This is interestingly clear as a depiction of the "no one can ever take my stuff" rationalisation lurking under nigh-all flavours of libertarian belief, which turns out to be the same error as beauty-as-material-property.
Nothing is of itself beautiful; beauty is a name given to a type of response experienced by a perceiving mind. Similarly, liberty is not a right or a property; liberty is the agreement of your fellows that you can do that.
(Actual feudalism, at least the Western sort, involved solemnisation of contracts through public oaths before witnesses, and one of the witnesses was God. (Hence the use of saint's relics, bibles, and so on as parts of the oath ritual.) Those individuals undertaking the contracts have context.)
The other obvious gaping pit in the libertarian axioms is that nothing is your own work in any clearly demarcated way. Everything you do rests on the social context you're embedded in, which to a very large extent determines both what's possible for you to do and what's beneficial for you to do.
And this is why libertarianism is most popular among a certain breed of techie, who mistakes the collective work of past humanity he draws on for the state of nature...
Eventually ... not in 1846 though. That is also one of the conversations you might have while standing on Mosley St. - You can also learn something about the triangle trade in the Manchester museum of science and industry, which is a great museum. An interesting city, geographically and historically.
This is interestingly clear as a depiction of the "no one can ever take my stuff" rationalisation lurking under nigh-all flavours of libertarian belief, which turns out to be the same error as beauty-as-material-property.
Nothing is of itself beautiful; beauty is a name given to a type of response experienced by a perceiving mind. Similarly, liberty is not a right or a property; liberty is the agreement of your fellows that you can do that.
(Actual feudalism, at least the Western sort, involved solemnisation of contracts through public oaths before witnesses, and one of the witnesses was God. (Hence the use of saint's relics, bibles, and so on as parts of the oath ritual.) Those individuals undertaking the contracts have context.)
The other obvious gaping pit in the libertarian axioms is that nothing is your own work in any clearly demarcated way. Everything you do rests on the social context you're embedded in, which to a very large extent determines both what's possible for you to do and what's beneficial for you to do.
And this is why libertarianism is most popular among a certain breed of techie, who mistakes the collective work of past humanity he draws on for the state of nature...
Well, yes, but somehow Holbo's essay makes this more annoying.
There's falling for it, and there's flinging yourself in, and the essay makes it clear that there's very little falling going on.
Indeed. A great deal of flinging...
This reminds me in passing that Manchester (UK) bought the rights to run their own justice system from the Mosley family in 1846.
Indeed! Tell me more!
All I can really say is that if you stand on Mosley St. for a while someone will very likely come along and mention it.
https://twitter.com/MancPictures/status/1470133732392775682
However - for a more dignified source there is Redford 1939, "The Emergence of Manchester" -
"In 1846 the corporation bought out (for €200,000) the manorial rights of Sir Oswald
Mosley, and thus extinguished the old court leet."
P.S. That's a pound symbol, interesting what cut-and-paste does there ...
Was that Mosley the Nazi sympathizer? The name is familiar.
Eventually ... not in 1846 though. That is also one of the conversations you might have while standing on Mosley St. - You can also learn something about the triangle trade in the Manchester museum of science and industry, which is a great museum. An interesting city, geographically and historically.
I'm slow. I remembered the 1939, not the 1946. My brain processes the numbers and the words in two different places. This has happened before.
Regardless, I think your question had a real point. It's not purely coincidental ... there's a lot of history packed into a small place.
Shhhh! Libertarianism is (almost exclusively) a males-only doctrine...
John would agree that John is too wordy. And yes, one does have to contract the boundaries with all others...