Persuasive enough that soverihnity is an anomaly, I think it would be fascinating to look at medivial and rennaisance soverihnity and legitimacy. Obviously many would say that state sovertinity is hardly to be found even today, maybe during wars, maybe it's peak was WWII, but it really happens and in very few places.
Okay Lord Woodmouse, you are a tease.. I have gotten through part 1 and half of part 2 and it's all critiscism, but aren't we of the opinion that our job is not only to interpret the world but ob the contrary, to change it? So what is to be done? I can't even sense where we are going with this and the way we are going the only end station I can imagine is anarchism. It's an obvious and logical endpoint but nobody has come up with a way to bring it about.. so we are back to what? It has got to be something, especially in the light og your defence of political violence (BASED).
Like I mentioned in Part 1, this isn't an attack on authority or hierarchy. It's exposing the logical flaws in the idea that there's some "legitimacy" to the concept of sovereignty.
It is a peculiarly modern approach to say "if not the state then what?" as if the state *is* society.
Part 3 is about the historicity of the state, which be a review of a few sources that demonstrate the non-sovereign nature of the Medieval political order. In short, for most of history our ancestors operated within a polycentric legal order rather than a sovereign one.
The state/sovereignty is somewhat anomalous in human history. Personally I think it's coming to the end of its time and is collapsing under its own weight. The answer to "what comes after?" is, I think, lots of things. I oppose the idea that there is *one* mode of human social organization for every time and people.
Persuasive enough that soverihnity is an anomaly, I think it would be fascinating to look at medivial and rennaisance soverihnity and legitimacy. Obviously many would say that state sovertinity is hardly to be found even today, maybe during wars, maybe it's peak was WWII, but it really happens and in very few places.
*rarely
Andrew Willard Jones does a deep dive on this in *Before Church and State.* Another good source is *Kingship and Law in the Middle Ages* by Fritz Kern
Thanks
Okay Lord Woodmouse, you are a tease.. I have gotten through part 1 and half of part 2 and it's all critiscism, but aren't we of the opinion that our job is not only to interpret the world but ob the contrary, to change it? So what is to be done? I can't even sense where we are going with this and the way we are going the only end station I can imagine is anarchism. It's an obvious and logical endpoint but nobody has come up with a way to bring it about.. so we are back to what? It has got to be something, especially in the light og your defence of political violence (BASED).
Like I mentioned in Part 1, this isn't an attack on authority or hierarchy. It's exposing the logical flaws in the idea that there's some "legitimacy" to the concept of sovereignty.
It is a peculiarly modern approach to say "if not the state then what?" as if the state *is* society.
Part 3 is about the historicity of the state, which be a review of a few sources that demonstrate the non-sovereign nature of the Medieval political order. In short, for most of history our ancestors operated within a polycentric legal order rather than a sovereign one.
The state/sovereignty is somewhat anomalous in human history. Personally I think it's coming to the end of its time and is collapsing under its own weight. The answer to "what comes after?" is, I think, lots of things. I oppose the idea that there is *one* mode of human social organization for every time and people.
Kulak wrote a great piece on this a while back that you might enjoy if you haven't read it: https://www.anarchonomicon.com/p/after-the-state-the-coming-of-neo