Schoolchildren typically learn about the feudal system in history class, when covering the medieval period in Europe. It is typically presented as an ancient, obsolete form of government, practiced by ignorant people of the past who didn’t know any better. People familiar with democracy, upon learning about the feudal system, tend to view it as an abhorrent system of government. Feudalism inherently concentrates power in the hands of an elite class, whose membership was largely determined by birth and marriage . Personal choice, economic freedom, and the democratic process were not components of the feudal system, and someone born a serf would more than likely stay that way. All of these things are typically thought of as morally offensive at some level or another by anyone who has lived in a democratic society. Despite this, many democracies have incorporated elements of socialism — particularly taxation on income — to the point that once-democratic governments bear resemblance to feudal governments.
While the “feudal system” is a term broadly given to many forms of governments in the medieval era, different areas and time periods had their own flavors of feudalism. One thing in common, however, was Manorialism, wherein land (a manor) was owned by a lord and worked by a variety of peasantry roughly termed “serfs”. Serfdom is an unusual condition, because serfs were not slaves in the sense we typically think of slaves. While slavery certainly existed under feudal systems of government, the serfs themselves were generally free in the sense that they were not the property of the lord and, in many cases, were free to live their lives away from direct oversight of the lord. But the lord of the manor had a far more insidious claim to their lives: he had claim to their income. He had claim to the product of their labor.
Clik here to view.
A serf's obligation to his lord
While the serfs toiled in the fields, the lords, of course, spent much of their time throwing lavish parties, waging wars to gain status and territory, and generally wasting the product of the serf’s labor. The priorities of the serf and lord did not align at all when it came to allocating the resources produced by the serf. Certainly, the serf gained some benefits from this arrangement. He was typically protected to some degree — at least when the lord’s war-waging habits didn’t incite retalitory violence or when the lord himself didn’t post a threat. The serf had a place to live, land that he was responsible for, and he had “freedom” in some sense of the word. At least, it could be argued, he was not a slave.
Clik here to view.
Jello wrestling in Antarctica -- Your tax dollars hard at work
An old joke involves George Bernard Shaw (or sometimes Winston Churchill) approaching a woman at a party, with the following dialogue:
Shaw: “Madam, would you sleep with me for a million pounds?”.
Woman: “Well, I suppose so.”
Shaw: “Would you sleep with me for ten shillings?”.
Woman: “Of course not! What kind of woman do you take me for? A prostitute?”
Shaw: “We’ve already established what you are, madam. Now we are just haggling over the price.”
Once you accept that a person or government may lay claim to your income — in any amount — you have conceded to them lordship over your hard work, your wealth, and, ultimately, your life. You have established yourself as a serf, to be used for ends that are not your own. Any discussion about how much of your wealth should be confiscated is simply discussing the terms of your bondage; haggling over the price of your prostitution. Despite support from so-called “progressives”, income taxes represent a huge step backward in economic and political freedom, which are two sides of the same coin. More than any other government policy, income taxation burdens supposedly free people with a yoke of servitude that their ancestors worked hard to remove. It is time to relegate all vestiges of serfdom to the historical wastebasket — including the income tax. After all, “is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?”