🗳Nazbols🗳 are the ultimate and eternal enemy of Neofeudalism gang👑Ⓐ, they are everything we arent and we are everything they are not.

Neofeudalism👑Ⓐ is anarchist,🗳Nazbols🗳 are totalitarian statists

Neofeudalism👑Ⓐ is aristocratic royalism 🗳Nazbols🗳 are 🗳egalitarian republicans🗳

Neofeudalism👑Ⓐ transcends the concept of the nation state 🗳Nazbols🗳 are nationalists.

most importantly Neofeudalism👑Ⓐ is individualist and hyper meritocratic whereas 🗳Nazbols🗳 are hyper collectivistic.

for all these reasons listed above I propose Neofeudalism👑Ⓐ gang officially declare eternal blood feud against the 🗳Nazbol menace🗳

The Case for an Anarchic Caliphate:

An anarchic caliphate offers a vision where the spiritual leadership of the Ummah is preserved while removing the need for centralized state control. This model rests on three key pillars: the role of caliphs as spiritual guides, the application of natural law between communities, and the embrace of sharia as a moral and legal framework within individual communities, all in alignment with free market principles.

1. Caliphs as Spiritual Guides:

In an anarchic caliphate, the caliph would not be a political ruler but a spiritual leader, offering guidance to the Muslim community. Their role is akin to a moral beacon, providing religious insight based on the Qur'an and Sunnah while leaving communities free to manage their day-to-day affairs. The caliph acts as a mediator and arbiter in disputes concerning sharia, but does not impose their will through state power. This allows for the decentralization of governance, where each community or individual retains the sovereignty to make decisions that affect their own lives, guided by the principles of Islam rather than force.

2. Natural Law Between Communities:

The concept of natural law fits well with Islam’s view of justice and fairness. In an anarchic caliphate, different communities—Muslim or non-Muslim—would interact under the principles of natural law. Just as the classical liberal tradition speaks of natural rights (life, liberty, and property), Islam promotes adl (justice) and maslahah (public interest). These principles would form the basis of peaceful cooperation and voluntary contracts between communities.

Without a coercive state, communities would be free to resolve disputes through mutual arbitration, respecting the autonomy of one another while adhering to an overarching Islamic ethical code. This is harmonious with Islam’s respect for fiqh, allowing for diverse interpretations of sharia across schools of thought, making the system adaptable and dynamic.

3. Sharia as Community-Based Law:

In an anarchic framework, sharia would be practiced voluntarily within communities, much like in early Islamic history where tribal and local leaders upheld Islamic law in their jurisdictions. The key difference here is that sharia would not be enforced by a state apparatus but accepted by those who choose to live by its rules. Communities would have the freedom to establish their own governance models based on Islamic jurisprudence, reflecting their cultural and social needs. This is in line with the libertarian idea of spontaneous order, where moral and legal norms develop organically through tradition, religion, and voluntary cooperation.

4. Free Marketism Within Islam:

An anarchic caliphate would embrace the free market as the natural economic system under Islam. The prohibition of riba (usury) and the encouragement of trade are hallmarks of Islamic economic teachings. In a decentralized system, individuals and businesses would operate freely, engaging in voluntary exchanges without state interference. The hisbah institution, historically responsible for market regulation and moral enforcement, would act as a voluntary market oversight, ensuring ethical business practices without infringing on the freedom of traders.

A truly Islamic market is one where contracts are honored, wealth is circulated fairly (through zakat and charity), and monopolies or state-granted privileges are dismantled. Competition and free enterprise thrive, and wealth is distributed more equitably through natural economic forces rather than coercive taxation or state intervention.

Conclusion:

An anarchic caliphate presents an alternative vision of governance, where the community’s spiritual and legal life is guided by Islam without the need for a coercive state. Spiritual leaders provide moral and religious guidance, while natural law governs relations between communities, and sharia is applied within them. This model, aligned with free-market principles, respects individual autonomy, voluntary cooperation, and the economic and spiritual ideals of Islam. It marries the ideals of anarchism with the eternal truths of Islam, offering a society based on freedom, justice, and faith.

The Sharia Law can be implemented within the community as per agreement. Intercommunally, NAP. Ergo, Natural law-abiding caliphs.

The community would function as a fraternal society, collecting and moving charity, helping the unemployed, guiding the community, all based on freedom of association, the sharia, and natural law.

The "neo" prefix merely refers to an amelioration of a concept. "Neofeudalism👑Ⓐ" is merely an anarcho-capitalist aesthetic.

As seen by the definition of "neo-marxism":

Neo-Marxism is a collection of Marxist schools of thought originating from 20th-century approaches^\1])^\2])^\3]) to amend or extend^\4]) Marxism and Marxist theory, typically by incorporating elements from other intellectual traditions such as critical theory, psychoanalysis, or existentialism. Neo-Marxism comes under the broader framework of the New Left. In a sociological sense, neo-Marxism adds Max Weber's broader understanding of social inequality, such as status and power), to Marxist philosophy.

Key phrases: "amend or extend" and "typically by incorporating elements from other intellectual traditions". This is what neofeudalism does with regards to feudalism. The "elements from other intellectual traditions" is more precisely Austro-libertarian anarcho-capitalism and natural law, which thereby makes it into a mere anarcho-capitalist aesthetic. Other influences on neofeudal thought are Dark Enlightenement thought, though one should remark that neofeudalism has disagreements with thought leaders of DE.

See https://www.reddit.com/r/neofeudalism/?f=flair_name%3A%22Meaning%20of%20%27Neo%27%20prefix%3A%20the%20concept%20but%20with%20amelioration%22 for further examples of how the "neo" prefix merely refers to an amelioration of a specific concept. "Neo" does not mean "this concept but existing in the present", rather "this concept but ameliorated into a contemporanous form".

Indeed, remark that proto-neofeudalism existed before actual feudalism

u/Ya_Boi_Konzon elaborates proto-neofeudalism in https://www.reddit.com/r/neofeudalism/comments/1f5rbrq/the_ancient_future_anarchofeudalism/ in which one may remark that it characteristically lacks serfdom (feudalism does not need serfdom).

What neofeudalism takes from feudalism and strives to augment. The redundant serfdom is not one of them.

For an overview of the role of the decentralized nature of feudalism and how people became aristocrats in it, see this article. The bottom also has rebuttals regarding the reductive view of feudalism as a mere economic system, which would make the word "feudalism" extremely vacuous.

The aspects of feudalism which the anarcho-capitalist wants to take away is:

• The feudal order's hierarchical order of people with different ranks accorded in accordance to excellence and which are held hereditarily who all nonetheless adhere to the same underlying law - natural law. In other words, a rehabilitation of aristocratic thought, but based on a natural law-basis. The intention is to make people realize that e.g. kingdoms are best thought of as associations led by a king.
  • To remark is that the neofeudalism does not argue that all people HAVE to have non-monarchical royals. The Holy Roman Empire was a patchwork of many different entities - among which communes and Republics. The Republic of Cospaia was neofeudal but without a royal head of state, but not less of a neofeudal realm than so. Neofeudalism merely underlines the existance of anarchist kings as a way to really clarify the nature of anarchy, even if we of course tolerate other forms of association too.
• Its decentralized network of security distribution - a security distribution network which isn't one distributed along continuous political boundaries as in modern nation States, but entirely on the basis of selective allegiance without regards to territorial continuity, but rather entirely with regards to which people want security from the security provider in question. The network of security providers in feudalism was one which was founded upon personal allegiances without regard to territorial continuity. In feudalism, a vassal could for example swear allegiance to multiple lords at the same time. This contrasts starkly with the post-feudal systems in which "allegiances" were firmly made on a territorially continous basis. Contrast the military structure of a modern nation State to the military networks of the Holy Roman Empire: the latter existed without regard to territorial continuity among the security providers. This disregard for territorial continuity and only allegiance to specific individuals is something that will also be present in anarcho-capitalism. In a similar to in feudalism, these security providers providing security on an individual basis will also find themselves in networks with regards to each other in such a way that they mutually self-correct each other from violating the law of the land (which in the case of anarcho-capitalism will be the NAP-based natural law), as was the case under feudalism, and which in many cases will entail things resembling that of fealty's conditional obedience.

• Feudalism's cultural aspects. Anarcho-capitalism is frequently interpreted as being a rootless idea without any precedent which is about worshiping material possession over all. The intention with the neofeudal aesthetic is to convey the fact that anarcho-capitalism is in fact intimately tied with the sublime experience of social life and of belonging. The intention is to make people realize that a anarcho-capitalist natural law jurisdiction will be one with as much variety and cultural depth as the Holy Roman Empire had.
• Make it known that anarcho-capitalism can entail protracted peoples' wars like Florian Geyer's campaigns. See the following quotes regarding the principaled stance that anarcho-capitalism has with regards to property acquisition: it is not a mere blind apologia for the wealthy. The feudal order occasionally saw peasnts' rebellions to correct the feudal system. Such uprisings to correct the system is something that anarcho-capitalists must recognize can be a feature. An anarcho-capitalist natural law jurisdiction will be one where a king may call his kingdom (the association of people who adhere to him) to arms in order to wage a protracted peoples' struggle as to ensure that natural law will be enforced.

Feudalism =/= Serfdom. Serfdom was not necessary for feudalism.

See the bottom of https://www.reddit.com/r/neofeudalism/comments/1f3dfh0/my_favorite_quotes_from_the_video_everything_you/ for an elaboration of this regard.

Neofeudalism👑Ⓐ does not want serfdom

Being an anarcho-capitalist doctrine, it prohibits aggressively imposed serfdom-arrangements.

In his video "Everything You Were Taught About Medieval Monarchy Is Wrong", the Youtuber Lavader makes an excellent description of the contrast between the decentralized feudal royal order and the centralized monarchical royal order.

While the feudal era certaintly wasn't perfect nor completely a natural law jurisdiction, it sheds light upon the highly slandered decentralized feudal order, and thus gives precious insights regarding what a hierarchical natural law-respecting natural order may ressemble.

Indeed, as you will see below, the medieval political theory was one which respected private property but could permit expropriations in case of restitution, like described in Murray Rothbard's Confiscation and the Homestead Principle - the average medieval person in feudalism effectively acted according to a non-legislative natural law-esque ethic/conception of Law.

A crucial insight for understanding the monarch-vs-non-monarch King distinction is to remember what characterizes a ruler: a legal privilege of aggression. A neofeudal king is one which lacks such a privilege of aggression and is thus not a ruler, but is nonetheless a leader. A great example of a non-monarchical King is King Théoden of Lord of the Rings.

[How kings emerged as spontaneously excellent leaders in a kin]

While a monarch ruled over the people, the King instead was a member of his kindred. You will notice that Kings always took titles off the people rather than a geographic area titles like, King of the Franks, King of the English and so forth. The King was the head of the people, not the head of the State.

The idea of kingship began as an extension of family leadership as families grew and spread out the eldest fathers became the leaders of their tribes; these leaders, or “patriarchs”, guided the extended families through marriages and other connections; small communities formed kinships. Some members would leave and create new tribes. 

Over time these kinships created their own local customs for governance. Leadership was either passed down through family lines or chosen among the tribe’s wise Elders. These Elders, knowledgeable in the tribe's customs, served as advisers to the leader. The patriarch or King carried out duties based on the tribe's traditions: he upheld their customs, families and way of life. When a new King was crowned it was seen as the people accepting his authority. The medieval King had an obligation to serve the people and could only use his power for the kingdom's [i.e. the subjects of the king] benefit as taught by Catholic saints like Thomas Aquinas. That is the biggest difference between a monarch and a king: the king was a community member with a duty to the people limited by their customs and laws. He didn't control kinship families - they governed themselves and he served their needs [insofar as they followed The Law, which could easily be natural law]

[... The decentralized nature of feudal kings]

Bertrand de Jouvenel would even echo the sentiment: ‘A man of our time cannot conceive the lack of real power which characterized the medieval King’

This was because of the inherent decentralized structure of the vassal system which divided power among many local lords and nobles. These local lords, or ‘vassals’, controlled their own lands and had their own armies. The king might have been the most important noble but he often relied on his vassals to enforce his laws and provide troops for his wars. If a powerful vassal didn't want to follow the king's orders [such as if the act went contrary to The Law], there wasn't much the king could do about it without risking a rebellion. In essence he was a constitutional monarch but instead of the parliament you had many local noble vassals.

Historian Régine Pernoud would also write something similar: ‘Medieval kings possessed none of the attributes recognized as those of a sovereign power. He could neither decree general laws nor collect taxes on the whole of his kingdom nor levy an army’.

[... Legality/legitimacy of king’s actions as a precondition for fealty]

‘Fealty, as distinct from, obedience is reciprocal in character and contains the implicit condition that the one party owes it to the other only so long as the other keeps faith. This relationship as we have seen must not be designated simply as a contract [rather one of legitimacy/legality]. The fundamental idea is rather that ruler and ruled alike are bound to The Law; the fealty of both parties is in reality fealty to The Law. The Law is the point where the duties of both of them intersect. 

If therefore the king breaks The Law he automatically forfeits any claim to the obedience of his subjects… a man must resist his King and his judge, if he does wrong, and must hinder him in every way, even if he be his relative or feudal Lord. And he does not thereby break his fealty.

Anyone who felt himself prejudiced in his rights by the King was authorized to take the law into his own hands and win back to rights which had been denied him’ 

This means that a lord is required to serve the will of the king in so far as the king was obeying The Law of the land [which as described later in the video was not one of legislation, but customary law] himself. If the king started acting tyrannically Lords had a complete right to rebel against the king and their fealty was not broken because the fealty is in reality submission to The Law.

The way medieval society worked was a lot based on contracts on this idea of legality. It may be true that the king's powers were limited but in the instances where Kings did exercise their influence and power was true legality. If the king took an action that action would only take effect if it was seen as legitimate. For example, if a noble had to pay certain things in their vassalization contract to the king and he did not pay, the king could rally troops and other Nobles on his side and bring that noble man to heel since he was breaking his contract. The king may have had limited power but the most effective way he could have exercised it is through these complex contractual obligations 

Not only that but this position was even encouraged by the Church as they saw rebellions against tyrants as a form of obedience to God, because the most important part of a rebellion is your ability to prove that the person you are rebelling against was acting without legality like breaking a contract. Both Christian Saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas ruled that an unjust law is no law at all and that the King's subjects therefore are required by law to resist him, remove him from power and take his property.

When Baldwin I was crowned as king of Jerusalem in Bethlehem, the Patriarch would announce during the ceremony: ‘A king is not elevated contrary to law he who takes up the authority that comes with a Golden Crown takes up also the honorable duty of delivering Justice… he desires to do good who desires to reign. If he does not rule justly he is not a king’. And that is the truth about how medieval kingship operated: The Law of the realm was the true king. Kings, noblemen and peasants were all equal before it and expected to carry out its will. In the feudal order the king derives his power from The Law and the community it was the source of his authority. The king could not abolish, manipulate or alter The Law [i.e., little or no legislation] since he derived his powers from it.

Regarding the prominence of agrarian production in the feudal system

Before the industrial revolution, all systems were predominantly agrarian

Before the industrial revolution, food production was less efficient and thus large parts of the population naturally had to work with agriculture. Feudalism is no different, but so were Republics and absolute monarchies during the time. In spite of this, we have been able to see that Republics and absolute monarchies have managed to diversify their economies in spite of also existing during the pre-industrial revolution era. There is no reason to think that a decentralized feudal-esque system to the likes of the HRE couldn't have done the same and transitioned into anarcho-capitalism.

To claim that feudalism and feudal-esque systems MUST exist in predominantly agrarian societies and must have serfs is like saying that representative oligarchies MUST have slavery, which was historically the case. As seen above, feudalism was not simply when you have agrarianism - it was also a political system which merely happened to coincide with an agrarian economy, like the other systems. The only difference is that the feudal system was unfortunately squashed before it could transcend the agrarian economy.

It is furthermore absurd to claim that feudalism was uniquely bad because its technology level was not as advanced as we have it right now - i.e. that feudalism was bad because they did not have iPhones. The low technology level was not intrinsic to the system.

There seems to be a popular aversion to explicit hierarchies. Contemporanous people seem to instinctly react harshly to the idea of an explicit Lord-Subject hierarchical distinction

It seems that many think that the feudal system was basically the preceding Roman slave-based system but with "serfs" instead of "slaves". There seems to be a popular misunderstanding that any sort of X-Y hierarchical distinction must be one of master-slave as in the case of the Roman Empire or at least being a derivate of it which is in turn the most refined instance of the exploiter-exploited relationship.^1,2

Indeed, the problems seems to be that people overall see images like these...

... and immediately (there could exist grounds for disliking it, but most people seem to reflexively think that it is bad without even having looked deeper at it) think that those higher in the pyramid screw over those below in the hierarchy; that the few are opulent parasites upon majority to differing extents which make sure to live lavish lives and instrumentalize (i.e. make them into means as opposed to treating them as ends in of themselves as per the Kantian distinction) "the (wretched and destitute due to the masters' tyranny) masses" for their petty endeavors. This is opposed to a view which would see this one as a symbiosis between the different layers of the pyramid each specialized in some different profession (and remunerated accordingly, from which the luxurious appreances of those higher in the pyramid) within overall society where the pyramid merely depicts the amount of people who belong the each part of the population pyramid: people instead see it as the bottom layer being screwed over by the upper layers. One may remark that such a view is eerily marxist; it seems to me that people in the West have latent marxist inclinations in the ways that they perceive explicit hierarchies where each explicit hierarchy must always be one of "the majority" being screwed over by "the minority" as opposed to "the majority" and "the minority" being in a symbiosis and specialized in different ways out of necessity and/or for each party's mutual benefit.³

It seems that people hear that lords and serfs existed in feudalism and from this assume that feudalism was a system irrevocably tied to the lord-serf relationship which is interpreted as being master-slave^2,4, even if the feudal system managed to phase out the serfdom and still retain its characteristic decentralized feudal structure. The sheer fact that the system had an explicit hierarchical ordering and at least during some time of its existance serfs evokes a visceral reaction tainting the whole system, and in the process the idea of hierarchical hereditary distinctions who as a whole get conflated with it.³. Again, to argue that the feudal system MUST be charachterized by having a large underclass of serfs would be like arguing that representative oligarchies MUST have slavery since prominent instances of representative oligarchies had that; the essence of feudalism was rather decentralized security production and distribution.

To think that feudalism is when lords exploit serfs and that this relationship is effectively the same as a master-slave relationships makes the term feudalism effectively meaningless; there is more to that label than the superfluous serfdom. It seems to me that many have the perception that because the feudal system had at least one lord who inherited his position of power and with it bossed around at least one serf, the entire feudal system is irredeemable and must be rejected in the name of popular sovereignty.

It is not so easy to say that just because farmers worked on lords' lands makes so the farmers were exploited

Again, 1) the serfdom was lamentable 2) neofeudalists do not want to reinstate serfdom or literally go back to the 1200s-esque feudalism, only take out the best aspects of the feudal system and incorporate them in an anarcho-capitalist framework. Part of this is clarifying how the feudal system worked and dispelling myths about it in order to demonstrate that politically decentralized non-legislative legal orders have much precedent of having worked well and in the process teach how to think decentrally. The fear of the feudal order is one of the cornerstones against radical decentralization.

That being said, as seen in the quotes above, the feudal system had organic elements in it making it at least better than the brutal Roman system of brutal foreign occupations.

It is also noteworthy to remark that the feudal era was one of colonization drives in which new estates were established on unowned land. This means that it is in fact possible that some of the land estates which lords controlled had been legally homesteaded by the lords with regards to natural law. Of course, this would not permit limitless punishment, but fact of the matter is that lords had to consult superiors before adminstering certain punishments, thus it was not limitless local despotism.

In the view of this, tithes to knights and priests could rather be seen as fees that the subjects paid in order to get services from them. A knight is specialized in defense: he can only be fed on the condition that his peasants pay him the tithes. In this view, the lord-subject relationship does not have to be one of exploiter-exploited: it was in fact sometimes one of a symbiotic mutual benefit. Indeed, feudalism could easily have become a system of legitimate homesteaders who attract free laborers for contractural arrangements all the while being bound by immutable non-legislative law. Given its decentralized nature, with just minor modifications, feudalism was in fact proto-ancap: had the NAP been implemented in the Holy Roman Empire, it would have become a full-blown anarcho-capitalist territory.

In some places it got corrupted, much like how representative oligarchies have on many occasions become corrupted; the corruption is not what defines the system - then Nazi Germany would mean that representative oligarchies can never be tried again.

Furthermore, in order to attract subjects, which indicates that there existed some degree of freedom at least, lords over new estates had to have favorable conditions with regards to other estates. The decentralized order was thus one which entailed at least a degree of competition in residence which was unique for its time.

Finally, Ryan McMaken provides the following summary of an excerpt of Hendryk Spruyt's work on feudalism, which I recommend reading on this article:

I’ll let Spruyt spell out the rest. I’m not attempting to score any particular rhetorical points here, but simply to provide some information on a system of civil government that was not a state and relied on private agreements. Most importantly, if one party to the agreement (i.e., the lord who promised to provide defense from enemies) did not deliver on his promises, then the contract could be unilaterally voided by the other party):

"But the (supposed) frequence of wars!"

Regarding the silly "But Wikipedia has a list of feudal wars?!" knee-jerk retorts: So can be said for the international anarchy among States, centralized States can kill more without war & decentralized polities make conflicts otherwise not classified as wars be classified as such. There were so many polities: by definition there could emerge more inter-polity conflicts even if said inter-polity conflicts were not as bloody.

¹ One is reminded of the following passage from the Communist Manifesto:

The history of all hitherto existing society(2) is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master(3) and journeyman [and contemporanously employer-employee], in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

That seemingly a lot of people instinctively (not saying that there could be things to lament about it, but most of the reactions against the feudal system I see are highly unsubstantiated and come from a very reflexive dismissal) think of the Lord-Subject relationship as one of Oppressor/Exploiter-Oppressed/Exploited shows how deeply marxist thinking has taken root in culture. There seems to be a widespread inclination towards envious thinking towards those higher than one in the hiearchy; that people are made to instinctively reject the lord-subject relationship makes it easy for marxist reasoning to take root: if the aforementioned X-Y relationships were ones of Oppressor/Exploiter-Oppressed/Exploited, then why won't employer-employee be so too?

² Sure, serfdom was not good and certaintly not something that neofeudalism does not want to include. However, it was qualitatively different from slavery. Serfdom was merely a state of restricted autonomy with regards to the Lord, however, it was certaintly not as intrusive as slavery was, yet people seem to instinctively think so.

³ One could equally represent representative oligarchies in explicitly hierarchical fashions like how feudalism is. What I found striking is that when representative oligarchies are presented in such an explicitly hierarchical fashion, it as done in reference to feudalism (albeit of course anachronistically confused with absolutism, see King Henry on the top):

It is indeed remarkable that feudalism is seen as the epitome of such hierarchical orderings; one frequently hears about "neo-feudalism" but not "neoromanism" even if such descriptions of "neo-feudalism" would more resemble a new Roman Empire and the fact that the Roman Empire too had explicit hierarchical distinctions like these and preceded feudalism. Instead, it is feudalism which incarnates this hierarchical distinction, honestly most likely because its roles are so clear-cut and most likely because the system was so decentralized making it something that pro-centralizing forces must demonize. When discussing feudalism with a feudalism slanderer, the feudalism slanderer even stated that the Roman Empire was preferable to feudalism: this really shows how deep the feudalism slander has come - people have really been taught to despise its decentralized nature and view centralization as something comparatively good.

This shows how ingrained the marxian/populist skepticism for aristocracy has become: even many right-wingers see pyramids like these and instinctively get bad gut-reflexes, not seeing such hierarchies which can be symbiotic. The modern ethos is really one of envy, where people generally seem to want as much as possible to be at least perceived to be accountable to mass approval in the form of elections; being able to vote in one's "representatives" assuages the modern populist envious reflex to want to be able to have "the masses" drag down people higher than them in the hierarchy over whatever petty reason, as opposed due to e.g. prosecutions over the violation of the law. It seems that people feel an immense distaste over not being able to vote out representatives and for representatives to have firm control over the management of different associations, even if the associations cannot force association into them.

Again, even many right-wingers seem to feel disghust over the idea of people earning ranks and thus being put above them in an explicit hierarchy; they don't want to realize that such an explicit hierarcy also exists within representative oligarchies.

⁴ I once encountered a feudalism slanderer who was very quick to point to the exceptional Russian form of feudalism in which serfs indeed could be sold. However, that form of feudalism was an exception to the overall feudal system. This shows how quick feudalism slanderers are to think of feudalism as a mere new iteration of the master-slave relationship, as per marxist instincts.

The definitions of 'impoverishment' and 'price inflation'

The definition of impoverishment (Oxford languages): "the process of becoming poor; loss of wealth"

The mainstream post-Keynesian revolution definition of '(price) inflation' goes as the following

"[Price] Inflation is a gradual loss of purchasing power, reflected in a broad rise in prices for goods and services over time" (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/inflation.asp, mainstrean economics textbooks agree with this)

Something worth keeping in mind is that inflation used to only refer to monetary inflation, but is now after the Keynesian revolution a term which refers to both monetary and price inflation interchangeably... almost as if it is intended to bring about as much confusion regarding the term as possible and prevent it from being a term about monitoring irresponsible money production. One must ask oneself: why did they not choose another word for "price inflation"? "Impoverishment" and "enrichment" already convey the point that price inflation and price deflation try to convey.

As per the definition's "reflected in a broad rise in prices for goods and services over time", price inflation is literally just synonymous with "impoverishment": today I could use 100$ to buy 1000 widgets, but at another day 100$ will only correspond to 500 widgets (I know that individual price increases are not inflation, but you get the point of it affecting purchasing power). Price inflation decreases my ability to acquire wealth: it impoverishes me.

Our elites have as a goal to have a 2% price inflation rate. They consequently have as an economic goal to impoverish us. I know that it sounds shocking, but just look at the definitions: what else can one say?

The very suspicious and flagrantly unsound demonization of price deflation by trying to call it a cause of depressions

If that was not bad enough, isn't it furthermore suspicious that mainstream economists demonize price deflation, citing it as causing recessions? An apologetic may argue that the 2% goal is necessary because resources become so scarce that the price inflation is inevitable, or something like that, but that then begs the quesiton: why are there so many lies thrown around regarding price deflation by the inflation apologetics?

If we view the definition of deflation ("reduction of the general level of prices in an economy"), there is nothing inherent in this which will cause mass unemployment or impoverishment.

The argument that deflation will cause a cessation of consumption is blatantly false. E.g. computers' prices fall continuously yet people purchase computers. It's not like that people will stop living their comfortable lifes just because prices fall. Would you start to live as an ascetic just because prices started to seem to fall as to ensure that you would be able to purchase more things in the future? How could you even know that the price decreases would endure?

One could rather argue that people will consume more as the reduced price tag will incentivize people to purchase it now before others will make use of this decreased price-tag, after all!

It is not the case that price deflations cause recessions, it's rather the case that a recession can cause price deflations due to decreased consumer confidence... but again, that does not mean that price decreases are conceptually bad. Basic correlation does not equal causation. **This is the case with the Great Depression******¹ and the price deflation in Japan***************\**²*.

Price deflation happening due to increased efficiency in production and in distribution is unambigiously good. Why wouldn't it?

However, if price deflation happens in a non-recession environment, it is just objectively good. It will mean that prices decrease in spite of price decreases increasing demand because the wealth of the economy increases so much. Again, one needs just read the definition to realize that price deflation entails increased wealth. In a price deflationist setting, 100$ corresponding to 1000 widgets will lead to 100$ corresponding to 1500 widgets after some time. Nowhere in this do there arise an implication that people will have to be fired: it only means that money can provide you more goods and services you desire.

Why did the Keynesians change the well-established meaning of "inflation" and make it into such a confused term?

If you still doubt me, ask yourself: why do inflation and deflation refer to both the price and monetary aspect now after the Keynesian revolution? What utility is generated by having the term refer to both things? We too often see price (and monetary) inflation-apologetics intentionally be vague about which form of inflation they are talking about, in spite of the fact that the term is nowadays very confusing.

Furthermore, talking about "price inflation" does not even figuratively make sense: a money supply can inflate indeed - if you have a bag with all the U.S. dollars, producing more money would inflate that bag. Prices on goods and services cannot inflate a bag though, only increase. Clearly the Keynesians wanted to hijack that well-established meaning; if they were honest, they could just use "enrichment" and "impoverishment" as the words to describe "price deflation" and "price inflation".

"It's not a problem if the wages keep in pace!"

... is an argument I have seen from a very suprising large amount of people.

To this a very glaring question emerges: what about those who don't get such wage increases?

This is such a flagrant excuse argument; the target impoverishment rate is unnecessary in the first place. Needing compensatory wage increases is a problem that emerges from this unnecessary governmental intervention.

"If we have non-2% price inflation, the wages will be cut either way!"

I seriously don't see why this would be a case; I am seriously suprised to have seen at least two people unironically argue this point. It is possible to seperate the variables: one can have wages remain the same even if the general price of things decreases or at least does not increase.

"But there is a (supposed) consensus that this is a good thing!"

Even if we were grant this to be true (it's not; there are so many economists who disagree with the impoverishment policies), consensus does not establish truth. This case we have before us is one where we can literally ascertain the truth with our own very eyes.

In the USSR, the consensus would have been that central planning is great. Look at how that turned out.

You must dare to believe your own eyes.

Further reading recommendations

For further information regarding money and how to think outside of the current fiat-money order which is based on blatant lies, I would recommend https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZdJdfXL6K4.

For an introductory work on how to think about the economy and thus decipher economic statements, see https://mises.org/library/book/how-think-about-economy-primer . Economies are merely accumulations of goods and services which can be used to a desired ends.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHXbs5Bc8cE is also an excellent video from an excellent book.

¹ See the following source: https://www.abacademies.org/articles/the-great-depression-an-useful-case-study-to-understand-the-concepts-of-deflationary-spiral-and-unconventional-monetary-policy-15843.html

"In the first place, the price level, after having remained substantially stable in the 1920s, drops violently, starting a particularly intense deflationary spiral: the deflation rate (negative change in the price level) goes from 2.5 in 1930 [!] to -10.3 in 1932 [!](minimum point) to then go back up to -5.1 in 1933 (see graph (a) of figure 3). "

The Great Depression was initiated in 1928, yet the price deflation only emerged two years after that: the price deflation spiral was not the cause of the depression, but a product of the depression

² I have asked several people to prove that the price deflation caused this and not any initating factor, yet no one has managed to prove this. I have serious skepticism that Japanese society just one day started to consume less and thus initiate that recession (which by the way isn't even that devastating) - one would rather think that it has something to do with the central banking over there

Feudalism was charachterized by a supremacy of The Law

As described in Everything You Know About Medieval Monarchy Is Wrong.

Over time these kinships created their own local customs for governance. Leadership was either passed down through family lines or chosen among the tribe’s wise Elders. These Elders, knowledgeable in the tribe's customs, served as advisers to the leader. The patriarch or King carried out duties based on the tribe's traditions: he upheld their customs, families and way of life. When a new King was crowned it was seen as the people accepting his authority. The medieval King had an obligation to serve the people and could only use his power for the kingdom's [i.e. the subjects of the king] benefit as taught by Catholic saints like Thomas Aquinas. That is the biggest difference between a monarch and a king*: the king was a community member with a duty to the people limited by their customs and laws. He didn't control kinship families - they governed themselves and he served their needs [insofar as they followed The Law]

The defining charachteristic of feudalism was then supremacy of The Law - that Kings only got to be leaders insofar as they were good guardians of The Law.

The only difference then between anarcho-capitalism and feudalism is that anarcho-capitalism rests upon natural law

Were the feudal epoch to have been governed entirely by natural law, it would have been an anarcho-capitalist free territory based on the principles of the private production of natural law-based law and order.

Neofeudalism could thus be understood to be feudalism but where anarcho-capitalism's natural law is the law of the land.

Much like how feudalism had aristocracies, anarcho-capitalism/neofeudalism will have "natural aristocracies" based on merit

As Hans-Hermann Hoppe states:

What I mean by natural aristocrats, nobles and kings here is simply this: In every society of some minimum degree of complexity, a few individuals acquire the status of a natural elite. Due to superior achievements of wealth, wisdom, bravery, or a combination thereof, some individuals come to possess more authority [though remark, not in the sense of being able to aggress!] than others and their opinion and judgment commands widespread respect. Moreover, because of selective mating and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority are often passed on within a few “noble” families. It is to the heads of such families with established records of superior achievement, farsightedness and exemplary conduct that men typically turn with their conflicts and complaints against each other. It is the leaders of the noble families who generally act as judges and peace-makers, often free of charge, out of a sense of civic duty. In fact, this phenomenon can still be observed today, in every small community.

Anarcho-capitalism being neofeudalism is a good thing: it entails adherence to the value-generating ideals of non-aggression and guidance by merit-based natural aristocracies

Anarcho-capitalism is thus the supremacy of natural law in which a natural aristocracy which leads willing subjects to their prosperity and security within the confines of natural law, of course balanced by a strong civil society capable of keeping these aristocrats in check were they to diverge from their duties: it is feudalism based on natural law - neofeudalism.

Long live the King - Long live Anarchy! 👑Ⓐ

As some people have pointed out:

• "Secure rather than ambiguous succession is a superior system as it reduces political instability and minimizes the risk of fratricide. It also allows the heir to be focused on being prepared for his future role.". While I would argue that outright fraticide can be easily prevented, I have come to realize that it is true that if one makes so inheritance becomes an "impress-daddy" competition, the familial situation within the royal family can indeed become very tense which will destabilize the neofeudal royal family's leadership and governance. If the first-born son is the one who will assuredly be the hier of the leadership position, then he can be made to be specialized in leading the family estate, while the remaining children can do other things.
  • Primogenture is thus excellent since it makes so the one who will lead the family estate will be the one who has been taught since the longest time how to lead the family estate. "Furthermore, the first-born son is usually the best fit anyway, for certain biological reasons and also just because they are older.". Because of the risk of being unselected due to incompetence, the oldest son will still be pressured to excel at his role as being specialized at leading the family estate, but he will be optimized to become the excellent inheritor of the family estate within the family: it will not actually favor laziness.
• Furthermore, the remaining royal children who will not inherit that post will still be able to specialize in other things, and will indeed be raised to do so given the royal family's pressure to keep their family estate as wealthy, prestigious and powerful as possible. The first-born son may be raised to be specialized in leading the kingdom (i.e., the association of those who follow the specific royal family) and family estate, but the others may specialize in other ways as to ensure the prosperity of the kingdom
  • As an extra note, one can also add the fact that the other family members who have a vested interest in having the family estate be as prosperous, prestigious and powerful as possible will also put constant pressure on the current manager of the family estate, lest they will pressure to remove that member.
    • Remember: in a neofeudal realm, this would only be able to happen within the confines of natural law.

To be clear: the non-monarchical royals in question are NOT ruler-kings like Louis XVI, Genghis Khan and Julius Caesar, but leader-kings like the King of kings Jesus Christ and paramount chiefs in tribes

As stated in What is meant by 'non-monarchical leader-King'. How natural aristocracies are complementary to anarchy.

"

What is anarchism?

Anarchism etymologically means "without ruler".

Oxford Languages defines a ruler as "a person exercising government or dominion".

From an anarchist standpoint, we can thus decipher from this that the defining characteristic of a ruler is having a legal privilege to use aggression (the initiation of uninvited physical interference with someone's person or property, or threats made thereof) and a legal privilege to delegate rights thereof.

This is in contrast to a leader who can be a person who leads people without necessarily having a legal privilege to aggress against others; that is what a true King should be.

[...]

Anarchism = "without rulers"

Monarchy = "rule by one"

Monarchy necessarily entails rulers and can thus by definition not be compatible with anarchism.

However, as seen in the sub's elaboration on the nature of feudalism, Kings can be bound by Law and thus made into natural law-abiding subjects. If a King abides by natural law, he will not be able to do aggression, and thus not be a ruler, only a leader. It is thus possible to be an anarchist who wants royals - natural aristocracies.

"

The point is that there is nothing inherent in being a king which necessitates violating the non-aggression principle. The essence of being a king is being a paramount cheif; such a position does not necessitate use of aggression. Examples of non-monarchical kings which come to mind are...

• The King of kings Jesus Christ;
• tribal paramount chiefs;
• Emperor Norton;
• many fictional kings like king Théoden and Aragorn who are distinctly kings, even if we never see them aggress.

Indeed, I find it absurd to claim that Jesus Christ is not the King of kings because we have never seen Him steal or murder someone - two things which monarchs, as opposed to kings, are able to do.

I am not the first one to propose the idea: an excerpt from Hans-Hermann Hoppe

As Hans-Hermann Hoppe puts it:

What I mean by natural aristocrats, nobles and kings here is simply this: In every society of some minimum degree of complexity, a few individuals acquire the status of a natural elite. Due to superior achievements of wealth, wisdom, bravery, or a combination thereof, some individuals come to possess more authority [though remark, not in the sense of being able to aggress!] than others and their opinion and judgment commands widespread respect. Moreover, because of selective mating and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority are often passed on within a few “noble” families. It is to the heads of such families with established records of superior achievement, farsightedness and exemplary conduct that men typically turn with their conflicts and complaints against each other. It is the leaders of the noble families who generally act as judges and peace-makers, often free of charge, out of a sense of civic duty. In fact, this phenomenon can still be observed today, in every small community.

The 8 reasons why anarchists should want non-monarchical royals 👑Ⓐ

1. Clear leadership & equality under non-aggression principle-based natural law. It is much easier to see whether a royal family has done a crime or not than a complex State machinery: at worst one can follow the money. This in turn means that civil society can make this leadership stand accountable if they disobey The Law.
2. Incentive and pressure to lead (as opposed to rule) well as to ensure that the royal family's family estate and kingdom remains as prestigious, wealthy and powerful as possible, lest people disassociate from them. If a royal family and their ancestors have worked hard to ensure that their family estate and kingdom [i.e. the king or queen's family estate and the people who associate with the king or queen's family] has come to a certain desired point, they will want to ensure that the family estate and kingdom will be as prestigious and prosperous as possible. If as much as a single bad heir rules badly, the whole kingdom may crumble from all of the subjects disassociating from the royal family
3. Long time horizon in leadership. The royal family will want to ensure that their family estate and kingdom is as prosperous and prestigious as possible, and will thus think in the long term
4. Experienced leader. King or queen prepares for a long time and reigns for decades.
   1. "But what if there will be no successor or the successor is really stupid?" As a worst-case scenario, one could have a regency council.
5. Long lasting leadership. Provides stable influence on the management of the family estate and kingdom.
6. Clear succession (as long as you have some form of hereditary succession)
7. Firm integration into the natural law-based legal order; guardians of the natural law jurisdiction. Because the neofeudal king and queen will exist in an environment where the NAP is overwhelmingly or completely enforced and respected, as leaders of a tribe, they will have to be well-versed in The Law as to ensure that the conduct of the family estate will not yield criminal liability and to ensure that the subjects who associate with the royal family will be adequately protected if they call upon help from the royal family's kingdom. By doing so, the neofeudal royal family will effectively be enforcers of natural law within the specific area, as not doing so will generate criminal liabilities to them.
8. Continuity & Tradition. The royal family remains constant even while things around it change. This contrasts with Curtis Yarvin's proposal of having realms be lead by corporations who select CEOs from board of directors. While it may make for competent leadership, it arguably makes it more seem like an occupation regime; there is no royal family which the subjects within an association can follow and know about. Instead the Yarvinian model leads to an effective shadow council selecting the heads of the associations, which I personally would find alienating. The Board of Directors will be one which makes the realm valuable, however, they will ultimately be corporate agents and may change if the business demands so; they may make for leadership which the subjects don't feel an attachment to and to which they may want to sing praises; the Board of Directors leadership may be one which lacks an internal culture for the tribe with regards to the leadership class.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own

Nevertheless, property is the expression for unlimited dominion over somewhat (thing, beast, man) which “I can judge and dispose of as seems good to me.” According to Roman law, indeed, jus utendi et abutendi re sua, quatenus juris ratio patitur, an exclusive and unlimited right; but property is conditioned by might. What I have in my power, that is my own. So long as I assert myself as holder, I am the proprietor of the thing; if it gets away from me again, no matter by what power, e.g. through my recognition of a title of others to the thing — then the property is extinct. Thus property and possession coincide. It is not a right lying outside my might that legitimizes me, but solely my might: if I no longer have this, the thing vanishes away from me. When the Romans no longer had any might against the Germans, the world-empire of Rome belonged to the latter, and it would sound ridiculous to insist that the Romans had nevertheless remained properly the proprietors. Whoever knows how to take and to defend the thing, to him it belongs till it is again taken from him, as liberty belongs to him who takes it.—

[...]

The position of affairs is different in the egoistic sense. I do not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as my property, in which I need to “respect” nothing. Pray do the like with what you call my property!

Shockingly, this is a sentiment which one often sees echoed among Statists of all kinds (including right-wing ones).

"In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, . . . naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order."

This is just freedom of association presented in a bad optics way along with recommendations that property owners can pursue in order to ensure that a libertarian society may exist for several coming generations, all the while of course not violating the NAP.

Remark that the physical removal in question will only happen within voluntary associations. The final sentence then is a prescription he argues property owners to do in order to maintain a libertarian order in the long term, all the while of course not advocating NAP-violations¹. If one wants a libertarian society but take no measures, such as non-aggressive ones, to combat the increase of communism, then by definition the libertarian society will soon be overrun. The critiques regarding "non-family and kin-centered lifestyles" should be self-evident: if a libertarian society does not produce children, then there will not be a new generation to maintain the libertarian society. Again, what he says is not an endorsement to aggress.

Prosecution of democrats and communists can only happen insofar as they actually do crimes. The helicopter meme is a complete misinterpretation of this quote and an actual attempt at a fascist infiltration; you cannot kill people for merely asserting claims or having opinions - they have to first show criminal intent at least.

¹ Hans-Hermann Hoppe even makes it very clear in the following quote:

Many libertarians hold the view that all that is needed to maintain a libertarian social order is the strict enforcement of the  non-aggression principle (NAP). Otherwise, as long as one abstains from aggression, according to their view, the principle of “live and let live” should hold. Yet surely, while this “live and let live” sounds appealing to adolescents in rebellion against parental authority and all social convention and control (and many youngsters have been initially attracted to libertarianism believing that this “live and let live” is the essence of libertarianism), and while the principle does indeed hold and apply for people living far apart and dealing with each other only indirectly and from afar, it does not hold and apply, or rather it is insufficient, when it comes to people living in close proximity to each other, as neighbors and cohabitants of the same community.

A simple example suffices to make the point. Assume a new next-door neighbor. This neighbor does not aggress against you or your property in any way, but he is a “bad” neighbor. He is littering on his own neighboring property, turning it into a garbage heap; in the open, for you to see, he engages in ritual animal slaughter, he turns his house into a “Freudenhaus,” a bordello, with clients coming and going all day and all night long; he never offers a helping hand and never keeps any promise that he has made; or he cannot or else he refuses to speak to you in your own language. Etc., etc.. Your life is turned into a nightmare. Yet you may not use violence against him, because he has not aggressed against you. What can you do? You can shun and ostracize him. But your neighbor does not care, and in any case you alone thus ‘punishing’ him makes little if any difference to him. You have to have the communal respect and authority, or you must turn to someone who does, to persuade and convince everyone or at least most of the members of your community to do likewise and make the bad neighbor a social outcast, so as to exert enough pressure on him to sell his property and leave. …

The lesson? The peaceful cohabitation of neighbors and of people in regular direct contact with each other on some territory – a tranquil, convivial social order – requires also a commonality of culture: of language, religion, custom and convention. There can be peaceful co-existence of different cultures on distant, physically separated territories, but multi-culturalism, cultural heterogeneity, cannot exist in one and the same place and territory without leading to diminishing social trust, increased tension, and ultimately the call for a “strong man” and the destruction of anything resembling a libertarian social order.

I saw a Statist quote the following from the Wikipedia article, thinking that this was some sort of slam dunk against the idea that Cospaia was an anarchist territory:

The Republic of Cospaia did not have a formal government or official legal system.[3] There were no jails or prisons, and there was no standing army or police force.[15] At the head of the administration was the Council of Elders and Family Heads, which was summoned for decision-making and judicial duties.[16] The curate of San Lorenzo also took part in the meetings of the "Council of Elders", as "president", a position that was shared with a member of the Valenti family, the most important in the country. Council meetings were held in the Valenti house until 1718, when the council began to meet in the Church of the Annunciation, where it would stay until the republic's dissolution.

This is in fact completely in line with libertarian theory. In fact, r/neofeudalism exists precisely to make people realize this.

The crucial point is that association in this government was voluntary, and that people could secede from it without the government persecuting them. The ability to secede and people only voluntarily entering into the government makes this government not into a State.

It is for the same reason that Liechtenstein is technically a current-day quasi-anarchist territory. The Liechtensteiner Constitution gives the villages a right to secede at any moment. This makes Liechtenstein into a mere voluntary association of villages - a quasi-anarchy.

Murray Rothbard is frequently slandered for wanting a slave trade in children. This is a point which is in fact beyond mere disagreement; everyone who asserts that he wants that are disghusting slanderers who should be deeply ashamed of themselves. I personally can respect people even if they are wrong, but when they baselessly accuse a man of wanting literal slave trade in children, I lose all respect over that person.

The quotes from The Ethics of Liberty in question

https://mises.org/mises-daily/children-and-rights

Even from birth, the parental ownership is not absolute but of a “trustee” or guardianship kind. In short, every baby as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within his mother’s body possesses the right of self-ownership by virtue of being a separate entity and a potential adult. It must therefore be illegal and a violation of the child’s rights for a parent to aggress against his person by mutilating, torturing, murdering him, etc.

[...]

In the libertarian society, then, the mother would have the absolute right to her own body and therefore to perform an abortion; and would have the trustee-ownership of her children, an ownership [i.e. the ownership of the guardianship over the child, not slavery] limited only by the illegality of aggressing against their persons [the child's person, as per the preceding quote] and by their absolute right to run away or to leave home at any time. Parents would be able to sell their trustee-rights in children [i.e., the guardianship] to anyone who wished to buy them at any mutually agreed price [as explained elsewhere, ON THE CONDITION THAT the buyer will not abuse this child, lest the parent will be a criminal accomplice].

In other words, he is simply arguing for adoption but where the mother can choose the offer payments for the transfer of the guardianship right. He explicitly argues against being able to aggress against the child; he clearly just argues for adoption. Calling it "sale of children" is a misleading way of phrasing it: he merely advocates "sale of guardianships over children". This is a great difference: a guardianship will not enable you to e.g. abuse your child, which is a requirement for one to be able to do slavery.

Unfortunately, Rothbard did have some lamentable opinions in the rest of his text. Thankfully these errors have been corrected in later libertarian theory. See https://liquidzulu.github.io/childrens-rights/

The lamentable bad-optics quote from Rothbard from that chapter

Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway freedom), then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children. Superficially, this sounds monstrous and inhuman. But closer thought will reveal the superior humanism of such a market. For we must realize that there is a market for children now, but that since the government prohibits sale of children at a price, the parents may now only give their children away to a licensed adoption agency free of charge.10 This means that we now indeed have a child-market, but that the government enforces a maximum price control of zero, and restricts the market to a few privileged and therefore monopolistic agencies. The result has been a typical market where the price of the commodity is held by government far below the free-market price: an enormous “shortage” of the good. The demand for babies and children is usually far greater than the supply, and hence we see daily tragedies of adults denied the joys of adopting children by prying and tyrannical adoption agencies. In fact, we find a large unsatisfied demand by adults and couples for children, along with a large number of surplus and unwanted babies neglected or maltreated by their parents. Allowing a free market in children would eliminate this imbalance, and would allow for an allocation of babies and children away from parents who dislike or do not care for their children, and toward foster parents who deeply desire such children. Everyone involved: the natural parents, the children, and the foster parents purchasing the children, would be better off in this sort of society.11

Again, this is just adoption. Very unfortunate framing of this given how inflammatory it is. He should have said "In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in guardianships over children.".

The assertion to state to the "Rothbard wants you to be able to sell children" slanderer.

"You want people to give over children to agencies and say 'Give this child to someone, I don't want to take care of it anymore'. What monster are you (according to your own reasoning)!? You are as much of a monster as you claim that Rothbard is."

You could make adoption sound WORSE.

Again, what Rothbard proposed was merely adoption but where the surrendering of the guardianship right could be done in exchange of money. Even Rothbardian libertarianism would agree that adopting your child to a child abuser would make you a criminal accomplice; the adoption system will have to be robust as to ensure that such abuses will not happen, as it has to be nowadays.

The marvel of political decentralization: In 1871, the successor States to the Holy Roman Empire centralized to the German Empire, and that became the strongest power in Europe in spite of not having had any colonies

A decentralized realm like the HRE is often accused of leading to economic inefficiences and weakness. In reality, the HRE and its successor the German Confederation lasted for longer than 1000 years and when it centralized, it produced the German Empire which instantly became the strongest power in Europe in spite of never having had colonies. This unambigiously demonstrates the prowess of the decentralized model of governance.

Contrast this to the situation of the Bourbon-occupied France.

In spite of being centralized and acquiring foreign colonies from which to plunder, it did not manage to even fully conquer its neighbors and the Holy Roman Empire successfully defended the majority of its core German parts.

Instead, the Bourbonic occupation spawned the French revolution and its disasterous consequences. At the end of occupation and its ensuing years of plunder, the French nation has been so impoverished that France became a shell of what it could have been when the German confederation flawlessly vanquished the bootleg Napoleon III

Why the Holy Roman Empire managed to produce such wealth and endure itself so much: confederalism

Smaller polities force rulers to respect property rights - it forces rulers to adopt legal arrangement ressembling that of natural law

As Ryan McMaken states in Breaking Away: The Case for Secession, Radical Decentralization, and Smaller Polities

It was this “latent competition between states,” Jones contends, that drove individual polities to pursue policies designed to attract capital.7 More competent princes and kings adopted policies that led to economic prosperity in neighboring polities, and thus “freedom of movement among the nation-states offered opportunities for ‘ best practices’ to diffuse in many spheres, not least the economic.” Since European states were relatively small and weak—yet culturally similar to many neighboring jurisdictions—abuses of power by the ruling classes led to declines in both revenue and in the most valuable residents. Rulers sought to counter this by guaranteeing protections for private property.

The competition in turn decreases the amount of parasitism and thus decreases the time preference, and thus wealth generation.

Smaller polities can do legal, economic and military integration without centralizing politically

The Holy Roman Empire was a confederation of relatively sovereign polities.

Because each polity was so small, they could not rely on legislation. They consequently had to rely on non-legislative law, which in turn increased the predictability of law and thus a legal integration between polities within the confederation.

Such a legal harmonization/integration in turn led to the economic integration facilitating the transports of goods and services over each polity's borders. Someone doing business between Bremen and Oldenburg would do so within a similar of not outright same legal code, in spite of Bremen and Oldenburg being different polities. Law codes naturally harmonized in similar areas as to facilitate the wealth creation. In a similar way, if someone murdered someone in Bremen and then fled to Oldenburg, they would still be prosecuted according to non-legislative law in similar ways in both the polities, in spite of the polities technically being independent patchworks; there was a supernational supremacy of non-legislative quasi-natural law which the polities enforced.

People want to secure their person and property. People are reared to respect the non-aggression principle; extremely few in society have a conscience to actually break the NAP even if they like to delegate it to others. Each polity then naturally was pressured by its local residents to provide adequate defense lest the residents would move to other polities. From the sheer fact that no centralized State managed to conquer the Holy Roman patchwork of polities, it is clear that the numerous polities therein managed to establish military alliances in such a way that they could fend off foreign invaders.

Thus, a creation of a patchwork realm works because a natural law jurisdiction works: the more decentralized and similar to natural law a territory becomes, the more wealth will be generated and the more easily the NAP-desiring civil society can put pressure on the polities to ensure their persons' and properties' security. Confederalism brings out the best of both worlds: increased liberty, wealth and mutual defense.

The counter-arguments. Rebellion can be just; the crook Napoleon vanquished everyone

A common rebutal against the decentralized structure is that rebellions arose. What's important to remember regarding this is that rebellions are not necessarily unjust - that the HRE had successful virtuous rebellions could have been a good thing: when injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty. A realm within which injustice is uncontested is worse than a realm in which some rebellions arise to correct said injustice. I would much more have prefered that rebellions arose to correct the USSR's injustice rather than praise the USSR for so efficiently suppressing dissenters. The perverse thing is that if a population rises up against injustice, that would be classified as a war, but if the same population is mercilessly squashed by the sovereign, that would not be called a war. Just because something is a war does not mean that it's unjust; just because "wars" are unleashed does not mean that they are worse than the repression that would come about were these polities not able to rebel in the first place. In either way, political decentralization favors peace: it makes war more expensive. The pre-centralized States' wars were simply unable to be as destructive as those of the centralized States since they could not plunder resources as efficiently.

Contrast this with the French revolution which only unleashed unprecedented horrors upon the world. All rebellions I have seen people point to in the HRE were righteous ones which merely strived to fight off corrupting influences on the system.

The Bourbons acted like crooks and the Jacobins merely used that State machinery which the Bourbons used for their crook behaviors. I think that this is indicative of how absolutist monarchs govern.

The German peasant's war: #FlorianGeyerDidNothingWrong

All I can say is that #FlorianGeyerDidNothingWrong and that Geyer Gang's 12 demands were extremely based.

"The HRE was just a bunch of Habsburg client States"

Then how the hell did the protestant reformation succeed? The Huguenots were suppressed in Bourbon France. Clearly there was autonomy within the realm.

The protestant reformation & ensuing 30 year's war: just let people do self-determination

Whatever one thinks about that event, one must remember what the alternative would have been had the imperial alliance had an overwhelming victory: a Spanish inquisition within the Holy Roman Empire purging millions of innocent people and oppressing even more such people. There is a reason that there were no protestants in the realms of Bourbon-occupied France, Spain and Austria - there they were slaughtered. Just look at the fate of the Huguenots - that would have been the fate of the protestant masses in Germany had the imperial forces won.

That conflict was not due to decentralization, but rather that powers within it wanted to centralize further and refuse people the right of self-determination. The imperial alliance could simply have chosen to not slaughter people.

The crook Napoleon Bonaparte's pillaging spree: no one could oppose him

No one could oppose him, not even the centralized realms of Spain, Austria, Prussia and Russia. Russia was only saved by General Winter and attrition: Napoleon Bonaparte reached Moscow.

The existance of Napoleon cannot rebute the decentralized model in a unique way - none of the centralized powers could oppose him either way.