toldailytopic: The Royal wedding are you interested in it? How about the idea of a ro

[Granite]

There's something pathetic about the American fawning over this event. We're like a kid who ran away from home who still wants to know what mom and dad are up to. I was embarrassed by the attention our press lavished on these two overprivileged distant cousins...and now, the bulimia/alcoholism/scandal/divorce countdown begins.

 

[Samstarrett]

Thanks for the clarification.

You're welcome.

You've never been real clear on the specifics of what you promote.

That'll change in a day or two when I post my proposed Constitution.

And if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck...

But that's just it. It doesn't. Mere heredity does not a king make, especially if that heredity is merely the result of the present ruler's nepotistic tendencies and not a matter of law. And I can tell you this:

There is no one more revolutionary than a Communist, and no one more reactionary than a monarchist. To equate the two is simply bizarre.

A few items: the incompetance of the American people doesn't mean that a democratic system can't or won't work;

It does if we're talking about America. I'll grant that somewhere, a democratic republic could probably work; maybe Switzerland. But it doesn't seem to be working here.

we see these governments operate just fine the world over.

We do?

And while this armchair snobbery might make you feel better, slavish devotion to a king doesn't strike me as a terribly "competant" alternative/solution. You're not jumping to conclusions here, you're leaping without a parachute.

I don't propose slavish devotion, though a certain degree of honor and loyalty seems in order. That said, my extreme royalism is merely a reaction to the zeitgeist, where monarchy itself is under attack. In an age where monarchy was firmly entrenched and the balance of power too much in favor of the monarch, I might support other forces. My ideal is a mix of aristocracy, democracy, and monarchy, so that the three branches can check each other. Thus, when one branch becomes too powerful, I oppose it. That's what's happened in the modern West with democracy. In another time, monarchies might have had too much power, and in that age, I would push the other way.

 

[rexlunae]

It does if we're talking about America. I'll grant that somewhere, a democratic republic could probably work; maybe Switzerland. But it doesn't seem to be working here.

I see it as working quite well here. I wouldn't call our system perfect, but it's a lot closer than most. And I can't think of one problem that we have that would be helped by the addition of an aristocracy and monarchy.

 

[Granite]

It does if we're talking about America. I'll grant that somewhere, a democratic republic could probably work; maybe Switzerland. But it doesn't seem to be working here.

Based on what specifically? Because if you trot out the same right wing boilerplate that gets rehashed here on a daily basis I'll be really disappointed. Let's set your contempt for your own countrymen aside for a second. What specifically American problems are so dire and vast that it would take a system of royalty to fix them?

I don't propose slavish devotion, though a certain degree of honor and loyalty seems in order.

Ah yes, two good old fashion virtues impossible in a society that doesn't have a king to fear.

That said, my extreme royalism is merely a reaction to the zeitgeist, where monarchy itself is under attack.

It's dead, Sam. Get with the program.

In an age where monarchy was firmly entrenched and the balance of power too much in favor of the monarch, I might support other forces.

All things considered, I doubt it.

My ideal is a mix of aristocracy, democracy, and monarchy, so that the three branches can check each other.

Two groups of snobs versus the rabble? You consider that a fair fight?

 

[Samstarrett]

Based on what specifically? Because if you trot out the same right wing boilerplate that gets rehashed here on a daily basis I'll be really disappointed.

What, you mean abortion, gay marriage, trillions of dollars owed to China, etc.?

Let's set your contempt for your own countrymen aside for a second. What specifically American problems are so dire and vast that it would take a system of royalty to fix them?

Abortion springs to mind. I won't say a king could necessarily fix the debt, but if we'd had one to begin with, we probably wouldn't have gotten into this mess. The government likely wouldn't be solemnizing homosexual unions if it had been run past a Christian monarch with real teeth, and let's not forget the myriad of managerial state regulations(seat belt laws, helmet laws, etc.) and indignities we put up with in the name of 'security'(TSA patdowns, naked imaging, etc.) that a king would at least have a chance of stopping, while politicians support them because they like to make rules for others' lives. That's why they're politicians!

Ah yes, two good old fashion virtues impossible in a society that doesn't have a king to fear.

I'll grant that a society without a king cannot honor or be loyal to the king it doesn't have. But so what?

It's dead, Sam. Get with the program.

His Serene Highness might disagree with you.

All things considered, I doubt it.

Oh, so now you accuse me of lying about my own views? Two can play at that game, you Bolshevik!

Two groups of snobs versus the rabble? You consider that a fair fight?

Two points:

1). Given that you want to give 'the rabble' all power in the government, it's odd that you speak of them in such a derogatory way.

2). You make it sound as though the aristocracy moves in lockstep with the Crown, when in fact, the two forces are rivals by their very nature.

 

[Quincy]

Which works of his did you feel did that?

Chief among them, to me, would be transposition. Our imagination is a vehicle for beatitude becoming reality? At least how I understand it anyways. He might as well just say we create God. I think euhemerism is a much more likely way myths come into being. A story based on some truth but turned into something excessive.

I suppose you could see it that way. I won't argue with you. I guess that that's not nearly so strong a point against him for me as for you, though, maybe because I think what he said was true. I really have no use for equality and if a man does value equality that highly, I do think he's missing 'the dance', as Lewis put it. :idunno:

It is a matter of understanding that all have a divine spark within, but that our body/mind is flawed, period. To try to take from that spark to enunciate a meaning just creates more flawed interpretations. To think someone is a better person and not equal to you, then it would seem you have to think there is something immaculate about the person on a mental or physical level. I don't buy that at all. I don't buy that at all about anyone's nature. To me, we are all exceptional at doing something and that adds to our individuality but we are all on an equal level as people.

If by a 'better man', you mean a more moral one, then yes, I think some men are undoubtedly better than others.

I observe that most people in society today believe that having material possessions or certain levels of education make them elite. Even if you were to think morality can separate you from the rest, I don't personally see how people come to that conclusion. Morality is still based on actions in the material world. I guess you can say someone's behaviour may be more moral than another person's but as far as that making someone better than another, I dunno.

Sounds a little psychobabbly for my taste.

Haha, well I am esoteric. I'm sure a certain few on the website understood me fine :noid: . I wish I could explain it better but I've yet to assimilate the proper verbiage into my vocabulary .

Well, if we're talking about talent, wouldn't you say that there are people who are both more and less talented than you are, overall?

Sure, talented is a good word. They're better at doing something but not above failure.

OK. Then from that angle I can see why you'd think a subject idolizes his king. My dictionary says that to idolize means 'to admire, revere, or love greatly or excessively.'

In the first definition, admire, revere, or love greatly, I don't think there's anything wrong with doing that to a person. There are many people whom I love greatly, and I suspect that's true of all of us.

I agree on the part about love. Part of love is looking past another's faults, to wish them good will and to do for them based on their needs. I can't say I admire or revere anyone though, not even myself.

However, to admire or revere someone excessively is certainly bad, though I'm not sure we can ever love someone excessively. Of course, what excessively means depends on how much admiration or reverence someone is owed. I don't think the honor traditionally given to monarchs in Western society is excessive.

I agree with the first sentence you've wrote here, Sam. The last however, I dunno. After this royal wedding event, I have to say, I don't think you could say it was a moderate affair.

Oh sure. I think Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein, for instance, is an excellent monarch. I also admire Constantine II of Greece greatly, though I disagree with his democratizing policy. I can search out more examples of monarchs I think ruled well if you like, though by their nature, I think that monarchs who ruled well will not be as famous as those who ruled poorly, because the better kings will be more conservative and innovate less.

I'm not going to pretend like I know anything about those people to any great degree. I'd have to read up on them to find out more than what a wiki would provide and I wouldn't want to disrespect your view on them by commenting without fully understanding it.

Your view of how a monarch comes to power may apply to the first monarch of a dynasty, but after that, it typically becomes hereditary. I'll grant that with the first king, many of the advantages of monarchy are absent, but I'm willing to deal with that so that I can get the hereditary kings later.

Do you think that it may be possible that the monarch that rose to power trains the heir, or at least instructs another on how to? What happens from ascension to throne to fatherhood that would change the king?

Absolutely. The king ought to be the head of state and the head of government. The king ought to have the power of pardon as a last resort for the innocent and he ought to have veto power over any legislation. These are the key things the king should do politically; protect the innocent, stand for good laws even when they may not be popular, and protect tradition against unnecessary innovation. The king should also have the right to be informed by, to encourage, and to warn the officials of his government on every significant action. There are other powers I would give the king(and did, in the Constitution I drafted), but those are the basic ones.

You know our president has those but we have the option to vote him out of office. Which, to some, is a great thing.

Nothing. Rather, having been born into the right family, he is then trained all of his life for his role. It's less a matter of being born with the necessary skills as being born with the expectation of the duty, and thus having the necessary skills taught to him from the beginning.

But who instructs and teaches the prince? Who's worldview is impressed on the prince?

There is no guarantee of this. However, I hope we can agree that the worst people to give power to are those who seek it.

I agree with you there. I've had people where I live try to get me to run for certain local offices but I will never do it. I actually have only voted once in my admittingly short life mostly for this reason. Also because I'm not a fan of getting into worldly stuff like politics. Full disclosure, I support a minarchy on a similar level that The Confederate states had (minus the slavery). Where the states are sovereign and EACH individual has sovereign rights, not people are subjects or commoners or even citizens. Definitely not one person over the rest. However, we have to face reality, to some degree and work with what is in the common interest.

 

[Granite]

What, you mean abortion, gay marriage, trillions of dollars owed to China, etc.?

How are those uniquely American problems that could only be fixed by a monarchy? You're confusing your own little pet fantasy world with a pragmatic and realistic solution that's actually needed.

Abortion springs to mind. I won't say a king could necessarily fix the debt, but if we'd had one to begin with, we probably wouldn't have gotten into this mess. The government likely wouldn't be solemnizing homosexual unions if it had been run past a Christian monarch with real teeth, and let's not forget the myriad of managerial state regulations(seat belt laws, helmet laws, etc.) and indignities we put up with in the name of 'security'(TSA patdowns, naked imaging, etc.) that a king would at least have a chance of stopping, while politicians support them because they like to make rules for others' lives. That's why they're politicians!

You're making the same mistake every other monarchist has made here. You talk about your one ideal benign Christian ruler (because you guys seem incapable of imagining any kind of change that doesn't involve some Christian strongman lording power, which in turn says an awful lot about your mentality). And then...well, then you just kind of stop thinking about the practical implications and reality of this system. You outright ignore the lessons of history (as well as those of your own book, not that the Bible's actual contents mean much to Christians when inconvenient) and blithely keep on insisting that if we just had one good guy--for life--he'd magically make all our problems go away.

Now this kind of wishful thinking makes for a fine fairy tale, but it's rubbish. You have the inane puerile audacity to demand a king to fix seat belt laws without considering the national and international implications of this kind of government; governmental continuity; the civil rights we'd inevitably lose; or the dangers of a king with "real teeth," which seems fine with you since he's essentially a projection of yourself, although this'd be absolutely unfortunate for millions of people living under his hypothetical rule. You guys are incredibly short sighted.

Oh, so now you accuse me of lying about my own views?

I'm saying you're inconsistent. And rather childish, at the end of the day.

 

[Totton Linnet]

We was a republic before you guys, the stupidest thing we ever did was bring back the Stuarts.....maybe y'all would still be Colonials!

 

[Samstarrett]

We was a republic before you guys, the stupidest thing we ever did was bring back the Stuarts.....maybe y'all would still be Colonials!

Are you a Cromwell supporter/Roundhead, then?

 

[Totton Linnet]

Are you a Cromwell supporter/Roundhead, then?

*
Well...not really but I see them as inevitable because the Stuarts were so arrogant, nor were they worse than many kings before them. The fact is the most of them were totally unworthy of absolute power. The English people have groaned in utter poverty for centuries because the wealth of the land was divided up among the aristocrats through patronage, surely this is what the Americans threw off.

Even long years after the monarchy was substantially weakened still the aristocratic class [who now, post Cromwell, controlled the monarchy] held the wealth and hence the power.

Cromwell's great problem was having got rid of one form of government the people were helplessly incapable of rising to government through lack of education so always he was thrown back to dealing with the same aristocratic class.....Cromwell simply didn't have enough years to bring about the changes he longed for.

It was the return of patronage that brought about the industial revolution whiich for all it's benefits was utter misery for the people. Only the rise of organised labour have brought improvements to the British, socialism if you will....and only organised labour will bring relief to the 30 per cent of Americans whose working conditions are appalling....It is all one argument.

I daresay you have somewhat to say about Puritanism, well 17th century Puritanism was of a much harsher kind to 16th century Puritanism which was gentler.

But the real argument is about who owns the wealth.

 

[csuguy]

:yawn: