Originally Posted by Matt1989

Nonsense. People would be forced to ride the tide if the State did indeed collapse, which might be against their wishes -- but it doesn't make sense to consider these people to be actively forced in the sense you are using.

You are missing the point. By far, most people do not want to be forced into an anarchist society either by purposeful strong arming (your narrow sense) or by circumstance (e.g.. a failed state). This is evident in your statement of "forced to ride the tide."

The dilemma for the anarchist is holding his viewpoint while knowing that the majority of people don't want what he offers. Assigning this to either the stupidity or the ignorance of 'everyman' serves only to dig the anarchist's hole deeper.

I can grant you that the “liberal paradox” can be solved by several mechanisms that do not require the State (including even contractual arrangements). However, that is observable most typically between two individuals or at best, several - to apply that experimentation at the scale of today’s societal organizational units is, at best, utopian balderdash. I think 'everyman' understands this intuitively - although historically, but temporarily, forgotten when standing with the mob- and usually mourned later, alone, when the senses return.

Good order is the foundation of all things. - Edmund Burke, 'Reflections on the Revolution in France,' 1790

The very idea that billions of people would make a choice to go through life without any system wide rules or a referee to enforce those rules is simply absurd.

That is what this all comes down to. Playwrite is correct - the vast majority of people want nothing to do with this.

So we again come back to the question - just how do anarchists plan to get their dreams into reality?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

This to me seems very very dishonest, completely disengaging the discussion from reality. You are familiar with the boom bust economies of the Gilded Age, the working hours common at the time, the unsafe working conditions, the Dust Bowl?

All of the remedies which FDR pushed with regard to working conditions and income support were already enacted when the "freedom from want" rhetoric came out (primarily as part of war propaganda). This is especially ironic given that the Axis powers already had welfare states. Post-war, American economic policy was quite static (with the exception of Taft-Hartley, which one could strongly argue was antithetical to your stated goal).

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

The rejection of incremental solutions seems very much more anarchist than libertarian.

Only because you seem to want to define market anarchism as "libertarianism in a hurry." The prevalence of perfectionists within a particular political archetype has less to do with their principles and more to do with how far their principles are from being exemplified in the current society.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

T...
So we again come back to the question - just how do anarchists plan to get their dreams into reality?

Moonshots?

http://www.smartbrief.com/news/aia/s...6-4ED1BD5DF7BE

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Under your system would a person be able to sell what they claim to be drugs or medicine on the street or in a store without any control or regulation or law of any kind? What about food products.... same thing???? What about any product.... same thing????

I don't want to go into this type of conversation because there are resources out there dedicated to showing how certain things could work. But I think people have a right to sell virtually all products.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Justin - this is getting to be funny.... cross that out ... absurd is more like it.

It is indeed. Here you are, dodging frantically to avoid asking a straightforward question (or perhaps, to avoid getting a straightforward answer). And yet you posture and strut as if you are somehow being wronged when I request that you settle down and communicate.

All of us here live in 21st century places like the USA, Canada, England, Sweden... places like that. Use places like that. Come on now, just tell us one functioning nation where government for folks like us has been replaced with anarchy and things are working out at least as well.

YOU CANNOT DO IT.

Well, of course no one could name a "place like 21st century USA, Canada, England, or Sweden" that operates in the absence of a state. Because the defining characteristic of those places is that they are nation-states. You may as well ask for examples of black white or hard soft. If that's all you are doing, then congratulations on 'winning' your 'point' for all it's incoherence is worth in your mind.

If, on the other hand, you actually wanted to pose a question, you might reflect a bit on what it is you are looking for. You've not done that. Or at least, you've not offered any evidence of having done that (with the exception -- and again, I appreciate that as a start -- of clarifying the date range). Why don't you just ask the question in a coherent way?

Or, if you want to play games instead, it looks like Matt (in, no doubt, an indulgent mood) gave you a whole slew of possible answers to whatever the hell the question was you were asking. You could go through those answers and tell us why not each one of them is not "a real answer to your question". Then, if any of us are so interested, we can use that feeble bit of feedback to try to make a better guess at just what the question is that you so do not want to just come out and ask.
Hell, if the rain keeps up, I won't be taking my kids out to play on the beach... Maybe I'll even be in the right mood to play your game.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

All of the remedies which FDR pushed with regard to working conditions and income support were already enacted when the "freedom from want" rhetoric came out (primarily as part of war propaganda). This is especially ironic given that the Axis powers already had welfare states. Post-war, American economic policy was quite static (with the exception of Taft-Hartley, which one could strongly argue was antithetical to your stated goal).

I view TR's Square Deal, FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society as major milestones in the progressive movement. TR fell short, FDR made the major break through, while LBJ arguably pushed the GI's willingness to do big things with big government too far. All three included attempts to advocate the economic interests of the common man which involved many items of legislation.

You usually seem more honest in your discussions, not to many funky definitions or creative if contorted doublespeak as one encounters with some others. Here, you seem a bit off the wall. Over a good long stretch of time, various progressive movements passed a lot of legislation that influenced economics considerably.

I do view Taft-Hartly as an act that weakened the influence of labor at the time it was passed. After a freeze in strikes during World War II, labor got very aggressive in making up for lost time in the aftermath. They perhaps got too greedy. Business influence with congress was strong enough to over ride Truman's veto. Legislation like Taft-Hartly is the sort of think I believe Congress might properly do to set good working balance of power between labor and management. It is possible to give too much power to either. I do believe Taft-Hartly favors the capitalists a bit much. I am disappointed Congress doesn't revisit the balance of power more often.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Only because you seem to want to define market anarchism as "libertarianism in a hurry." The prevalence of perfectionists within a particular political archetype has less to do with their principles and more to do with how far their principles are from being exemplified in the current society.

Huh? What gave you that idea? A friend of mine once ran as a Libertarian for the US Senate. He was part of a national party that does such things on a regular basis. This willingness to be part of the governments and legislatures just seems to be antithetical to what I'm hearing from Matt and Justin about rejecting the state. I figured that taking part in the state was one difference between libertarians and anarchists.

I am also of the impression that Matt and Justin at least are not in much of a hurry at all. They profess principles and their talk for the most part rejects compromise, but does anyone believe anarchy is around the corner? Anarchism as represented here seems to be just talk. It is like pulling hen's teeth just to get anyone to point to an historical example of a society they vaguely approve of, or suggest implementable changes they would like to make to the here and now. While they might not agree with me, my impression is that they are decades away from doing much more than playing games in obscure internet forums.

Originally Posted by playwrite

You are missing the point. By far, most people do not want to be forced into an anarchist society either by purposeful strong arming (your narrow sense) or by circumstance (e.g.. a failed state). This is evident in your statement of "forced to ride the tide."

The dilemma for the anarchist is holding his viewpoint while knowing that the majority of people don't want what he offers. Assigning this to either the stupidity or the ignorance of 'everyman' serves only to dig the anarchist's hole deeper.

Unfortunately, I'm missing the dilemma. People might not want the State to go away. That sucks, in a sense, but you don't have a right to get what you want.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

So we again come back to the question - just how do anarchists plan to get their dreams into reality?

Again, there isn't one way. Look it up.

Originally Posted by Jordan '88

I guess my question is what do you think about our constitutional republic? Was it not established in such a way that we would be able to withdraw our consent, either by voting the wrong people out of office or by forceful revolution? Was the constitution not written in such a way that it could be flexible as times and circumstances change?

It was ostensibly an attempt in that direction. Though arguably it was a large step back from the truly decentralized (and therefore less easily manipulable by the ruling class of the day) paradigm that preceded it.

Anyway, regardless how it started out, it certainly deteriorated (or grew, depending on whose perspective you take) in practically no time at all into an inescapable, consent-be-damned, fundamentally unflexible (freedom means a bit more, after all, than just being allowed to pick what color the drapes are) system. Now just the forms remain -- though the ruling class has done well to push the line that the forms are the function. It keeps them safe from change or revolution.

You could well be on to something, I don't know. I have yet to be able to envision a scenario in which anarchism could work. If you could explain it or perhaps give a specific example from the modern era (say post-renaissance) in which anarchism has worked on a large scale then I am more than willing to listen.

Matt already beat me to it. One could also look at subsystems of society, such as international business -- which takes place under no monopoly-law regime (both parties pick and choose under which rules each of the facets of their dealings will take place).

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Huh? What gave you that idea? A friend of mine once ran as a Libertarian for the US Senate. He was part of a national party that does such things on a regular basis. This willingness to be part of the governments and legislatures just seems to be antithetical to what I'm hearing from Matt and Justin about rejecting the state. I figured that taking part in the state was one difference between libertarians and anarchists.

Plenty of anarchists (this dude, for one) are willing to take part in the state. The only real difference between non-anarchist libertarians and anarchists is analytical--whether the State should be abolished.

While they might not agree with me, my impression is that they are decades away from doing much more than playing games in obscure internet forums.

Is all philosophy playing games? I sure hope not!

(I created this thread because discussions about the merits of libertarianism and anarchism were taking over other threads. If you find this thread to be a time-waster -- not saying that you think this Bob... just throwing it out there -- then don't click it. It only appears in the New Posts section one week of the month, even if the new posts do come quite quickly.)

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

It never has meant that as far as I'm concerned. But you and Matt seem to be so hung up on the "statists" and the "ruling class" stuff that you're missing where a whole lot of us agree with you in principle.

I can't speak for Matt, but I certainly am not missing it.

That, of course, is what motivates me to try to hash things through with you all -- there's only really a very, very small hurdle separating us; it was a hurdle which I used to stand on the other side of, too; I'd like to either help other people get over it or be convinced that I need to come back.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Why does it follow that anyone who seeks public office has "power" as their sole motivation?

Well, there appear to be a very small number of exceptions to that general rule of thumb. But as for me, I tend to put the weight of five millennia of 'public officeholders' against the one or two apparent good guys at any particular point in time. It's not perfect, but it's plenty close enough for day-to-day.

This deserves to be pulled out from the depths to stand on its own. What a great statement of the 'anarchist program' for people (I'm looking at you, Butler) who absolutely insist on being provided one.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

...libertarian and anarchists folks do indeed have plans. Virtually all of them.

Pick an idea. Will you let other people do something else, if they want to? Then it fits in the anarchist model.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

in everything Matt????? Even something like traffic laws?????

If whoever built the roads were willing to let a person kill their other customers (and possibly themselves) by completely disregarding the laws, then sure. You could build your own road and do whatever the hell you wanted with it.

If you watch people walking on sidewalks, however, you will observe that vanishingly few ignore the ad-hoc 'rules of movement' that emerge to crash obliviously into their fellow pedestrians. That is, emergent order works.

Under your system would a person be able to sell what they claim to be drugs or medicine on the street or in a store without any control or regulation or law of any kind? What about food products.... same thing???? What about any product.... same thing????

Indeed. And what's more, they wouldn't get to hide behind the FDA (or whoever) when it turned out that their drug caused some sort of horrific side effects. And true malfeasors wouldn't be able to hide their lives and assets behind the State-granted privilege of 'limited liability' -- and would have to take into account the likelihood of getting to pay for their wrongs when they chose how to behave.
And (we have already seen arise in modern state-free systems) the most likely result of a true free market in X would be the formation of several -- call them 'consumer advocate' or 'product monitoring' bodies. See the little UL logo on pretty much any electronic thing in any store? That kind of thing. (I advise anyone to check out Underwriters' Laboratories for educational purposes). These are not theoreticals, by the way... these are things that actually happen.

(I'm sure to hear at least one cry of 'doesn't count!'. Screw him)

Justin... I have been bumped by other people on busy city sidewalks my whole life. Sorry - but you do not know what you are talking about.

And just who was it that was going to build that expensive national highway system anyways? Do you have the slightest idea how many miles of roads there are in this nation and what it costs to build them?

As for the FDA and product safety... let me say this as clear as possible regarding paying for their wrongs as you put it... the anarcho/libertarians and their goddamn lawsuits to seek redress in court can all go screw themselves. Got that? How do I get my life back when a faulty product kills me? How do I get the lives back of my loved ones when a bogus that you never want to test kills them? I do not want the blood money of corporations or just plain assholes selling fraudulent products to make a fast buck. I want my health and safety and that of my loved ones.

You live in a fantasy land. Check that... you want to live in a fantasy land. In the meantime you are content to drive on the public roads and enjoy the benefits of the community and the commons.

Matt

please answer for once...

if you have this plan.... even if it is just your individual plan.... what is it and how do you intend to make your dream come true?

You see, I plan on winning $100 million in the power ball game and I buy one ticket for every drawing when it hits that level or higher. I have a goal and a plan. How about you?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

You usually seem more honest in your discussions, not to many funky definitions or creative if contorted doublespeak as one encounters with some others. Here, you seem a bit off the wall. Over a good long stretch of time, various progressive movements passed a lot of legislation that influenced economics considerably.

All I was saying was that the social moment had already passed when FDR starting using that bit of rhetoric. Work had already been done, yet the goal ("freedom from want") had obviously not been achieved or he wouldn't have been talking about it. The goal wasn't complete, nor was it expected to be. Any noble political goal can be expressed in lofty terms that can be criticized as utopian. Conversely, to criticize a political goal because it isn't already here right now (HM's argument) is fundamentally conservative in the small 'c' sense. I.e. it's no more reasonable to reject the idea of a coercion free society than a poverty free one. Those aren't goals to achieve next week with some clever plan, those are directions to head in.

Does this clear things up?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I figured that taking part in the state was one difference between libertarians and anarchists.

Some anarchists outright reject electoral politics, but there is debate on that. My impression is that most anarchists make use of the official means of affecting political change but don't expect great results from it. Issue advocacy is probably more effective and less prone to corruption than promoting candidates. So, for example, if making donation choices, one would support the ACLU or the EFF rather than a specific candidate for office.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I am also of the impression that Matt and Justin at least are not in much of a hurry at all. They profess principles and their talk for the most part rejects compromise, but does anyone believe anarchy is around the corner?

Some believe that substantial movement in that direction will be necessitated by breakdown of our overly centralized economy (i.e. in much the same way that Russia is considerably more free today than it was in the early 80s). I am not convinced that our elite is so pathetically blind as to drive us off a cliff like that.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Anarchism as represented here seems to be just talk. It is like pulling hen's teeth just to get anyone to point to an historical example of a society they vaguely approve of, or suggest implementable changes they would like to make to the here and now. While they might not agree with me, my impression is that they are decades away from doing much more than playing games in obscure internet forums.

In a way, I agree. Consider the state of Enlightenment philosophy circa 1690. Actual implementation of secular, non-hereditary government was a long way off. That's where we are today with libertarianism. Libertarianism may impact the current debates, but it won't be dominant in this Crisis. I think it's silly to predict that it would be.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Justin... I have been bumped by other people on busy city sidewalks my whole life. Sorry - but you do not know what you are talking about.

hm, if you had read what I wrote, rather than apparently only skimming for a pair or trio of words, you would have seen that your objection bears no relation to the emergent sidewalk order I described.

And just who was it that was going to build that expensive national highway system anyways?

In the form there is today? Probably no one without privileged protection from the evils they caused in being the major contributor to poisoning air and water could have done that. Certainly the megacorporations whose business models the Federal Highway system subsidizes and makes possible would not have been interested in doing it if they had not only to pay for the damages it caused, but to put out the up-front costs as well.

Or maybe someone would have. Who can say? The only thing for certain is that they wouldn't have done it unaccountably on the backs of thousands of unwilling victims.

Do you have the slightest idea how many miles of roads there are in this nation and what it costs to build them?

As for how much roads -- quite a lot, I bet. Of course, there are also quite a lot of people who stand to benefit from them. I have a bit of experience in getting roads done where they need to go, so I can say that people, when they are allowed to, tend very well to take care of getting the stuff they need.

Athe anarcho/libertarians and their goddamn lawsuits to seek redress in court can all go screw themselves. Got that? How do I get my life back when a faulty product kills me? How do I get the lives back of my loved ones when a bogus that you never want to test kills them?

Ask the victims of FDA licensing. Unless you argue that your system is perfect, I get to point out that the system I propose -- where agencies compete and results matter -- will be better.

In the meantime you are content to drive on the public roads and enjoy the benefits of the community and the commons.

I'm hardly content. I breath the air because it's the only air there is. Similarly for many other things in which there are no choices available. The true hypocrites are the ones who want all their bennies (like that paved-in-toxin Federal Highway and the cheap bananas you get to have thanks to it) without having to look at the consequences of them.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Matt

please answer for once...

if you have this plan.... even if it is just your individual plan.... what is it and how do you intend to make your dream come true?

You see, I plan on winning $100 million in the power ball game and I buy one ticket for every drawing when it hits that level or higher. I have a goal and a plan. How about you?

Well you can look a few pages back to see me spell something out. I'll even give you one link (there's also some stuff a few posts before that one, but that post is literally 1337), even if it doesn't totally answer your question. But the terms are there, and no offense, but I don't have much desire to educate you on my program ATM. I just don't find you to be charitable enough to radical ideas, and libertarianism in particular (as evidenced by prior posts, including your most recent reply to Justin), to consider it a worthwhile investment, especially when it's already been said. I've also got to study for the next couple of days and do not wish to procrastinate.

P.S. Use the quote button.

Justin wrote

hm, if you had read what I wrote, rather than apparently only skimming for a pair or trio of words, you would have seen that your objection bears no relation to the emergent sidewalk order I described.

I read what your wrote and what you wrote bears no relation to the reality the rest of us live in. What the hell is "emergent sidewalk order"? Do you just pull this stuff out of thin air or what?

Unless you argue that your system is perfect, I get to point out that the system I propose -- where agencies compete and results matter -- will be better.

Are you some sort of god for whom the standard is perfection? Nothing created by humans is going to be perfect. You know that. For you to say this as a justification for removing all consumer protections is nonsensical.

Where agencies compete???? What agencies???? You do make this up as you go along.

I

'm hardly content. I breath the air because it's the only air there is. Similarly for many other things in which there are no choices available.

No choices available?!?!?!?! Really? So you are a prisoner and cannot leave? Were you sentenced to live where you live? Are you serving time against your free will? Unless the answers to those questions is YES, you are ignoring the biggest choice you have and that is to put your money where your mouth is and quite sponging off a society you rail against.

Your whole bit is to explain everything away with abstract reasoning or simply wishing that your way will be better. No thanks.

And Justin - what is your vaunted plan for making your dream come true? Do you also have one?

Lotsa luck with that "strategy" Matt. Please don't change one thing.

You cease to be amusing, hm. Just too repetitive, I guess. And what you repeat, so very low-impact...

The same old justification of tyranny for the fear of chaos...

If the serfs can leave their land, it will be chaos for England!

If education spreads to the masses it will be the ruin of civilization!

If commoners were allowed to have a society where all are free and none are coerced, America would soon look like a zombie movie!

We progress toward anarchy. We evolve. The desire to follow fades and the desire to lead replaces it. We've killed all the kings or turned them in to tokens - we seem to have progressed for it. Why should we now crown the captains of industry and the engineers of political machines with the same powers our ancestors found to be oppressive? But don't look back too long, look forward...

The debate is practically useless. Soon enough, we'll be fragmented across the solar system. Smashed up into tribes all over again. Centralization and control are both already dead, even if the mainstream hasn't caught up yet.

Justin - you have had two days to come up with those true life examples from the last century where anarchy did just as good of a job as government by the state.

Here is the list you presented:

1. _______________
2. _______________
3. _______________
4. _______________
5. _______________

most excellent!!!!!

You can talk all the abstract theory and pie-in-the-sky dreams and wishes you want to but in the end, you have nothing except those same words. Keep pursuing that anarcho-libertarian dream and keep following the same plan that has worked so well so far. I would not change one thing.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

In a way, I agree. Consider the state of Enlightenment philosophy circa 1690. Actual implementation of secular, non-hereditary government was a long way off. That's where we are today with libertarianism. Libertarianism may impact the current debates, but it won't be dominant in this Crisis. I think it's silly to predict that it would be.

I can agree with that evaluation of the state of the movement. Crises aren't really the best time for a major new values set or philosophical approach to be popularized. The correct time to throw a new transforming set of ideas into the public awareness would be the awakening... and one might not expect real transformation until the following crisis.

Thus, you might have several decades before a serious push to bring things before the people as a real possibility might be optimal under turning theory. It might not be necessary to answer criticisms now, but unless people are content to wait another four generations, one might wish to get more specific and convincing over the next several decades.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

OK. There is a list of anarchist communities on Wikipedia. The most interesting examples, IMO, are medieval Iceland, Anarchist Spain, and modern-day Somalia (which is not listed for various reasons). I've also been to Freetown Christiania. Surprisingly, I managed not to get killed! Snip...

The fact that there are few historical examples of anarchism working for an extended period of time is not an argument for the legitimacy of the State, and anyone who thinks it is a valid argument needs to review basic logical principles. You might be more skeptical of the idea that certain things can be properly dealt with minus the empirical evidence, but personally, I think that such skepticism is pretty unfounded.

That's as close as I've seen to the anarchists throwing a list of real world examples up. I've been trying to categorize the list. I'm not seeing any of my categories as an obvious path. Let's see. The examples include...

Pirate Alliances : Groups of pirates have allied and set up port territories to support their activities. I'm going to assume this isn't a path the anarchists here want to advocate.

Colonies : Iceland and Rhode Island are examples of small settlements that existed for a time without much anything resembling a formal state. They were small. It will be hard to acquire unclaimed land these days to start up new communities along the Iceland - Rhode Island pattern. Modern society is more complex. These difficulties might be overcome, but not trivially. If anarchists wish to propose something along this nature seriously, I'd be curious as to how the problems might be overcome, but I'm not sure any of our current anarchist advocates are ready to push for an implementation yet.

Interregnums : There have been failed states and civil wars where an existing formal state is no longer effectively able to retain control. In desperate times, there have been short term ad-libs. The ad-libs generally don't last longer than the revolution or civil war that makes them possible.

Communes : There have been town sized entities that have existed within a state. Some of these communities seem to govern themselves in a way similar to traditional New England town meeting governments. At least, the border between benevolent anarchy at a local level and town meeting government seems soft. I'm not sure a lowest level town government existing within the borders of a formal state ought to count as a practical path to replacing the state. There is a problem with scaling up town meeting style government. The larger a group gets, the harder it is to establish a consensus. The need for closure tends to move things away from informal consensus to formal protocols.

Protests : Every once in a while you have a political protest last long enough that a semi-permanent community results. The formal state for whatever reason (usually related to public relations and image) might tolerate it for a time. This seems another reasonable path towards permanent anarchy, but one would need something very major to protest against if this approach is to cascade into something that would effect much area or totally overthrow an existing state. If the current economy were to collapse again and more thoroughly, this could become a plausible path.

I suppose one might mix and match the above approaches. Wait for a the government to fail, protest the reason for failure, base the protest at a new community using a style of consensus that might be scaled up... all the while talking like a pirate. Arrrrrr. Ah, well. I tend to agree with Kurt. It is early to be filling up one's garage with tents, clothing, rations that don't spoil, weapons, ammunition, first aid kits and bull horns, to be ready to pull a Wounded Knee when the opportunity arises.

Arrrr....

Originally Posted by independent

The same old justification of tyranny for the fear of chaos...

If the serfs can leave their land, it will be chaos for England!

If education spreads to the masses it will be the ruin of civilization!

If commoners were allowed to have a society where all are free and none are coerced, America would soon look like a zombie movie!

We progress toward anarchy. We evolve. The desire to follow fades and the desire to lead replaces it. We've killed all the kings or turned them in to tokens - we seem to have progressed for it. Why should we now crown the captains of industry and the engineers of political machines with the same powers our ancestors found to be oppressive? But don't look back too long, look forward...

The debate is practically useless. Soon enough, we'll be fragmented across the solar system. Smashed up into tribes all over again. Centralization and control are both already dead, even if the mainstream hasn't caught up yet.

What isn't so widely known about the feudal system is that the feudal social order was one of exaggerated complexity, one in which the social order defined itself around the idea that the rural magnates were the backbone of public safety from barbarian invasions. Feudalism implied an elaborate system of inherited rights and duties -- and the rights of the big landowners (of which the reigning monarch was the biggest one of all) had a counterbalance in the inherited duties of the serfs.

The progress from feudalism to free enterprise showed a simplification of economic relationships -- not increased complexity.