Not a day without its litany of advice: don’t eat this, don’t eat that, drive like this, not like that, don’t go there, go there … And when the advice stops, then the incentives, the nudging, or even the orders start.
You will take the bus. You will insulate your windows. You will agree.
You will eat your broccoli.
This was the language of religions and businesses. It is the basic thread of politics and economics today. Whereas we were once pushed, encouraged, supported, to thrive through improvement, progress, today we are smothered in love.
Where there was meritocracy, we have now compassion.
And still, somehow, anger is on the rise everywhere.
Some say it is because of this, that or even something else. It is much simpler: we feel boxed in. In a box that shrinks every day. While we are sung that it is in our own interest.
Even if we are told that there is a vision of some kind, it does not sound much more than the inner logic of a management simulation: we grow, optimise and manage society.
European societies know this system.
Once upon a time, regimes were set in stone, designed by God her.him.itself, sustained by a militantly benevolent ideology, for a handful of overlords ruling over subjects that were objects. We thought we got rid of them.
This system was called Feudalism, Mr Anderson.
And, to a little tune of inevitability, feudalism is slithering back thanks to our fascination with their comforting predictability in times of complexity.
Control
A feudal lord owned the land, the tools and the men, the roads, the bridges, the windmills… everything standing on their domain. The remaining 98% of the population could not really own real estate. The lowest rung of the medieval population, the Serfs, did not even own themselves.
Ownership of the land was, and is, at the root of political regimes with an agricultural past – like France. Communists tried collective ownership of the land: they starved. Feudal lands never produced enough surplus for the population to grow. Only private ownership ever worked, and this is the logical foundation of the Right to Property beyond any theory. Since the Code Napoleon real estate ownership is guaranteed by the European legal system.
But do we really own our real estate? Fleabite by fleabite, we are asked to pay ever more for the ground we occupy, the public services such as sewers, water access, the privilege to heat the apartment, the right to light it in an ever increasing monthly bill. On paper, we may be owners, or become owners. In practise, we are all evermore tenants in our own property.
We can say that it is “taxation without representation”, the malpractice of increasing taxes without actual votes, or, more to the point, arbitrary, feudal, taxes.
Remember your surprise at reading about the 17th century window tax? Well, that would not shock you today anymore: it is called mandatory double glazing.
And, as for becoming owners, housing pricing in Europe increased +60% in 7 years. Some of it is inflation, but not only. One new insulation decree at a time, one new energy diktat at a time, real estate ownership becomes a privilege. It was once the basis of a virtuous cycle of economic integration. It was once the theory behind social housing.
So, you can argue inflation this, environment that, but the net effect is that more and more people leave the property market as they cannot afford it. So, better that corporations, governments, or Lords of the manor step in?
Private real estate is more and more re-appropriated as public space, directly or indirectly. As in the old socialist ideology. Or the feudal one. The only difference being a plural or singular overlord.
Next?
Income Tax.
We used to have in the back of our head the image of the exploited, downtrodden medieval Serf, scratching a living. I had. Feudal Serfs paid in produce, cash and time served. The amount and systems of medieval taxes varied greatly, but to have an idea, the taxes paid in France by peasants were around 20% of the crop, a proxy for revenue. Top that with a couple of days per year for infrastructure maintenance excluding tolls, salt and assorted usage specific taxes, like the VAT today.
Now compare that to the current European personal income tax rates, which can reach over 50% depending on the country. 20% income tax in de Middle Ages… Sounds like Dubai or Singapore, a tax haven!
We do spend the vast majority of our days working for the state.
Add to this taxes for alcohol and tobacco, fuel and cars, swimming pool and cadastral taxes, and the coming centuries will look at us with the same bewildered look we had reading about the medieval salt tax. France even brought back the medieval corvée: with Senior Day, French workers generously and spontaneously “gift” a day of work. Eat that, Kim Jong Il!
At which tax rate does spoliation start?
What is the optimal tax rate beyond which you actually harm your country? There used to be the marginal efficiency principle, or Laffer curve, but the latest batch of scholarship argue that it does not work. So, 25%? 45%? 70%… who knows. Clearly not science. What is not doubtful though is that we pay historically high taxes.
More?
Social mobility.
Feudalism not only froze real estate, personal finances, but also society. As in the former Indian caste system, you were born and died in your social layer. Your “estate” in technical terms: first estate were the nobles, second the clergy, third, everyone else.
Our societies are also slowly drifting into duplicate of the former generation. Whether nepo-kids in Hollywood or sons-and-daughters-of in politics, society seems to replicate itself each generation. The Kennedy dynasty, once the exception, is now the rule. Political leadership everywhere is more and more just the replication of the generation prior.
You can argue that it is mechanical, natural, a better solution than unwashed amateurs. It is also troubling.
Feudal societies were equal opportunity societies: no-one had none bar the 1%.
Fix
Feudal subjects were objects. The Serfs, somewhat sentient tools clawing a living, were attached to a property. That is the most striking aspect: the Serfs are an integral part of the property. When you sell it, they go with it. Not even as individual slaves. And because of that, they could not wander around willy-nilly. Only the lord would decide if they could move around. That was Russia until the 19th century by the way.
Freedom of movement is so ingrained in us that we would find it incredible to ask permission to bike to the next village, drive to the next town or fly to the other side of the world.
Or do we?
Over the last 50 years, flying became the premium means to experience, discover new climates, cultures, people. It was the backbone of International business. Not anymore.
FLYING IS BAD!
So much so that Europe is convinced short haul flights should be banned. France was first. Why not ban flying altogether? The BBC publishes every week a paper on it. There are other marginal cheerleaders, but Greta showed by refusing to fly to New York back then. It is unclear how she reached Glasgow in 2021 after COP 26. Probably canoeing.
If we want to fly, we still can. We just have to offset our carbon emissions. And how much? The science behind offsetting carbon emissions seems rather vague. The official carbon footprint calculator of the UN-adjacent ICAO gives a Singapore-Brussels at 1.8 metric ton of carbon, while a dedicated “engaged” site FlyGreen quotes the same flight 9 metric. Let’s unite behind the science, but which one?
Or we could always fast-track hydrogen engine research?
Then there is private transportation of course, the clear and present danger for the UN, Europe, Greta Thunberg and the planet itself. The car, once the symbol of freedom, progress and discovery, has become the Enemy. The Beetle, the Duck, the VW combi are not legendary for their performance or their looks, but for the world they opened through their sturdiness and affordability. This individual freedom may be the one too far.
DRIVING A CAR IS VERY BAD!
The UN is up in arms against it. You might think they have something(s) else to worry about, but you are wrong. All hands on deck! Any reason is good enough to ban private transportation. Soon anyway, everything will be within 15 minutes reach by bike or foot. You won’t need a car, you will happily live in your coop village!
The car brought mass tourism, car parks, car accidents, pollution and ring roads. Yes. And cars kill. True. So, let’s stop them now. Slow traffic by lower speed limits, don’t maintain the roads, narrow lanes, ban access, make more “low emission zones”. It does not even need to make sense. Make drivers see the Light, and come to the only logical, reasonable, and entirely unexpected conclusion… well, cars have little benefits.
And if this fails, confiscate driving itself, by installing in every car an onboard traffic controller. That would be ISA in Europe, the Intelligent (sic) Speed Assistant. Your car will tell us where you are, what you are doing and how. Imagine how seamless all of it will be if/when we add voice and face recognition! And we it can take over if we it thinks that you do not drive as we wish. Private transport made into something even better than public transport: mass movement control.
So, make drivers sentient tools.
And if all of this still does not work, then make cars unaffordable and your subjects will make by themselves the logical, reasonable and personal decision you aim for. How? Make Spaceship-grade specifications mandatory, force obsolescence by making the companies selling cars check if they are still road-worthy (guess what: not), and add planned obsolescence with electric engines and batteries. After all, Apple showed us the way to that.
If you double or triple the price of a car (cf. chart above), maybe, hopefully, the market will collapse. And, if not, then you have the car-tax money to pay for the 15 minute city.
A boxed in population.
Tidier that way.
Despite being guaranteed by no less than 4 legally binding texts, freedom of movement is slowly eroding across the continent. If not the world. Like property, it is incrementally narrowed: sure, you can go anywhere you may want… if it is possible. And we will tell you when and how.
For your own and the greater good. Working as intended.
Fyi – AI traffic optimisation does not work, collectivisation failed as well in transport, speed limits never improved travel time as driving slower surprisingly means arriving later. Someone failed to pay attention in grade 2.
Grow
Everything in a feudal society is pre-ordained. You have your place on earth, you belong to your liege. Feudal societies were historically agricultural. That could explain the obsession with growing fields, families, resources.
Growing is an antique as much as a contemporary obsession. We receive an hourly barrage of messages: get fitter, get healthier, get better, breed, multiply. As if we were being reared. The headlines? Catastrophe, birth rates are too low! We will soon run out of (truck) drivers!! Who will take care of our seniors!!! Buckingham palace can’t find enough butlers!
So relentless and ubiquitous, as to be suspicious.
How to justify a bigger population? We can’t create enough jobs according the last 50 years of unemployment statistics. Jobs will increasingly be taken over by AI, robots, VR, AR… We miss affordable, social, or both, housing. And population growth is bad for climate emergency warming change.
And still, it is everywhere: breed more say the “demographic re-armament” of Macron, import immigrants say the WEF, but also the UN and most mainstream parties. Migration is good for the economy, for the country. And when/if exhortations don’t work, turn to threats: without migration there is not enough to pay for pensions, and not enough to nurse retirement homes, not enough cheap manpower, etc…
Any of these problems have a solution. Pensions could be fixed by capitalisation instead of repartition, a system devised for a life expectancy of 64 years can’t work with life expectancy over 80 and an inverted age pyramid. Nurses could be found by re-tasking and retraining the 30% of admin personnel working in hospitals in Europe. We could tune our education system to more computer engineers and less “psychologists”. No, there are many solutions other than “more”.
The root of the obsession with population growth is cultural and political imperatives.
You need to grow your assets to successfully manage your realm, like in Civilisation or Warcraft. And in this society, in our current societies, your assets are more believers, more voters, more workers, more subjects, more sentient tools. And as the population try and take control of their lives, deny it as long as you can: e.g. despite 83% of the French asking a dignified death as much as a dignified life, there is somehow still a need to discuss, ponder, weigh and restrict it. We cannot let you die.
The clear message.
Your life does not belong to you.
And, like in feudal societies, the lay clergy of truth-sayers, the peer-reviewed journalists, scientists and entertainers, are shocked when no one listens to their sermons anymore.
The rising global anger is nothing more than the subjects realising that decisions are taken not “in their own interest”, but for the overall benefit of a system where they are objects.
Feudalism
What is most interesting is how Feudalism was achieved.
Feudalism was achieved by confiscating the freedom of movement, ownership and opinion of the masses to the exclusive benefit of a single digit minority, sanctioned and sustained by an ad hoc creed.
Under our own eyes, the same confiscation, with the same justification, is happening today.
For the greater good.
You are too important in the greater scheme of things. What you bring is just too great for us to just let it happen.
We cannot let you die, so we also cannot let you live.
Democratic politics fall into theatre. Freedom is just about performative: always invoked, less and less real and respected. Our representatives, when they are elected at all, lock our lives into convenient boxes. All in our interest. Of course. Why are we still surprised that the latest polls show that 66% of the French, 52% of the Belgian and 49% of the Germans do not trust their parliament?
It is indeed the end of implicit trust.
Condescendence for the sentient tools would do it.
Neo-feudalism, as a word, has sadly been narrowed to a criticism of techno-capitalism. It misses the real mark. Modern Feudalism hides in false logics and benevolent imperatives, cloaked in inevitability and threats, wrapped in compassion and empathy.
Freedom of opinion, movement and ownership need to be taken back.
THANK YOU FOR READING MNOI
If you like this article, please consider forwarding it to others. They can sign up to receive the latest posts here.
Have feedback? Do email me at pascal.bollon@makingnonsenseofit.com or share your comments on Facebook, LinkedIn, Reddit, or Instagram.
The post We Cannot Let You Live appeared first on MNOI.