janw@inmet.UUCP (01/01/86)
Feudal society was not libertarian. It had, however, certain li- bertarian features: governmental functions were diffuse and were based on contractual (liege-vassal) obligations. The analogy was raised here several times; it is worth further analysis. This note deals with the question of whether taxation (or price of protection) was exorbitant then . Proper time and space frame should be defined for feudal society: it arose in the 9th, and deteriorated in 13th century, in Western Europe. Many of its structures and attitudes lingered much longer. ================================================================== [Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka] >>>Organized crime is a feudal power structure. The formula for >>>computing taxes in a feudal government is (your tax) = (your wealth) minus >>>(the minimum you need to live on). >>No, this is not true of feudalism at all. [Taxes were fixed by custom, >>modified by precedent and short memories] >This was the theory. The practice was that the amount a serf owed his >liege was so large that the relationship (maximum harvest) - (your tax) < >(the minimum you need to live on) held. The serf would (illegally) withhold >part of the harvest, to give his family enough to live on. In general, >there was no effective way to withhold more than this amount, because the >serf could not sell the excess. (1) *Not true* even of serfs (whose life was certainly no picnic). Many of them demonstrably had a surplus left, which they invested in various ways. The simplest way was to raise a large healthy family. Raising livestock was another. Another (widespread later) was to buy their liberty. But serfs were just one of many taxable groups of population. Your formula : >The formula for computing taxes in a feudal government is (your >tax) = (your wealth) minus (the minimum you need to live on) - refers to *all* of them. (As it should, in the context of the ori- ginal discussion). By your logic they should all have been re- duced, by taxes, to the lowest economic level physiologically possible. But of course they weren't. Upward mobility was *high*. >If some method were found to increase the harvest above this >point, a new tradition [justifying taxation] would be created. These traditions lapsed as often as they were created. A few years of non-collection (always possible in these turbulent times) would invalidate a feudal claim. In *feudal* times no old parchment would be enough to re-create it. Later, in *absolutist* times, a whole profession appeared, of castle archivists who dug up obsolete feudal obligations so that a seigneur could - *use* them ? - no, but *sell* them back to the peasants. >Since there was no incentive to increase the harvest, this hap- >pened rarely. *No incentive* ? *Rarely* ?! Whoa ! Now you've put your finger on the crux of the matter ! Had the tax system been as you described it - there would be no surplus for investment (except on the highest rung of the tax ladder) and no incentive for innovation. And harvest increases would be rare. So this *is* the proper test. Let us apply it. In fact, you are speaking of the time of a great agricultural and industrial REVOLUTION! Never before, and nowhere else, has progress come at such breathtaking pace. Compared to it, an- tiquity was quite stagnant. The following is true of 9th through 12th centuries in Western Europe: Let's stick to agriculture. I'll name just a *few* innovations. (1) This is when Europe was *colonized*, the forests cleared and plowed over. The pioneering effort was tremendous; recruiters were all around the place, offering peasants personal freedom and other benefits if they moved and joined. Areas depopulated by Viking, Hungarian, and Saracen marauders were repopulated, too. *Intensive* development of agriculture was no less impressive: (2) Horse power was introduced to agriculture. Before, it was oxen or men. The effect was comparable to the introduction of tractors in modern times. This was made possible by (3) The invention of horse collar. To understand why, try pulling something with your neck! An ox can do it, a horse can't. (4) Introduction of horseshoes. Should speak for itself if you think of the rough terrain. (5) Heavy, wheeled plow ! The ancients just scratched the land: the feudal Europeans started really *plowing* it. (6) Watermills improved and spread tremendously. They were invented by the Romans but this is when they really took off. They were the basis for industry as well as agriculture. The effect was comparable to that of steam engine later on. *Tidal* mills were invented and used. (7) Windmills were first introduced to, and built all around, Eu- rope. They were a European monopoly: in late 12th century crusaders built the first windmill in the Middle East. (8) New crop rotation systems greatly raised per acre productivity etc. etc. Clearly, incentives were there - not taxed away ! The reason taxes could not be raised indiscriminately, in viola- tion of custom, was that there was no *irresistible force* in that pluralist society. A coalition of vassals would be stronger than the suzerain and there was lots of competition in the suz- erain business. With respect to your liege's liege, you were in a nice position: you owed him no allegiance, but could appeal to his court. Applying Frank's tax formula (above) became possible much later, under an *absolutist state* : in France, starting with Richelieu. The people, said that great centralizer, is a mule that is spoiled by leisure more than by work. Then, inventing new taxes grew to be an industry much in demand. By the end of Louis XIV rule, it crushed the peasants to a condi- tion where they looked, to a fresh observer, hardly human - and devastated the economy in general. Bourgeois revolutions pro- vided a redress, by establishing a cheap government, limiting taxation, and separating economic from political power. Now we observe a gradual erosion of these achievements. Jan Wasilewsky
janw@inmet.UUCP (01/08/86)
Tax History of the World
(abridged)
When powers-that-be are disunited, you get to keep some of your
money and liberty. When they are united, they suck you dry and
to do that unhindered, they tie you up and gag you.
Jan Wasilewskyfriesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (01/29/86)
In article <28200477@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > >Feudal society was not libertarian. It had, however, certain li- >bertarian features: governmental functions were diffuse and were >based on contractual (liege-vassal) obligations. The analogy was >raised here several times; it is worth further analysis. This >note deals with the question of whether taxation (or price of >protection) was exorbitant then . >Proper time and space frame should be defined for feudal society: >it arose in the 9th, and deteriorated in 13th century, in Western Europe. >Many of its structures and attitudes lingered much longer. Quite true, my contention is that a libertarian would *evolve* into a feudal one by economic assimilation. >================================================================== > >(1) *Not true* even of serfs (whose life was certainly no picnic). >Many of them demonstrably had a surplus left, which they invested >in various ways. The simplest way was to raise a large healthy family. >Raising livestock was another. Another (widespread later) was to >buy their liberty. > >>If some method were found to increase the harvest above this >>point, a new tradition [justifying taxation] would be created. > >These traditions lapsed as often as they were created. A few >years of non-collection (always possible in these turbulent >times) would invalidate a feudal claim. > >>Since there was no incentive to increase the harvest, this hap- >>pened rarely. > >*No incentive* ? *Rarely* ?! Whoa ! >Now you've put your finger on the crux of the matter ! Had the >tax system been as you described it - there would be no surplus >for investment (except on the highest rung of the tax ladder) and >no incentive for innovation. And harvest increases would be >rare. So this *is* the proper test. Let us apply it. > >In fact, you are speaking of the time of a great agricultural and >industrial REVOLUTION! Never before, and nowhere else, has >progress come at such breathtaking pace. My Medieval History professor agrees with you. > >Let's stick to agriculture. I'll name just a *few* innovations. > >(1) This is when Europe was *colonized*, the forests cleared and >plowed over. To clarify, prior to this time the population of Europe was effectively restricted to river valleys and other highly fertile lowlands of that sort. > >(5) Heavy, wheeled plow ! The ancients just scratched the land: the >feudal Europeans started really *plowing* it. Not to mention 5b) The modern flared plow-blade(you know, the thing made of two blades joined along the front margin and the whole thing pointed forward). And this predated the wheeled plow - it was what allowed the clearing and farming of all that forest land. In ancient times the plow was a simple straight vertical blade. > > etc. etc. > >Clearly, incentives were there - not taxed away ! An excellent list. There were even some things here that my Medieval History professor didn't mention! > >The reason taxes could not be raised indiscriminately, in viola- >tion of custom, was that there was no *irresistible force* in >that pluralist society. A coalition of vassals would be stronger >than the suzerain and there was lots of competition in the suz- >erain business. Remember the signing of the Magna Carta - where the vassals of one of the most powerful kings in Europe forced him to sign a document giving away some of his rights! (England at that time was *much* more centralized than any other European nation except perhaps Sicily). Could there be a better example of this? > -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa