Medieval peasants got a lot more vacation time than you

[Dr Kynes]

You're an idiot Kynes. You're so stuck in a false dichotomy, that when presented with new information which renders your views stupid, you decry deceiver.

Serfs were not chattel, therefore it was voluntary.

That is a completely true statement, yet you can not reconcile this with what you believe voluntary to mean. Surely there exists societal factors which goad people to accept serfdom, therefore according to you, it can not be voluntary. It is not deception when I make a point, knowing full well that you will disagree because of what you think a word means. In this case, voluntary.

So why is it that the serfs volunteered their service to the lords?

The answer is simple Kynes, it is because the only difference between the serfs and lords, was property. The lords had property and the serfs did not. The lords owned the land which sustained them all. This is a sufficient goad to coerce a man into voluntary serfdom.

Again Kynes, serfs were not chattel. I have to be a broken record with you, because you're stupid.

the above is 100% false, because it is based upon the assumption that the serf was NOT chattel, when in fact the serf was PART OF THE PROPERTY, just as the trees, fields, structures, and geographical features were.

serfs were LESS than livestock, since the sale of a property did not automatically include the chickens, goats, sheep and cattle, but it DID include the serfs.

serfs were a physical resource, bound to the land as permanently as the cottages in which they dwelt.

pretending otherwise, despite the evidence to the contrary makes your incorrectness into WILLFUL IGNORANCE, and restating that which you now know is wrong, is a LIE.

 

[abandonconflict]

the above is 100% false, because it is based upon the assumption that the serf was NOT chattel, when in fact the serf was PART OF THE PROPERTY

They relied upon the land for survival. The land was property, the serfs were not. Serfs, by definition are not chattel. In fact, in most feudal societies, they even had some rights. They were bound to the landlord only by debt.

 

[Dr Kynes]

They relied upon the land for survival. The land was property, the serfs were not. Serfs, by definition are not chattel. In fact, in most feudal societies, they even had some rights. They were bound to the landlord only by debt.

now you are arguing Debt servitude which is NOT serfdom.

read the britannica article cited above.

read the whole thing.

serfdom was not indenture, it was a permanent, hereditary condition of BONDAGE where the victim of said bondage is bound to servitude on a particular piece of property AS a piece of property with only marginally more rights than an actual SLAVE.

Slavery Light is NOT freedom, nor is Mostly Slavery a voluntary condition.

Serfdom is not a nebulous imaginary philosophical idea which can be parsed, redefined or dismissed with a wave of your hand. it is a REAL condition with a REAAL definition, and REAL 4evidence for it's existence in FACT.

your erroneous opinion on the nature of serfdom is irrelevant to the facts, and constant re-iteration of this FALSEHOOD does not confer any truth upon your lies.

 

[abandonconflict]

serfdom was not indenture, it was a permanent, hereditary condition of BONDAGE

Except that a serf could "buy freedom" by paying off the debt.

All you are doing is repeating incessantly that serfs were property.

However, serfs were not chattel, by definition.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Except that a serf could "buy freedom" by paying off the debt.

All you are doing is repeating incessantly that serfs were property.

However, serfs were not chattel, by definition.

no. serfs could not "buy freedom by paying off debt"

there was no debt required in serfdom.

that is indenture, or debt servitude.

serfdom is entirely different, and if you read the britannica description you would know that by now, just as if you actually read the Communist manifesto you would recognize that you are in fact a marxist.

sadly you preferr to repeat falsehoods and insist you are right (the selfsame thing you purport that i do, despite my willing and glib acceptance of those times i am in error) while refusing to examine the evidence which disproves your assumptions.

 

[abandonconflict]

there was no debt required in serfdom.

This is true, and serfs with out debt were free to leave their fief as many did. Most of those just became serfs elsewhere or joined some king's army.

 

[Dr Kynes]

This is true, and serfs with out debt were free to leave their fief as many did. Most of those just became serfs elsewhere or joined some king's army.

citation needed.

nahh fuck that, thats a LIE

serfs didnt "join" shit they were impressed into service, because they were OWNED by their liege.

thats why "serf" is derived from the latin word for SLAVE

try READING this time
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...535485/serfdom

it's Fun-Damental

 

[abandonconflict]

thats why "serf" is derived from the latin word for SLAVE

Serfdom is a type of slavery.

It isn't chattel slavery though.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Serfdom is a type of slavery.

It isn't chattel slavery though.

~http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chattel
Chattel:
1: an item of tangible movable or immovable property except real estate and things (as buildings) connected with real property

2: slave, bondman

Bondman:
slave, serf

really. you cannot seriously be this ignorant.

 

[abandonconflict]

Nothing in your last post contradicts my statements.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Nothing in your last post contradicts my statements.

so all the universe is naught but a word game and YOU get to decide what every word means.

like most lefties, you think your endless parsing and redefining of firmly established meanings somehow justifies your fallacious beliefs.

it doesnt matter how many times you try, YOU cannot change the meaning of a word to suit your narrative of the day.

serfdom is not voluntary, nor is it indenture, nor is it debt bondage, nor is your nonsensical imaginary psychological construct related to reality.

you live in a fantasy world where every word means whatever is convenient to your ends at the moment, and your infallibility is assured by the redefinition of any concept or idea which does not suit your whim.

unfortunately for you, that means every single belief you espouse must be examined objectively by the observer and it's meaning brought in line with reality. thats why nobody is lining upo to join your "Libertarian Socialist" party. it exists solely within your delusion, everyone who looks too closely correctly identifies it as simple utopian marxism, and that shit is long since discredited.

 

[abandonconflict]

so all the universe is naught but a word game and YOU get to decide what every word means.

No, that is not at all correct, and not at all my approach. In fact you're the one using words poorly.

Like what you did with defining a word, then defining a word found in the first definition to then posit that it is included. That was a dirty word game that you played, finding a definition to chattel that suited you, then finding a definition to bondman that suited you further, in order create a faulty syllogism and I only let it slide because it failed.

Now going back to my original statement.

Serfdom is voluntary, which I premised on the fact that serfs are not chattel. You are trying to play word games to render it nonsense. Synonyms are words with same or similar meanings. You must think that synonyms are interchangeable words. They are not, and if you are simply using a thesaurus to sound smart, I suggest you git you some book.

Sure, it is a semantic argument, but so are contracts and it is therefore of paramount importance, when arguing or when bargaining to understand their meaning.

 

[Dr Kynes]

No, that is not at all correct, and not at all my approach. In fact you're the one using words poorly.

Like what you did with defining a word, then defining a word found in the first definition to then posit that it is included. That was a dirty word game that you played, finding a definition to chattel that suited you, then finding a definition to bondman that suited you further, in order create a faulty syllogism and I only let it slide because it failed.

Now going back to my original statement.

Serfdom is voluntary, which I premised on the fact that serfs are not chattel. You are trying to play word games to render it nonsense. Synonyms are words with same or similar meanings. You must think that synonyms are interchangeable words. They are not, and if you are simply using a thesaurus to sound smart, I suggest you git you some book.

Sure, it is a semantic argument, but so are contracts and it is therefore of paramount importance, when arguing or when bargaining to understand their meaning.

well if "my definition" is unsatisfactory, or you claim it is edited, provide your own SOURCED definition, further, anyone who has the googles can do th4e same search for "'chattel" and see that in fact the posted definition (as well as all others offered by google) is NOT altered, edited truncated, cut or modified, and EVERY definition is shockingly consistent.

likewise the definition of Serf, Serfdom, Bondman, Slave, Indenture, etc etc etc.

your construction is simply incorrect.
your tortured parsing of the various words is merely an attempt to salvage some imaginary victory from the ashes of your obvious and total defeat on this issue, as well as a shameful attempt the ONCE AGAIN change the subject, and distract everyone from the way you ONCE AGAIN made yourself look like a fool with your TOTAL LACK OF KNOWLEDGE because some silly bullshit NYTimes article suited your narrative.

the OP, the cited NYTimes article and every one of the assertions you have made in defense of them is WRONG, the mature thing to do would be to accept the fact that sometimes shit is just wrong, no matter how much you might like to believe it, and move on, a little wiser, perhaps a little sadder, but either way, your defense of this narrative remains a failure. tie it off and try a new tactic.

 

[abandonconflict]

Serfs are not chattel. By definition. Look it up for yourself. That is what the word fucking means.

Now I'm moving on.

Since, by definition, serfs are not chattel, why then did serfs historically have a life they did not wish to have?

There are two ways to look at this as far as I see.

1) They were not really serfs but became chattel slaves and the system of feudalism continued to operate on the notion that they were serfs. Their lords had all become greedy and tyrannical and exercised unhindered tyranny over these people. They were called serfs, but they were chattel.

2) They did volunteer. Their choices in life were so limited that they chose to be peons and thus were indeed serfs, voluntarily bound. Stay here and fucking work or your family will starve.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Serfs are not chattel. By definition. Look it up for yourself. That is what the word fucking means.

Now I'm moving on.

Since, by definition, serfs are not chattel, why then did serfs historically have a life they did not wish to have?

There are two ways to look at this as far as I see.

1) They were not really serfs but became chattel slaves and the system of feudalism continued to operate on the notion that they were serfs. Their lords had all become greedy and tyrannical and exercised unhindered tyranny over these people. They were called serfs, but they were chattel.

2) They did volunteer. Their choices in life were so limited that they chose to be peons and thus were indeed serfs, voluntarily bound. Stay here and fucking work or your family will starve.

i DID look it up, and posted the results for all to see.

serfdom is a state of BONDAGE, with the serf being bound to the Real property just as a cottage or a tree is.

serfdom is a form of slavery, even britannica declares it so, the serf being Forcibly Bound to the land, unable to leave, change professions, or even get married without the permission of his liege.

"serfdom is not chattel slavery" is only true by the narrowest and most tortured definition, but "serfdom is voluntary" is 100% untrue, as are every one of the subsidiary assertions you have made to try and justify that bullshit claim.

you have attempted to move the goalposts repeatedly, but you STILL CANNOT SCORE.

serfdom remains involuntary servitude, and a modified form of slavery, despite all your not-so-clever word games.

 

[abandonconflict]

If they are not chattel, then serfdom is voluntary.

 

[Dr Kynes]

If they are not chattel, then serfdom is voluntary.

Maximum Strength Dosage of NOPE.
Highest NOPE Content Allowed By Law

 

[abandonconflict]

You're just butthurt because voluntaryism is a fancy word for feudalism.

 

[Dr Kynes]

You're just butthurt because voluntaryism is a fancy word for feudalism.

Prescription Strength NOPE
Nobody believes that crap, not even you.
it's not even a good try.
you have no idea what feudalism is, as you have clearly demonstrated in this thread.

fail, compounding fail, compounding fail.
but if you could learn from your failures you wouldn't be digging up your ASTRONOMICALLY LUDICROUS bullshit about feudalism again.

 

[abandonconflict]

My interpretation of voluntaryism is from Rothbard and Lysander Spooner and I have read it (all from both), so don't even start if you haven't read them jerkface.