> Then, you're arguing for feudalist land ownership customs?
>This is a really bad-faith reframing of the parent comment.
How so? Very respectfully, perhaps you should read with more care.
See here:
>those strips were even periodically reallocated to keep things fair.
Which stands alone as an argument for feudalist customs, but I also argue that it frames the rest as an argument-in-favor. Such as this, seemingly positively highlighting community "customary rights".
>In feudal Europe, land could only be “owned” by a lord, and even then it was bound up in obligations both to their superiors and to the peasants working it. There were all sorts of customary rights layered on top:
Critique my answer, but accusing a bad faith argument doesn't hold up.
No one who reads for comprehension would credibly interpret the post as anything but an argument for feudalist customs. To be generous: even if the over-arching intent possibly is to change modern legal customs via any necessary argument.
That may be, but highlighting feudalism is a morally perilous way to go about it.
I disagree with the perspective entirely, but if someone is going to advocate for it then they should find a less morally backwards method than highlighting the ostensible fairness of the feudal era.
