Conversation
Notices
-
@mactonite @lovelymiss @6gorillianbarsofjewsoap @EvilSandmich @TrevorGoodchild @VaxxSabbath @lks Let me break this down, the Goði in the early part of Icelandic settlement was seen as a priest, a hierarchal representation of Oðinn or depending on the era Tiwaz (Tyr). They fled Norway to escape Christianization. The priest was in all ways a chieftain first and a priest second, but it was a theocracy. The man with the most clout was the leader. Just because he was a local warlord doesn't mean he was just "appointed" by their grace and they could just 'unelect' him at will. They would have to overthrow him legally and usually by force because he wasn't going to just go quietly into the night. If his force of men were bigger and better than the guy with the grievance, well let's just say they lost that court case real quick when steel was drawn.
I really think Iceland is a very poor representation of libertarianism 'done right' unless you just like local warlords who eventually Christianize, which I'm personally fine with over what we have in the West today. We may be talking past each other because your definition of libertarianism might just be 'limited monarchies'.
- Kenny Blankenship likes this.
-
@VikingWays @lovelymiss @6gorillianbarsofjewsoap @EvilSandmich @TrevorGoodchild @VaxxSabbath @lks a tax is a coercive charge. a voluntary agreement is not taxation. a state is a monopoly by definition, an absence of a state does not create artificial monopolies. hierarchy does work which is why private organisations use it to the extent that their investors agree to. the state does not create anything, their subjects do. in general the norse legal traditions cannot be described as totalitarian, i'm not comparing the non icelandic systems to libertarianism but most of them definitely can't be compared to 20th century fascism.