> There are many things that still resemble feudalism. Per capita tax, property tax, conservation easements on deeds, zoning, etc.

Nonsense. Contributing back to society doesn't even register as a concern when your employer can force you to not have any alternative to work for him under his term, and apply harsh penalties to you and your loved ones if you step out of line. These nonsensical anarchist tropes only come in play to pull the focus away from the one-sided social arrangement between employers and employees in the US which his highly exploitative and outright resembles feudalism.

Your reply is nonsense much more than the one you're replying to. Voluntarily entering a contract with bad terms has a lot less in common with feudalism than heavy handed government does. It's fine that you prefer the authoritarian government, but it doesn't change what feudalism was.

"Voluntarily" is doing a lot of work there. There is a huge power imbalance between employers and unemployed people looking for a job, especially as they may face bankruptcy and homelessness if they go too long without income.

Still less of a power imbalance than talking about the government. Let's not forget that the government is the one who enforces those non-competes. So you're really only talking about one subset of the government authority.

FWIW, and not meant as a contradiction: while (talking Britain here particularly) many were still literally slaves under Feudalism (not serfs) and others Villiens (serfs tied to a property - the root of the once-classist word villain); there were also a great many free people taking contracts under bad terms, if only because it's easy for Lords to collude re wages for servants, etc, etc.

You're doing a lot of personal attacking and not much explaining.

How is what I said "nonsense"? Do you not see that if the government decides to zone your land as conservation so you can't build on it that is one sided? Or if they use eminent domain. Even if it's in the best interest of society it's certainly one sided for the affected individual. And if they decide not to comply, you can bet the punishments will be much harsher than a non-compete.

You see, in this example society and company can be largely interchangeable - a group of people imposing something on an individual. Yeah, sure, most of the time society is acting in everyone's best interest. However, you have to remember that isn't always the case, such as with salvery or segregation. There are still injustices today.

If you reread my original comment, I never said those activities were good or bad, merely that many of our laws have their historic roots in feudalism. In many cases, those activies can be applied to either good or bad ends. There are examples of eminent domain being abused, and others which have provided benefits to society and generously compensated the owners. The important tie in to feudalism is that in either case the government is the one who owns the land while the "owner" holds the title of deed. You can hold the land as long as you abide by the rule of the government. Violate that rule (not paying taxes, use it for committing criminal activity, violate zoning) and they can take that land back, fine you, imprison you, etc.