fbpx
01 / 05
More Reasons to Distrust Contemporary Feudal Fantasies

Blog Post | Democracy & Autocracy

More Reasons to Distrust Contemporary Feudal Fantasies

Romantic visions of feudal life bear little resemblance to the historical reality.

Summary: Recent praise for feudalism overlooks the grim reality of life under it. Far from being a system of mutual care, it was defined by hardship, hunger, and oppression for the many and insecurity even for the few in power. History shows that markets—not monarchs—turn self-interest into shared prosperity.


“Feudalism is so much better than what we have now. Because at least in feudalism, the leader is vested in the prosperity of the people he rules,” declared Tucker Carlson recently on The Tucker Carlson Show. His guest, writer Auron MacIntyre, agreed enthusiastically. Carlson added, “If all your serfs die, you starve.” McIntyre replied, “Yeah. There’s a true incentive to care for those people.”

The conversation sparked ridicule online, but it also reflected a broader, bipartisan trend. As Amanda Mull observed in The Atlantic, social media has grown “strangely nostalgic for life in the Middle Ages.” Samuel Matlack of The New Atlantis noted the puzzling frequency of the argument that the preindustrial past may have been superior to modernity.

Carlson’s reasoning implies that feudal lords, out of self-interest, nurtured the well being of their serfs. Yet the system he imagines has more in common with modern markets than with medieval Europe. Adam Smith explained the principle long ago: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” If customers are displeased, businesses collapse. Markets channel self-interest into mutual gain in ways that feudalism never could.

History makes that clear. Start with life expectancy. Even kings in the feudal era rarely lived into old age. Between the 11th and early 15th centuries, most European monarchs died young. Alfonso VI of Castile and León, who reached 79, was the outlier. Only a few others across England, Aragon, Germany, and France managed to live into their 60s. For most rulers, living to 70 was unattainable, and commoners fared far worse.

The average European life expectancy in the 11th century hovered around 25 years, driven down by staggering child mortality. Historian Richard Hoffmann notes that of 1,000 children who survived infancy, as many as 250 died by age seven. Only between 40 and 70 percent ever reached adolescence. In contrast, life expectancy in Europe today exceeds 80 years.

Nor were feudal peasant lives leisurely. A persistent myth claims medieval peasants worked less than modern people. This misconception stems from an early estimate by historian Gregory Clark, who suggested peasants worked only 150 days annually, an estimate he later revised upward to about 300. That number is higher than today’s 260 working days, even before accounting for paid holidays and vacation. Serfs’ labor was grueling and often damaging to their health. They were legally bound to the land, compelled to work their lord’s fields in addition to their own, and held few rights against mistreatment.

Another common misconception is that feudal societies provided security in exchange for labor. In reality, medieval Europe was marked by frequent famine, war, and violence. Crop failures were devastating, and local lords often demanded their share of harvests regardless of whether peasants had enough left to survive. Raids and small-scale wars were constant features of life, and the people at the bottom had little protection when armies swept through their fields. Unlike citizens in modern states who benefit from the rule of law and relatively impartial modern justice system, peasants depended on their lords for protection but had no meaningful recourse when those same lords were the source of oppression. For most peasants, daily life combined backbreaking labor with exposure to hunger, violence, and disease, far from the idyllic stability sometimes imagined today. (I explore these harsh realities in my forthcoming book, The Grim Old Days: An Introduction to the Preindustrial Past).

In Russia, where serfdom endured until 1861, abuse could be extreme. Serfs were frequently beaten or killed without legal consequence. The notorious case of Darya Saltykova, who tortured more than 100 of her serfs to death, was unusual only in that she faced punishment.

Material conditions were equally bleak. In 1300, the United Kingdom’s average income was about $1,657 in today’s dollars. That represented one of the wealthiest regions in Europe at the time. Even kings lived in poverty by modern standards, while ordinary peasants experienced deprivation that is difficult to imagine today.

When Friedrich Hayek titled his classic The Road to Serfdom, he did not mean it as praise. He used “serfdom” to warn against a return to systems that crushed freedom and prosperity. Carlson’s romantic vision of feudal life bears little resemblance to the historical reality.

Modern economic systems, for all their flaws, have delivered longer lives, safer working conditions, and unprecedented prosperity. The record of feudalism offers no reason to wish for its return.

This article was originally published at LA Progressive on 9/22/2025.

Blog Post | Innovation

The Land of Ice, Fire, and Innovation

Innovation has served Iceland for 1,150 years. Why change a working recipe?

Summary: Iceland has long thrived through innovation and freedom. Its history is one of transforming scarcity into strength and discovery. Joining the European Union could trade entrepreneurial vitality for bureaucratic constraint and regulation. Iceland’s story proves that wealth flows not from the ground, but from the boundless resource of human imagination.


I recently had the pleasure of visiting Iceland, a country of about 390,000 people. The place feels like a mash-up of Hawaii and Alaska, with a land area roughly the size of Kentucky. Iceland has around 130 volcanoes, with about 30 considered active. Along with the volcanoes there are around 500 earthquakes per week. Many of these are microquakes (below a magnitude of 2.0) that go unnoticed, but about 44 a year register a magnitude of 4.0 or higher within 180 miles of the island.

The statue of Leif Erikson and the Hallgrímskirkja church in Reykjavík, Iceland

The International Monetary Fund projects Iceland’s GDP per capita to reach $81,220 in 2025, adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP). This compares to $89,110 for the US and $64,550 for the European Union (EU).

The purpose of my visit was to talk about why Iceland should or should not join the EU. The event was hosted by Students for Liberty Europe and RSE, the Icelandic Centre for Social and Economic Research. What does this topic have to do with our book, Superabundance?

In our book we argue that we’re experiencing a period of superabundance, where personal resource abundance is increasing faster than population growth. This period started about 200 years ago after millennia of stagnation. We attribute this in large part to people recognizing that the freedom to innovate lifts humanity out of poverty. Innovation is the discovering and sharing of valuable new knowledge in markets. Around 1820, the planet’s dormant entrepreneurs began to blossom and bear fruit. But Iceland has been innovating much longer than 200 years.

Iceland can be considered a creation of entrepreneurs. It was first settled around 874 CE by Norse explorers, primarily from Norway, led by Ingólfr Arnarson, who is traditionally recognized as the island’s first permanent settler. He established his homestead in what is now Reykjavík (“Smoky Bay”), named after the steam rising from nearby hot springs.

Throughout history, the creators have fled the takers—escaping oppression to found new realms of freedom where ideas could multiply and wealth could grow. This is the ancient rhythm of renewal that gave birth to America. The settlers of Iceland were largely Vikings, along with some Celtic slaves (it was typical of the times to enslave defeated peoples) and settlers from the British Isles. Drawn by the island’s fish and grazing land, they sought independence from Norway’s consolidating monarchy.

By 930 CE, the settlers established the Althing, one of the world’s oldest parliaments, at Þingvellir, creating a system of governance where chieftains met annually to settle disputes and make laws. This marked the start of the Icelandic Commonwealth, a decentralized society without a king.

Iceland’s Parliament House

The population grew to around 50,000 by the 11th century, sustained by farming, fishing, and trade. The Commonwealth lasted 332 years, until 1262, when internal conflicts and external pressure from Norway led Iceland to pledge allegiance to the Norwegian crown, ending its independence. This set the stage for centuries of foreign rule, first by Norway and later Denmark. Iceland finally achieved full independence 682 years later, in 1944, establishing the modern Republic of Iceland.

Wealth Is Knowledge and Growth Is Learning

Superabundance is based on the ideas of Julian Simon and George Gilder. Two of the book’s key principles are that wealth is knowledge and growth is learning. These apply directly to Iceland—a nation that turned scarcity into strength and desolation into discovery. With little arable land and few natural endowments, Icelanders learned that the ultimate resource was not in the soil or the waters but in the capacity to imagine and create.

When oil shocks hit in the 1970s, Iceland had little domestic energy. Rather than surrender to scarcity, Icelanders turned to what they had in superabundance. They drilled not for fossil fuels but for fire beneath the earth, turning volcanic fury into light and heat. Today, nearly all of Iceland’s power flows from geothermal and hydroelectric abundance—proof that energy, like wealth, begins not with matter but with knowledge.

And from this same well of ingenuity emerged a national symbol—the Blue Lagoon. The world-famous pools and spa were born from the overflow of the Svartsengi geothermal power station, where geothermal brine spilled into a lava field and transformed an industrial by-product into a national treasure. What began as an accident became an emblem of Icelandic creativity—a living harmony of mind and matter, fire and water.

The Blue Lagoon reminds us that wealth is not drawn from the ground but flows from the fountain of human imagination, where even the castoffs of creation can shimmer with new light. In Iceland, energy is not merely harnessed—it is redeemed.

In the early 20th century, Iceland was a country primarily reliant on imported coal to meet its energy needs. The first hydropower station was built in 1904, and today there are 15 stations producing 73 percent of the nation’s electricity. Geothermal represents the other 27 percent.

Ljósafoss Power Station

Abundant, affordable, and reliable energy is one of the fountainheads of modern civilization, turning ingenuity into prosperity. Yet Europe’s leaders, in their zeal to perfect nature, have turned against the very forces that sustain it. By dismantling coal, nuclear, and gas in favor of windmills and solar panels, they are not advancing progress but reversing it, replacing mastery with dependence and innovation with austerity. The continent that once ignited the Industrial Revolution now flirts with a new age of scarcity—an empire of entropy cloaked in virtue. The great tragedy is the belief that prosperity can be preserved by suppressing the freedom that created it. Prosperity follows those who dare to learn from the world, not those who try to silence it.

For Iceland to thrive, it must continue to unleash its creative energy—to innovate, to speak, and to let knowledge flow as freely as its geothermal springs. Iceland is proof that wealth is not in the ground but in the mind. When faced with the scarcity of matter, Icelanders discovered the infinite power of knowledge.

That same spirit of redemption drives Iceland’s modern economy. From deCODE genetics, which unlocked the secrets of the Icelandic genome, to Össur, whose prosthetics restore mobility with grace and precision, Iceland exports ideas more than goods. Its renewable energy now powers data centers and digital frontiers, where bits replace barrels and imagination fuels growth. And in the northern village of Ísafjörður, Kerecis has turned the skin of cod—once discarded as waste—into a life-giving biomaterial that heals human wounds across the world.

Iceland reminds us that every economy is a learning system, and every act of enterprise a revelation. Growth is not a race for resources but a search for truth—the discovery of new knowledge that multiplies as it is shared. In this sense, Iceland has learned its way into wealth, proving that in the long dialogue between man and nature, the mind is the great multiplier.

The story of Iceland is the story of civilization itself. Every act of creation is an act of learning, a small echo of the divine mind that made the world intelligible. Wealth in its truest form is not measured in metals or markets but in moments of revelation—when knowledge transforms scarcities into abundances. Iceland proved the eternal law of creativity: that human learning, illuminated by faith and freedom, can turn even the coldest rock—or the humblest fish—into a beacon of light.

Choose Wisely

So why would a nation of entrepreneurs and innovators want to be subject to a union of regulators and bureaucrats? As of 2024, the number of staff working for the European Commission is over 80,000 across all 76 EU bodies. That would be one regulator for every 4.8 Icelanders. The future of Iceland lies with leaders like Thor Jensen, Björgólfur Thor Björgólfsson, Fertram Sigurjonsson, Heiðar Guðjónsson, and Bala Kamallakharan, not armies of Brussels bureaucrats.

To secure its future, Iceland must remain a beacon of open inquiry and energy creativity. It should champion innovation over ideology—embracing every technology that multiplies human capability rather than constrains it. By coupling free markets with free minds, Iceland can continue to illuminate a path from scarcity to superabundance, showing the world that the greatest renewable resource is human creativity itself.

Choose wisely, Iceland. Your history is watching.

Find more of Gale’s work at his Substack, Gale Winds.

Reuters | Health & Medical Care

US FDA Approves Arrowhead’s Genetic Disorder Drug

“The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals’drug for a type of genetic disorder that causes extremely high levels of fat in the bloodstream, the health regulator’s website showed on Tuesday.

The approval marks Arrowhead’s first product on the market and the second U.S.-authorized treatment for a hereditary condition known as familial chylomicronemia syndrome.

In a late-stage study with 75 patients, the drug branded as Redemplo reduced triglycerides, a key hallmark of the disease, by 80% and cut the risk of pancreatitis by 83% versus placebo.

FCS is a rare inherited disorder caused by defects in lipoprotein lipase, an enzyme responsible for breaking down fat particles, leading to very high triglyceride levels in the blood.

The disorder causes symptoms such as abdominal pain and, in severe cases, acute pancreatitis. It is estimated to affect 3,000 to 5,000 patients globally, according to National Institutes of Health data.”

From Reuters.

Oklo | Energy Production

Oklo Announces US Approval for Nuclear Safety Design Agreement of Aurora Fuel Fabrication Facility

“Oklo Inc, an advanced nuclear technology company, today announced that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Idaho Operations Office has approved the Nuclear Safety Design Agreement (NSDA) for the Aurora Fuel Fabrication Facility (A3F) at Idaho National Laboratory (INL), selected to participate in the DOE’s Advanced Nuclear Fuel Line Pilot Projects.

The NSDA, the first under the DOE’s Fuel Line Pilot Projects, was approved in just under two weeks and helps demonstrate a new authorization pathway that has the potential to unlock U.S. industrial capacity, advance national energy security and create an accelerated and reproducible framework for scaling production capacity under the executive order ‘Deploying Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technologies for National Security’…

Located at INL, the A3F will fabricate fuel for Oklo’s first commercial-scale powerhouse, the Aurora-INL, which was selected for the DOE’s Reactor Pilot Program. Together, these facilities couple fuel production to power delivery for near-term commercial deployment of advanced nuclear energy.”

From Oklo.

Blog Post | Economic Freedom

Milei Midterms: An Update on Argentina | Podcast Highlights

Chelsea Follett interviews Marcos Falcone about Milei’s recent electoral success and the economic reforms he might now pursue.

Listen to the podcast or read the full transcript here.

Joining me today is my colleague Marcos Falcone, a policy analyst focusing on Latin America at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity. He joins the podcast today to discuss the dramatic recent election win of President Javier Milei, who has led his party to a landslide victory in Argentina.

Let’s start with a bit of a history lesson. Argentina has a long history that has not always been a history of progress. Could you walk us through some of that background?

Argentina is one of very few countries in the world, and perhaps the only one, to have gone from being a developed country to a developing country. During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Argentina was among the richest economies in the world. It was second to the US in terms of the net number of immigrants received. It also had extremely low taxes, low public spending, and very few regulations.

But, of course, international ideological trends also affected Argentina. Nationalism, corporatism, and fascism began to rise in popularity, Juan Domingo Perón came to power in 1946, and Argentina started to diverge from the rest of the world. Whereas much of the world opened up to trade during those years, Argentina became a highly closed, protectionist economy and missed out on all the benefits of trade that increased dramatically after the end of the Second World War.

When Argentina became a closed economy, special interests began to emerge, including trade unions and crony capitalists, who depended on Argentina remaining a closed economy, which in turn made it harder to re-liberalize Argentina’s economy. Governments couldn’t, for example, lower public spending, because people were counting on it. They couldn’t open borders because industries were dependent on them being closed. They couldn’t deregulate labor relations because of the unions. And so, we started to drift into a declining path.

On a happier note, Argentina also has a very long intellectual tradition of classical liberal thought. Could you tell us about that?

The architect of the Argentinian constitution was a classical liberal called Juan Bautista Alberdi. He was a lawyer, but like many intellectuals of the 19th century he wrote about many things, including economics and moral matters. The constitution he designed, which closely followed the example of the US Constitution, went into effect in 1853. It has suffered changes, but really no major changes were implemented until the mid-20th century. So, for almost 100 years, Argentina retained this very classical liberal constitution that greatly benefited the country.

Liberty was also at the forefront of Argentina’s politics and culture. At the end of the 19th century, both the ruling elite and the opposition had classical liberal ideas. The socialists, for example, were very much against protectionism and the creation of a central bank, because they thought it would be bad for workers. However, as fascism and communism began to rise in popularity, this classical liberal environment started to fade away, to the point that we had a Supreme Court that basically allowed the military to seize power in 1930. From that point, it would be over 50 years before Argentina had a fully democratic regime once again.

Still, even during the 20th century, Argentina had a very strong classical liberal tradition. For example, Alberto Benegas Lynch, who is a Cato adjunct scholar, founded a university called ESEADE, where classical liberal thought was spread. We saw the founding of various think tanks in the 1980s and 1990s within the classical liberal tradition, such as my previous employer, Fundación Libertad. We began to rebuild the classical liberal culture that had been lost in Argentina for so long, which also contributed to the rise of Javier Milei, who started out speaking at forums at classical liberal think tanks. I actually met him over 10 years ago.

So, Argentina initially had a strong classical liberal tradition, which it lost for a while but has now regained. And that’s one of the reasons why I’m actually optimistic about the future of the country.

Let’s talk about Milei’s victory. Walk us through what was going on going up to the election and the election itself, and why that outcome took so many people by surprise.

Javier Milei won the presidency in 2023, when many people thought that was impossible. Politicians in other parties actually thought that they were taking advantage of Milei’s presence because he would take votes away from their opposition. But we have to understand the context of Argentina to understand why Milei became popular. In 2023, Argentina had an annual inflation of over 200 percent, on the verge of hyperinflation. And the country hadn’t grown in about a decade.

Everyone who wanted to do business in Argentina knew that this was next to impossible because of how regulated the economy was, and there were also unbearable situations in daily life. For example, rent control was so stringent that many landlords decided not to rent their places, and this caused prices to go up. Ryan Bourne and I interviewed one person who told us that back in 2023, it was so expensive to find a place to live that it could be cheaper to live in a hotel.

So Argentina had been trying interventionist policies for a long time, and they were not yielding good results, and Javier Milei arrives, wielding a chainsaw, saying, “we need to cut spending, we need to slash public spending, we need to lower taxes, we need to deregulate, we need to open up the economy, and we need to dollarize.” And after he wins the presidency, so many people say, “A libertarian can’t last long into office. He will have to resign after a month if he tries to do what he says.” And well, Milei has been president for almost two years now, and many of the radical reforms that he announced have not caused any sort of upheaval.

I think that the most important reform was balancing the budget. Argentina had a 200 percent annual inflation rate because it was running deficits, and nobody trusted Argentina to pay back its debt, so all the government could do was print money. In just one month after taking office, Milei had balanced the budget—something everyone else had said was impossible. Ten days into his presidency, Milei repealed the rent control laws. One year after that decision went into effect, we saw prices going down in real terms by about 30 percent. We saw the supply of apartments triple in the city of Buenos Aires.

During the 2025 midterm election a couple of weeks ago, there was some pessimism that maybe the Peronists were going to win. Many people, including political analysts, were saying that Milei’s changes were so profound that people would not tolerate them, and this fueled a run against the peso. But Milei won over 40 percent of the vote, and this is bringing a new wave of optimism to Argentina because, since Milei previously only had about 15 percent of seats, there were many reforms that he couldn’t make. Now, while Milei still doesn’t have a majority, he needs fewer alliances to pass the reforms that he wants.

Let’s talk about some of those policies.

It seems like the priorities of the Milei administration will be to pass tax reform, social security reform, and labor reform.

In Argentina, taxes are not just high, but also very complicated and superimposing, meaning you have taxes on taxes. To give you an example, the last Doing Business report by the World Bank, which came out in 2020, said that a business in Argentina that paid all of the taxes it was legally required to pay would end up paying 106 percent of its income. That means you’d be better off not doing any business at all. So, you can imagine how complicated the tax system is in Argentina, because obviously, businesses can’t pay 106 percent of their income. The Milei administration could only make very limited changes up to this point because, constitutionally, he needs Congress to legislate over tax matters.

Argentina also has a very high degree of informality in its labor market because it’s very expensive to hire employees legally, and it can be even more expensive to let them go because of litigation. Businesses, particularly small and medium enterprises, are constantly trying to avoid litigation because they know, due to the way that the judicial system is set up, if they face a lawsuit by a former employee, they’re going to lose. This needs to stop, and the Milei administration knows this and is going to push for labor reform.

When it comes to social security, Argentina has the common problem of an aging population. We have the typical Ponzi scheme, where if the base keeps growing, then there’s no issue, but if the population pyramid is no longer a pyramid, there’s likely not going to be enough people in the future to pay for those who are paying taxes today. Now, this is aggravated in Argentina’s case because of populist policies. For example, beginning in the 21st century, over a million pensioners were integrated into the system without having made any payments to social security beforehand at all. We’ve also had an increasing amount of fraud over the past two decades. It’s statistically impossible to have as many disabled people as Argentina seems to have. We see towns in Argentina in backward provinces where maybe 50 percent of all people are cashing in a disability payment. Those are the kind of things that the Milei administration will try to tackle.

I would also like to see more far-reaching trade liberalization and dollarization, because Argentina will eventually have another left-wing or Peronist administration. We’re in a democracy, governments change, and we haven’t really seen that the Peronist economic agenda is becoming more reasonable. So, we need to protect people, and particularly the assets of the people, and the best way to do that is dollarization.

Let’s talk a little bit more about dollarization because this is such an important policy issue in Argentina.

Milei promised to dollarize the economy back in 2023 in the context of near hyperinflation. Now, while annual inflation is still over 30 percent, the problem has become less salient, and it seems as though maybe you don’t need to dollarize if you can just get inflation back under control. But we have this problem, which we just saw before the recent elections, where whenever there’s uncertainty about the future in Argentina, you have a run against the peso, and people rush to buy dollars. This basically stops all economic activity because people don’t want to make decisions amid all the uncertainty. And what ends up happening is that the people who benefit are those with dollars, who are usually the richest ones, and the poorest suffer the most because they have the national currency that is constantly losing value. And in many cases, the people who have dollars don’t even invest them; they just keep the physical dollar bills, so this also takes money out of the financial system.

Argentines don’t need to live like this. We have seen examples of successful dollarization processes that have defended people against populist governments. Ecuador dollarized its economy 25 years ago, and after dollarizing, it had a left-wing administration led by Rafael Correa that lasted for ten years. Many people thought he could have been another Chavez. He wanted to turn Ecuador upside down and implement all sorts of interventionist policies. But the dollar was more popular than he was, and he couldn’t de-dollarize, so even though he did a lot of damage to the Ecuadorian economy, dollarization protected the value of their assets.

What are some of the potential implications for the broader region? Do you think that this renaissance of classical liberal or libertarian policy could catch on throughout Latin America?

I think Argentina could become an example that other countries in Latin America can imitate. In recent years, we have had different administrations in countries like Brazil, Chile, and Colombia that have gone left-wing, and in many cases, in more extreme ways than in the past. And in Latin America, presidents who are not left-wing tend to be more conservative or nationalistic. So, Argentina is relatively alone in the region, but I hope that Milei becomes a sort of beacon that can help libertarian politicians in other countries rise to prominence.

We are seeing that in Chile, where even though the most popular figure right now is a communist, you also have a libertarian candidate who might go to the runoff against the communist and potentially win. And that could undo a lot of the bad policies that Chile has recently engaged in.