should I do an article compare/contrast-ing merovingian/carolingian francia with the ideal of ancapistan
-
-
but I've heard the argument that the individual was created by the rifle, that the leveling effect it has is really what was behind ~four centuries of liberal revolts/reforms
-
and the real question is whether further technological developments lend to a situation of greater individual empowerment or total disempowerment
-
The crossbow did it first. The gun was effectively a better crossbow, but the crossbow itself already enabled a woman or child to kill without having years of training or strength of arms. Hence the fulmination against them, the arguments they were unchristian, etc.
-
I would argue that the crossbow, and later the gun, made numbers important. Prior to that, truly disproportionate numbers of untrained peasants were needed to win against a knight. Now we have tech like drones and ICBMs that do not depend on raw numbers of trigger fingers.
-
As a side note, social hierarchy is far more intuitive if the man giving out orders is worth 40-50 peasants in a fight. It's easy to believe he really is the best of humanity and has a divinely given right to lead. Less so if he's just another dude with a rifle.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You could be a wandering swordsman with a great deal of personal power, but without much institutional or financial power. Of course, many people with the former seized the latter, but not always. Ronin, knights errant, disgraced condottieri... all individuals.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.