along with the property.