Interesting.
——————————————————————————————————
What are the practical consequences of the neofeudal possition? That still needs to be worked out. In a series of future posts, I’d like to argue the following–all in the spirit of the historical Louis de Bonald:

1. Incorporation of the family. Conservatives have always opposed inheritance taxes, because in our minds when property passes from father to son, it doesn’t really change hands at all. The family itself is the owner. It would be better to assert this directly, by making families property and responsibility-bearing subjects under the law. Details on how family property should be treated are tricky, since we want to incentivize its correct us and discourage abuses. Also, inheritance becomes a live issue again.

2. The abolition of private fortunes. The rich should be given a choice of having their surplus property confiscated by the State or buying their way into an aristocracy, in which case they get to keep their fortunes, but these are transformed into a public trust, to be used to benefit the aristocrat’s locale. Rights and duties need to be spelled out.

3. Strengthening and socialization of unions. Trade and workers’ organizations are to be encouraged, but they shouldn’t just exist to promote their members’ self-interest (although they should certainly do this). They should be the forum wherein these workers experience their duty to the wider social order. One possibility would be to put unions in charge of the training and training standards of new workers, which would begin an evolution of unions into guilds.

4. A revitalization of anti-usury laws. Activities that obscure the relations between property and social order (e.g. by giving money a life of its own, as the ancients saw it) must be kept from being too lucrative. Lots of details to be worked out here