Sovereignty is conserved?
Upon a closer reading of Chapter 5 of Ricardo Duchesne’s account of Western Civilization it seems that I must confess; I think Mencius is just plain wrong on a major issue, and perhaps Hoppe too. We should dub Mencianism as theoretical monarchism, or him a theoretical royalist, and not necessarily a royalist that is based upon a reading of western civilization or reaction *as it was*.
Perhaps even an exercise in Royal Theoreticism.
(Copied from my Scrivener)
“ According to Berman, the period between 1000 and 1200 saw a “tremendous transformation” in the legal institutions of Western Europe. Out of the Papal Revolution, the great confrontation between church and state in the investiture controversy (ca. 1050–1122), came the idea of the church’s corporate autonomy, its right to exercise legislative, administrative, and judicial powers within its own domain, including the right to levy taxes, in addition to the dominion it already asserted over wide areas of civil and domestic aff airs.”…..
“What Berman fi nds revolutionary is the way the church, in acquiring independent law-making powers, went on to cultivate a whole new legal system deeply indebted to Roman concepts but which constituted “the fi rst modern Western legal system”: the fi rst comprehensive and rational systematization of law (85–119).By analyzing and synthesizing all authoritative statements concerning the nature of law, the various sources of law, and the defi nitions and relationships between the diff erent kinds of law (divine law, natural law, human law, the law of the church, the law of princes, enacted law, customary law), Ecclesiastical scholars created the intellectual and legal basis for the reconstitution of medieval Europe as a “warren of jurisdictions” (kingdoms, baronies, bishoprics, urban communes, guilds, universities), which in turn resulted in the preconditions and the experience for a civil society where no authority, not even the pope or the king, had complete political, religious, or intellectual jurisdiction.”
It seems like Mencius was comprehensively incorrect that the King is supposed to be completely sovereign over his territory, and that this preceded the reformation by quite some time, European society is decidedly neocameral and NOT a place where the King is the sole proprietor of European civilization, this was simply not how the old kings behaved. It is not an Indo-European thing at all.
edit: but also
Europe’s organization into legally sanctioned institutions such as cities, universities, and monasteries that set it apart. Members could enjoy a degree of autonomy not tolerated, or legally guaranteed, in more centralized societies such as China, where authority descended from the emperor and his offi cials down.