The State - (7) - [Draft]

Image credit. Continued from here.

In this final section of our chapter on "The State" - comprising the present sequel (7) as well as future sequels (8) and (9) -, I hope to explain

• by historical example that freedom can grow only in collaboration with the state, to which purpose I turn to the parallel ascent of the Kingdom of France under the House of Capet and the country's bourgeoisie,

• why, more generally, freedom always needs a strong state, as organising and defending freedom requires massive collective action and resources, and

• why the state needs fetters to be strong. 

Part One - French Kingdom - A Coalition between the State and Forces Favouring Freedom

As the decline of feudalism sets in, the competition for structures of maximal power brings forth new attempts at statehood: the Hansa, city states, and confederations of states. Ultimately, these special types lack viability. The main reason for their long-term unsuitability is that they do not quite attain the coherence of authority and implacable enforcement power that the modern centralised and efficiently hierarchical territorial state manages to build. The Hansa leaves too much idiosyncratic discretion to its numerous members to ever become a force as compact as a territorial state - ultimately, it is self-undermining. The  city states fail to transcend the limits of a closed access society, serving predominantly as, often highly exploitative, instruments for the interests of a power elite whose internal rivalry tends to have an unsettling effect on the might of the state.

§ 33 - The Kingdom of France - State and Freedom Growing Stronger in Tandem

Around the 11th century we notice a remarkable upturn in Europe's economy, including a revival of long-distance trade. Increased economic activity promotes a more extensive and deepening division of labour. The number and size of urban centres increase. The urban population develops interests that deviate considerably from those of the church and the old feudal order. Therefore, the cities are eager for greater independence, seeking alliances with like minded forces such as the French royalty which itself is in search for greater autonomy. Whether urban centres venture to go it alone or whether they engage in confederations or coalesce with central authorities - the counterweight to feudal lords, the church, and the emperor - depends on their size and strength. Apart from the largest Italian city states, none of them are powerful enough to venture a solo run. 

The commercial centres of southern Europe rely on trade in luxury goods, which ensure a monopoly in non-bulk commodities with high profit margins. By contrast, with a need to turn over large quantities at low profit margins, trade in northern Europe is more difficult, creating a keen interest in improved conditions for trade and transport, competitive conditions and transaction costs.

The bourgeoisie differ substantially from members of the church and the feudal order in their views on appropriate legal principles and practices, the legitimacy of commerce, and the nature of economic gain. In search of sovereignty, France's royalty proves a natural ally in the bourgeoisie's quest for greater independence from feudal fetters.

The roots of state sovereignty in France go back to the time when the Capetian dynasty was still a regional force to whom "foreign policy" meant haggling and war with the feudal lords of what later came to be called France. Support for the Capets was forthcoming from the urban interests who were eager to see new institutions being established, especially when these fostered growing markets and proved well adapted to the needs of commerce, trade as well as the values and the life style of the aspiring commercial strata.

King and urban bourgeoisie find themselves in concordance concerning the system of taxation, innovative trends in public administration, but also with regard to certain moral and intellectual issues. A serious concern of the king is the establishment of a transparent and predictable regime of taxation that even grants the urban partriciate a voice in certain matters.

  

Regular revenues enable the king to undermine the feudal order and soften the resistance of the nobility and the clerics by paying them off with pensions and tax exemption. At the same time, the bourgeoisie is being granted urban rights of freedom by the king, which provide for many people for the first time a genuine alternative to feudal serfdom.

Appropriate incentives ensure that royal tax farmers and governors further their own advantage and enforce the interest of the king at the expense of their clerical and feudal contraries. Novel administrative practices expedite active participation of the bourgeoisie in issues vital to them. The administration of justice is made more transparent and is subjected to standardisation. When feudalism's legal system was based on a bewildering multitude of patchy rules and determinations largely reflecting personal and local relationships of dependency, the ascending kind rebuilds the into an impersonal, rational and uniform canon under central management in Paris. The mercantile classes enjoy a new found certainty of the law. Novel career prospects open up in the royal system of administration, whose recruitment policy consciously targets the bourgeoisie and the lower nobility, at a time when the significance of the high nobility and the clergy in operating the administrative system is in decline.

Endowed with high salaries and ample pensions, the royal inspectors are not tied to a certain place but operate as itinerant officials throughout the realm, exerting the kind of influence willed by the king, while remaining unaffected by local power-holders.

On many important issues, there is an attitudinal affinity between the citizenry and the king that marks them off against the clergy and feudal aristocracy. The former favour freedom of contract over the rigid personal ties of dependency underlying the feudal world. Against customary law and trial by ordeal, they ally themselves to support Roman law, i.e. a systematically codified law, clearly defined property rights, admission and regulation of interest payments, judicial decisions based on objective evidence. Against ecclesiastical mind control, they promote the language of the people, alphabetisation, and popular access to education. 

The king revives and claims for himself the Roman law notion of sovereignty. He works against the political fragmentation of the country, seeking to subject political process to a uniform, centrally exerted royal system of administration and control, not least to be able to represent the realm vis-à-vis foreign powers in the capacity of an indefeasible authority. 

Toward the end of the 13th century, the political fragmentation of France has been largely overcome. Once ruling over regna, veritable kingdoms of their own, such as Flanders, Normandy and Brittany,  the political autonomy of the feudal high nobility has vanished by now. Only certain emaciating privileges are left over from their former power and glory, and these concessions evaporate with the advent of the French revolution.

To be followed by

Part Two - The State - (8) - [Draft] - Freedom Needs a Strong State - Organising and Defending Freedom Requires Massive Collective Action and Resources

and

Part Three - The State - (9) - [Draft] - Bodin's Take: The State Needs Fetters To be Strong

and


The State - (10) - [Draft] - Conclusion

Continued here.