Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!psuvax1!burdvax!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittatc!decvax!cca!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Rent-a-Cop
Message-ID: <28200532@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 7-Jan-86 23:09:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200532
Posted: Tue Jan  7 23:09:00 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 12-Jan-86 14:44:15 EST
References: <883@mmintl.UUCP>
Lines: 54
Nf-ID: #R:mmintl:-88300:inmet:28200532:000:2768
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Jan  7 23:09:00 1986


[berman@psuvax1]
>> In article <28200419@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes:
>> >[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. Through the Middle Ages,
>> >the amount a serf or a vassal owed his liege was supposed  to  be
>> >*fixed* once and for all, from times immemorial. In practice, hu-
>> >man memory being short, it changed quite a lot, but it changed by
>> >*precedent*,  not through arbitrary imposition. E.g., .........
>>
>> This was the theory.  The practice was that the amount a serf owed his

>The practice was more varied than both Franka and janw admit.  There was
>no single simple formula for feudal rent.  Basically, there existed three
>tendencies:
>  a.  feudals wanted to maximize their rent;
>  b.  different feudal group fighted for their share;
>  c.  rentpayers (or other taxpayers) tried to evade rent.

The epoch was *very* varied. The factors you indicate existed, of
course. That is a different *side* of the question from the one I
summarized: e.g., in USA you could say taxes are determined by  a
democratic  political process; or you could point out various in-
terests involved. In feudal times, *custom*, assumed to be  *per-
manent*,  occupied  the place of the democratic assumption.  See,
e.g., Feudal Society, by Marc Bloch - a classic and delightful
work, highly recommended. But your kind of description produces
the same result: there was no "iron law" driving rent  and  taxes
to  the  bare survival maximum. (The "iron law of wages" - as you
know but someone else may not - asserted that wages fall  to  the
bare survival minimum under free market conditions).

That was the issue, and on it, you agree with me.  Actually,  the
complicated  coalition  game  which you touch upon, led to a very
tolerable level of obligations for *many*, intolerable for some -
in  the  *feudal*  period.  For most peasants, the situation grew
*worse* through 13th and 14th centuries - as  the  dynamic  power
balance  of  the  feudal period fell apart, and as something of a
block of the nobility as a whole against the rest of the popu-
lation  coalesced.  And  then the plague aftermath, the great re-
bellions, and other factors changed things again. And then  abso-
lutism  made the tax system the worst ever. Feudalism proper only
applies till early 13th century - especially in  the  context  of
libertarian  analogy. In terms of taxes & rent, of human rights &
freedom and of economic & technical progress (all connected)  its
record was good.

See my note "Feudal Taxes" .

                Jan Wasilewsky