| > Then, you're arguing for feudalist land ownership customs? >This is a really bad-faith reframing of the parent comment. How so? Very respectfully, perhaps you should read with more care. See here: >those strips were even periodically reallocated to keep things fair. Which stands alone as an argument for feudalist customs, but I also argue that it frames the rest as an argument-in-favor. Such as this, seemingly positively highlighting community "customary rights". >In feudal Europe, land could only be “owned” by a lord, and even then it was bound up in obligations both to their superiors and to the peasants working it. There were all sorts of customary rights layered on top: Critique my answer, but accusing a bad faith argument doesn't hold up. No one who reads for comprehension would credibly interpret the post as anything but an argument for feudalist customs. To be generous: even if the over-arching intent possibly is to change modern legal customs via any necessary argument. That may be, but highlighting feudalism is a morally perilous way to go about it. I disagree with the perspective entirely, but if someone is going to advocate for it then they should find a less morally backwards method than highlighting the ostensible fairness of the feudal era. |
The point was "even the feudal lords realized you have to have some concept of shared/common purpose lands or things go bad fast".