Misc

Another post on Medieval times / Dark Ages, this the Merovingian anarchy.

"Based on this book by Robert Latouche, I have previously written about the fall of Rome and the beginnings of medieval society. Latouche next moves on to various aspects of the decentralized monetary and economic system of Merovingian society (described as "anarchy" by Latouche), and the transition toward centralization attempted by Charlemagne – a transition that, fortunately for those who favor decentralization, did not last for long after his death.
This story is a shining light on a successful period of anarchy – not Rothbard’s anarchy, but certainly the absence of a centralized state acting as sovereign. This possibility was realized as Rome fell, and was reborn after the attempts toward centralization of Charlemagne and the Carolingian Empire."

It's funny that common knowledge was Charlemagne was doing a good thing by centralizing power.

"Never in our history has the conception of the state known so complete an eclipse. Numerous churches obtained privileges of immunity; many enjoyed that of minting money…. "

And this is generally considered a bad thing.

"The Carolingians strove to maintain its legal weight and percentage of pure silver in order to prevent it from becoming a mere token money, a coinage of inflation, and took vigorous, even unpopular, steps to impose it on their subjects and encourage its circulation."

That sounds like the coin was debased. Strove to maintain sounds a lot like failed to maintain.

"In addition to making illegal the means by which a starving man might be able to acquire foodstuffs, Charlemagne enacted price controls in an attempt to keep prices at lower levels (note, price controls came coincident with the issue of his new coins):

That was why, at the Synod of Frankfurt in 794, Charlemagne, who had just issued his new deniers, fixed in agreement with the Fathers of the Council the maximum retail price for the main corn crops.

These price controls covered crops such as oats, barley, rye, and wheat – eventually on bread as well."

This sounds like he was fighting inflation, more evidence his coins were debased.

"Charlemagne, in an act described as kindness and as setting a good example, sold his crop at prices even lower than the maximum price. Of course, another way to look at this is that he was bankrupting the competition, something he could afford to do given the control he had over the economy…."

Because he was stealing silver by debasing coins.

"On the pretense of ensuring that transactions were carried out in an honest manner, Charlemagne, in the Capitulary of 803…

…forbids the sale of gold vases, silver, slaves, pearls, horses, and other animals at night-time and insists on such purchases being made in public.

One might view this as an attempt to kill the black (night-time) market."

More evidence of corruption.

"Today we look back to the political philosophies underpinning written constitutions as liberating, when in fact these were the result of – and ensured the longevity of – the state as the sole sovereign entity to which man, on earth, could appeal. The Magna Carta is heralded as a milestone toward liberal society, when in fact it represented the loss of the limited sovereignty of other, competing institutions.
When there is only the individual against the state, individual rights become paramount. However, in an environment of multiple and competing sovereignties the need is not so great."

Interesting. We have no experience with anything like that.

"The people of the Early Middle Ages, both before and after Charlemagne, understood this. They would cringe in horror at the barbarity of the modern state."

I wonder.

"A state is absolute in the sense which I have in mind when it claims the right to a monopoly of all the force within the community, to make war, to make peace, to conscript life, to tax, to establish and disestablish property, to define crime, to punish disobedience, to control education, to supervise the family, to regulate personal habits, and to censor opinions. The modern state claims all of these powers, and, in the matter of theory, there is no real difference in the size of the claim between communists, fascists, and Democrats."

That's the sad truth.

It sounds like the relatively free economy during the Merovingian period had nothing to do with wise kings. It was more a product of their petty wars with each other.

"The frequent wars had weakened royal power, while the aristocracy had made great gains and procured enormous concessions from the kings in return for their support. These concessions saw the very considerable power of the king parcelled out and retained by leading comites and duces (counts and dukes)."

I'll bet the period after Charlemagne was similar.