toldailytopic: Was the United States justified in fighting for their independence fro

[Granite]

OK, maybe. So what specific conclusion do you draw from the context I am allegedly ignoring that invalidates any of my points?

I'd suggest you look back a lot further and dig into the how and why of kings and the history of divine right, etc.

Yes, the US. And it's not an insult. It's a fact. The majority of whites in the US at the time were racist and the laws they laid down reflected this. Do you deny that?

Using the present tense threw me for a loop. Sorry.

While the majority of colonialists at the time of the revolution held views we'd consider brazenly racist today, the unenlightened racial concepts of the time did not lay down the groundwork or basis for the inception of the US. You cannot say the same about the Confederacy, which was founded upon explicitly racist ideals and for explicitly racist concerns. There's a world of difference between the two.

 

[Samstarrett]

I'd suggest you look back a lot further and dig into the how and why of kings and the history of divine right, etc.

I could, I suppose, launch a detailed historical study of monarchy all over the world. It'd probably be very interesting. But if you're going to use the fact that I haven't as an argument here, there should be some specific fact of which I am ignorant that is in some way game-changing. So far you haven't presented one.

Using the present tense threw me for a loop. Sorry.

While the majority of colonialists at the time of the revolution held views we'd consider brazenly racist today, the unenlightened racial concepts of the time did not lay down the groundwork or basis for the inception of the US. You cannot say the same about the Confederacy, which was founded upon explicitly racist ideals and for explicitly racist concerns. There's a world of difference between the two.

Fair enough. I'll concede the point.

 

[Samstarrett]

At least that's honest. I appreciate it.

I do my best.

...so you're implying that other believers who don't sign on for the idea of monarchy are less enlightened than you are?

It depends. If they reject it on purely intellectual grounds, maybe not, but if they can't see the emotional appeal, then yes.

I would say any kind of respect is earned, not intrinsic. That seems to be one of the biggest differences between the two of us.

Yes, it does. And I don't honestly see how a chain of reasoning can bring us to agreement, unless I manage to make a Christian of you or you an atheist of me. And even then we might not agree.

Tradition's fine; tradition has its place. But any answer you provide along these lines goes back to the difference I noted above--you believe these values, so called, as embodied in an individual, are intrinsic simply because of genetic fortune and because of an ancient concept we've carried with us since the stone age. That doesn't so much answer the why as it does explain the what.

I'm not a nationalist so this point probably means less to me than to others, although I see where you're coming from. (That said, you don't seem to be a respecter of your own national identity or its traditions so I can't imagine why you think you can lecture me on either concept.)

You missed the point here, I think. It wasn't about the specific reasons; only the fact that if you persist in asking at each step "why does this deserve respect?" we must eventually conclude either that something deserves respect simply for what it is or that nothing deserves respect.

Ditto. Christian monarchists are an exceedingly small minority in this country, so I can only conclude you believe the vast majority of your brethern simply aren't as informed/enlightened as you are.

On this particular point, I'd say that's true. But before you accuse me of arrogance: Wouldn't anyone who held any minority view on anything have to think similarly?

Many if not most Christian leaders throughout American history wouldn't go that far, but even if their secular counterparts did--but wait, I'll hold off for the rest.

I think anyone who endorses the republican form of government we have creates this system in practice even if in theory there are mitigating factors.

I suspect many kings paid lip service to divine considerations just as our leaders today offer platitudes for the sake of convenience.

Maybe some did, but remember that this was generally before atheism, agnosticism, and general religious indifference were common and accepted, and generally the Church had the power to put significant political pressure on the king even if in fact he was a less than sincere believer.

Even if they were sincere then, and were sincere today, a nuclear world being led by men and women who believe they are divinely inspired and responsible is a frightful prospect.

I don't believe kings generally claimed inspiration. And why is "divinely responsible" in the sense of "responsible to God" bad?

We see the way religious zealotry goes.

I thought Christendom was rather a good thing than not. :idunno:

Any functional representative government has checks and balances, and you know that full well.

Rather, they pay lip service to them. But with the power of all branches derived from the same source(majoritarian democracy) how can they truly check each other? They all have the same interests. That's why I propose real checks and balances in the form of a mixture of democracy, monarchy, and aristocracy.

This is only worthwhile if you can demonstrate that this fear is one hundred percent effective, or even fruitful.

This can't be demonstrated empirically, but it seems undeniable that those who believe they will be judged by God for their misdeeds will be less likely to commit them than if this were not the case. As for "one hundred percent effective," nothing is, and certainly not democratic pressure in the form of voting.

Obama certainly has an incentive to stay informed and responsive in that he's an incumbent running for re-election. At the end of the day neither of us knows what goes on in his head, or Elizabeth's, for that matter.

Of course, after he wins re-election, his incentive disappears. A king, however, has the incentive to stay informed and responsive over his whole reign, at least to the extent that the problems in question affect the economic health of the realm, because he knows he will pay for or his son will inherit whatever problems he does not fix.

Moreover, elections being as they are controlled in large part by money and special interests, I think you may be overestimating the value to a politician of keeping in touch with how ordinary people feel about the government's action and how it affects them, particularly when those people do not form a particularly powerful or well-connected voting bloc.

...because religious inspiration and zeal has never driven anyone to abuse their power. Of course. Silly of me.

It seems obvious to me that if your religion teaches you not to abuse others, whatever abuse you commit will be despite whatever divine trust you believe you possess. Where's the flaw in my reasoning?

Europe was ripped apart by warfare on an epic scale by monarchs and for monarchs...for centuries.

War in the monarchical age was incredibly mild by our standards, as is laid out in Hans-Herman Hoppe's book Democracy: The God That Failed.

Wars were limited and territorial in extent. Conscription was practically non-existent. Soldiers were thus valuable and because there were few of them, great funds were expended to train them, making them even more valuable. This meant that their lives were not casually thrown away; to win a battle without fighting was considered the pinnacle of martial skill. Armies carried their own supplies; there was no despoilation of the land and no looting of the populace. And when it looked like one side could not win or victory was not worth the cost, it pulled out, signing a negotiated peace rather than being forced to accept humiliatingly lopsided treaties as today.

All of this led to the situation after each war being more or less the same as before; a province moved around here and there, but by and large, the world powers remained the same and there were no hard feelings between them. Today's enemy could be tomorrow's ally and vice versa.

Moreover, wars were conceived as the private affairs of kings and ruling families. They were not conceived as the affairs of the subjects and in fact trade, travel, and cultural exchange went on uninterrupted in Europe during wartime. Herr Hoppe quotes Howard's War in European History:

So completely was civil life divorced from war that, in his A Sentimental Journey through France and Italy, Laurence Sterne relates that during the Seven Years' War[1756-1763] he left London for Paris with so much precipitation that "it never entered my mind that we were at war with France," and that on his arrival in Dover it suddenly occurred to him that he was without a passport. However, this did not impede his journey, and when he arrived at Versaille, the Duke of Choiseul, French Foreign Minister, had one sent to him. In paris he was cheered by his French admirers, and in Frontignac was invited to theatricals by the English colony.

Hoppe himself writes:

Further, as private conflicts between different ruling families the public expects and the kings feel compelled to recognize a clear distinction between combatants and noncombatants and to target their war efforts specifically against each other and their respective private property.

In sum, then, wars in the monarchical part of the modern age(the 18th and 19th centuries in particular) were very mild and not at all the horrible, continent-rending conflicts you imply.

I'm not sure what level of "decay" you're referring to, unless you mean the increasing secularism of Europe.

Secularism, moral decline, cultural decline, mass third-world immigration, economic collapse...

Time has marched on and left the queens and kings behind, to be sure. They're relics and reminders of the bad old days--trench warfare and mustard gas were part of their closing act.

If you want to play that game, the good new days brought us Mao and Hitler and Stalin and...

How is this unique to a monarch, as opposed to another head of state?

Another head of state may share the quality, but only if the state embraces religion can this be relatively assured. The revolutionary democratic-republican order is inherently secularizing, as I will be laying out in Royalist Ramblings #8, either later today or tomorrow.

So the sour-faced two-timer does something other than shoot skeet in his spare hours.

For the record, I believe Diana cheated first. Does that excuse him? No, but I think it's mitigating.

How nice. If you're going to defend the lifestyles of the rich and famous I'll reach for a spittoon, thank you.

Oh, those evil rich! But I think you've missed the point again. This was intended as a counterexample to your claim that royals are out of touch.

Do you have anything other than a childish fawning idiotic and servile fascination with these twits?

Sure. Among other things, I have the fact that they have a much better incentive structure than presidents.

Twits who wouldn't look at you twice and who hold you in as much respect as they do the rest of the rabble? Grow up.

More accusations. Can you back them up?

If you can't bring yourself to criticize any given system of government I'd say you trust it far too much.

I could criticize it, but why should I argue both sides of this debate?

Well. Britain has no singular constitution. Your turn.

I don't mean "constitution" in the sense of "governing document" but in the sense of "the rules and customs that determine how a particular system operates." In this sense, even the most absolute monarchy has a constitution, and that constitution can be summed up in a sentence:

"X is the king, so do what he says."

Complain, no. Observe, yes.

I point you to my previously stated answer to this.

Unless, of course, the property's fallen into different hands today. There's simply no guarantee over time that every property a monarch previously owned or inherited is in their hands at present. That's why I asked how far you think their entitlements should extend at the moment.

I believe that in general and where possible, we should restore wrongly taken property to the heirs of the original owners, considering the oldest claim as best. If no one comes forward with an older and better claim, let whoever has it now keep it, if someone does, give it to him. There may be exceptions, though. It'd probably have to be determined on a case by case basis.

And I expect most Christians especially in this country would think you're either eccentric or nuts. Go fish.

If so, it's because they disagree with me on whether a king embodies the divine order, not whether there is one or whether such embodiment would be worthy of respect.

:chuckle: In all seriousness--I've been here for a while, and every time a Christian's here has said "Granite, I bet you probably such-and-such," they lose. And you'd bust on this particular hand too.

How can you respect tradition while rejecting Christianity and monarchy, expressing such contempt for the "bad old days," and supporting revolutionary republicanism?

Okay. Is this necessary for a nation?

A nation can exist without it, if that's what you're asking. But that wasn't my point. My point was that the king embodies national identity, and this is a reason to respect him. We could have the same conversation about flags. I don't think anyone would contend that a nation without a flag is no nation at all; that flags are "necessary for a nation," but flags are generally respected because they represent the nation and its identity.

What if it's lost or reclaimed?

Then it should be restored to whomever has the best claim on it.

I'll have to chew on that.

OK then.

 

[Granite]

It depends. If they reject it on purely intellectual grounds, maybe not, but if they can't see the emotional appeal, then yes.

Which means you're more full of yourself than I thought.

Yes, it does. And I don't honestly see how a chain of reasoning can bring us to agreement, unless I manage to make a Christian of you or you an atheist of me. And even then we might not agree.

You don't need to be a religious person to think respect is only ever earned...:

You missed the point here, I think. It wasn't about the specific reasons; only the fact that if you persist in asking at each step "why does this deserve respect?" we must eventually conclude either that something deserves respect simply for what it is or that nothing deserves respect.

Dead wrong. See above. This is a classic false dilemma.

On this particular point, I'd say that's true. But before you accuse me of arrogance: Wouldn't anyone who held any minority view on anything have to think similarly?

Too late. And there's a fine line between sneering at your country and your religious fellows or simply disagreeing with the status quo.

Maybe some did, but remember that this was generally before atheism, agnosticism, and general religious indifference were common and accepted, and generally the Church had the power to put significant political pressure on the king even if in fact he was a less than sincere believer.

Yes, and the fact that this happens less and less is an encouraging sign.

I don't believe kings generally claimed inspiration. And why is "divinely responsible" in the sense of "responsible to God" bad?

To use one of your pet tactics: unless you're a non-religious person, you wouldn't understand.

Rather, they pay lip service to them. But with the power of all branches derived from the same source(majoritarian democracy) how can they truly check each other?

We see it happen all the time. You're familiar with the system, Sam, you disagree with it...but you don't need to keep playing dumb here.

This can't be demonstrated empirically, but it seems undeniable that those who believe they will be judged by God for their misdeeds will be less likely to commit them than if this were not the case.

But this is exactly the kind of religious zealotry that's a step away from outright madness, and we see this exact attitude in place throughout the world. The moment you believe everything you do is justified by the almighty and the second you set your own standards, the situation tends to go south very, very quickly.

Of course, after he wins re-election, his incentive disappears.

And people call me cynical.

A king, however, has the incentive to stay informed and responsive over his whole reign, at least to the extent that the problems in question affect the economic health of the realm, because he knows he will pay for or his son will inherit whatever problems he does not fix.

And a prime minister or any other head of state without term limits doesn't have a similar motivation because...?

Moreover, elections being as they are controlled in large part by money and special interests, I think you may be overestimating the value to a politician of keeping in touch with how ordinary people feel about the government's action and how it affects them, particularly when those people do not form a particularly powerful or well-connected voting bloc.

We both describe our favored systems in idealized terms, I think. And yes, the situation in this country has been largely co-opted. But your problem (not surprising, given that you're a monarchist) is your tendency to never look at the smaller picture.

It seems obvious to me that if your religion teaches you not to abuse others, whatever abuse you commit will be despite whatever divine trust you believe you possess. Where's the flaw in my reasoning?

The flaw? The definition of "abuse."

War in the monarchical age was incredibly mild by our standards, as is laid out in Hans-Herman Hoppe's book Democracy: The God That Failed.

Heard of the book, haven't read it. I'll put it on the to-do list--but suffice to say (and I can't respond to a book I haven't read) that European warfare was a constant and unrelenting fact of life. Trying to sugar coat things doesn't change that.

Secularism, moral decline, cultural decline, mass third-world immigration, economic collapse...

...moving from the dark ages to the light, changing with the times, progressing, the march is inexorable...

If you want to play that game, the good new days brought us Mao and Hitler and Stalin and...

What of them? Dictators and tyrants all. They just didn't wear crowns.

For the record, I believe Diana cheated first. Does that excuse him? No, but I think it's mitigating.

:rotfl: Pathetic. Really.

Oh, those evil rich! But I think you've missed the point again. This was intended as a counterexample to your claim that royals are out of touch.

See above.

Sure. Among other things, I have the fact that they have a much better incentive structure than presidents.

:rotfl:

More accusations. Can you back them up?

You need to grow up. Watching you run around defending the "royals" isn't eccentric, or noble, or cute.

I could criticize it, but why should I argue both sides of this debate?

Fair enough.

I believe that in general and where possible, we should restore wrongly taken property to the heirs of the original owners, considering the oldest claim as best. If no one comes forward with an older and better claim, let whoever has it now keep it, if someone does, give it to him. There may be exceptions, though. It'd probably have to be determined on a case by case basis.

Do you have any idea what kind of mess this would make? The kind of upheaval it would case? The burden, suffering, and outright theft you're talking about? "Sorry kids, gotta move--turns out we're sitting on the Archduke of Freedonia's land."

If so, it's because they disagree with me on whether a king embodies the divine order, not whether there is one or whether such embodiment would be worthy of respect.

How can you respect tradition while rejecting Christianity and monarchy, expressing such contempt for the "bad old days," and supporting revolutionary republicanism?

Easily. And quit with the false dilemmas already.

A nation can exist without it, if that's what you're asking. But that wasn't my point. My point was that the king embodies national identity, and this is a reason to respect him. We could have the same conversation about flags. I don't think anyone would contend that a nation without a flag is no nation at all; that flags are "necessary for a nation," but flags are generally respected because they represent the nation and its identity.

Well, fine. A king embodies his nation. A queen could as well, I suppose. So could a sports mascot or some other kind of icon, if push came to shove. But that's not really an argument in favor of monarchism--and I doubt think you intended to be.

 

[Samstarrett]

Which means you're more full of yourself than I thought.

Anyone who holds a contrarian view must believe the majority is mistaken. To be mistaken, you must be either less "enlightened," less intelligent, or less informed on a particular topic than another person who is not mistaken. Unless there's a third way. What would that be?

You don't need to be a religious person to think respect is only ever earned...:

Did you mean to write "...non-religious person...?"

Dead wrong. See above. This is a classic false dilemma.

Hardly. Even if we agreed respect for persons was earned, it would still have to derive from meritorious actions, which would have to either be worthy of respect in themselves or derive their respect from elsewhere...

Too late.

Too late for what? To avoid being called arrogant by you? Gosh, how will I go on living?

And there's a fine line between sneering at your country and your religious fellows or simply disagreeing with the status quo.

And yet you are committed to putting me on one particular side of it. Why? Anyone who disagrees must maintain either that others lack information he possesses or failed to reason as well as he did.

Yes, and the fact that this happens less and less is an encouraging sign.

To you, of course. To me, not so much. That's one reason I don't think either of us will ever bring the other around in this debate; it's tied in with many, many other debates in which we are also on opposite sides. We have fundamentally different worldviews and value sets, and to come to an agreement on this, we'd probably have to settle those more fundamental differences first.

To use one of your pet tactics: unless you're a non-religious person, you wouldn't understand.

If you're going to use my "pet tactic," then you ought to confess as I did that you have no real argument here, and that we're at an impasse until a more fundamental debate be resolved.

We see it happen all the time.

Not really, no. Government courts interpreting government constitutions will and do pervert those constitutions in favor of the government. Democratically-elected presidents generally go along with democratically-elected legislatures, except when the president is held over from before the last election and the people have flip-flopped yet again. How could it be otherwise? With all power derived from the same source, it all serves the same interests.

But this is exactly the kind of religious zealotry that's a step away from outright madness, and we see this exact attitude in place throughout the world. The moment you believe everything you do is justified by the almighty and the second you set your own standards, the situation tends to go south very, very quickly.

I don't advocate nor does even the most absolutist Christian divine-right theory teach that "everything the king does is justified by the Almighty." Some theories, far more absolute than my own, do teach that it is always wrong to resist your king violently, but no one contends that the king cannot sin or will not be judged by God. Regarding setting your own standards, I agree. This is why we need popular representatives, nobility, and the Church to keep the king in check.

And people call me cynical.

Sorry, but it's a fact. Once he's in his last term, all possibility for gain by looking at the long-term disappears. So what's he going to do? Probably, he'll look at the short term.

And a prime minister or any other head of state without term limits doesn't have a similar motivation because...?

Democratically-elected heads of state without term limits do come closer to this than term-limited American presidents, but they lose the very longest term because they don't expect to pass power to their sons, daughters, or chosen heirs. Moreover, being as they are far more uncertain about ruling for life than kings, they will tend to look more at the short term than do kings. I'll grant that it would be an improvement over what we have now, though.

We both describe our favored systems in idealized terms, I think.

I think that's probably true.

And yes, the situation in this country has been largely co-opted.

How do you think that happened? Most importantly, could it have to do with voter indifference or ignorance?

But your problem (not surprising, given that you're a monarchist) is your tendency to never look at the smaller picture.

Well, I do like the big picture. But what do you see when you look at the smaller picture that shows you that voters are well-informed and rational enough to pick candidates who will pay close attention to them and their problems and provide real solutions, or at least that politicians think they are?

The flaw? The definition of "abuse."

Could be. But unless that flaw is at the core of the religion, it's your understanding of your religion that needs fixing, not your system of government. And I'd say Christianity's definition isn't bad, though of course we've had our imperfections over the centuries.

Heard of the book, haven't read it. I'll put it on the to-do list--but suffice to say (and I can't respond to a book I haven't read) that European warfare was a constant and unrelenting fact of life. Trying to sugar coat things doesn't change that.

But democracy has hardly put an end to war. On the contrary, it has made it more brutal, and, by removing the ability to expand states through peaceful buying and selling of territory and/or marriage, must serve to make war more common, as indeed we are seeing now with the concept of "perpetual war for perpetual peace."

...moving from the dark ages to the light, changing with the times, progressing, the march is inexorable...

Or there is no meaning to the march of history and great historical developments can be good or bad.

What of them? Dictators and tyrants all. They just didn't wear crowns.

They were a product of the revolutionary leftist movement and shared key elements of their public-property ideologies with democratic republicanism, even the ones who didn't come to power by democratic means(Hitler did...partially). This does not indict republicanism, really, but then, neither do the horrors of the Great War really indict monarchy.

:rotfl: Pathetic. Really.

That I believe it happened, or that I think it mitigates his guilt?

See above.

He seemed pretty in touch to me from what I read there. :idunno:

:rotfl:

To take a page out of your book:

The point stands, Granite.

You need to grow up.

Maybe if I do I'll realize how futile this conversation is.

Watching you run around defending the "royals" isn't eccentric, or noble, or cute.

It's not meant to be.

Do you have any idea what kind of mess this would make? The kind of upheaval it would case? The burden, suffering, and outright theft you're talking about?

How can it be theft to restore property that was stolen to the heirs of the victims? And as far as upheaval and suffering goes, I doubt it would be as bad as you're making out. Most of the people I'd restore would be suzerains or sovereigns, not owners of land in the strict sense. Landowners in the French Republic would become landowners in the Kingdom of France. Maybe a small area would suffer upheaval upon being recognized as the personal property of Louis XX, but even there, I don't see why he couldn't or wouldn't allow most people to stay on as tenants. Of course, it would likely be far more complicated than I'm describing, and there may be places where it couldn't really be done, but I think the principle is just.

"Sorry kids, gotta move--turns out we're sitting on the Archduke of Freedonia's land."

In all probability, it just means they'd have to pay rent to a different landlord.

Easily. And quit with the false dilemmas already.

What "tradition" do you "respect," having rejected the ones I named?

Well, fine. A king embodies his nation. A queen could as well, I suppose. So could a sports mascot or some other kind of icon, if push came to shove. But that's not really an argument in favor of monarchism--and I doubt think you intended to be.

I intended it to be an argument for respecting kings where they exist, no more. One could argue that that provides a positive value for the people and is a benefit of monarchy, but I think that unless the monarchy in question is purely ceremonial, there are far more important considerations to be dealt with first.

 

[Granite]

Anyone who holds a contrarian view must believe the majority is mistaken.

Probably, yes...

To be mistaken, you must be either less "enlightened," less intelligent, or less informed on a particular topic than another person who is not mistaken. Unless there's a third way. What would that be?

...but you're not considering the possibility that it's the contrarian who's woefully misled.

Hardly. Even if we agreed respect for persons was earned, it would still have to derive from meritorious actions...

Our definitions probably differ, but when I hear "meritorious" I think battlefield/combat/astronaut type stuff. A single mother who raises her child in a safe, stable environment is as worthy of "respect" in my book as someone who walked on the moon. Probably just semantics.

...which would have to either be worthy of respect in themselves or derive their respect from elsewhere...

Even if that's true, you're pretty much just making my point. I don't respect someone because of who their parents happen to be. I look at their accomplishments and their life. Respect is not intrinsic.

That's one reason I don't think either of us will ever bring the other around in this debate; it's tied in with many, many other debates in which we are also on opposite sides. We have fundamentally different worldviews and value sets, and to come to an agreement on this, we'd probably have to settle those more fundamental differences first.

I agree, which is why this is probably my last response on this thread. From now on we should either avoid one another or figure out another subject to discuss. This is too circular a subject to ever go far.

Democratically-elected presidents generally go along with democratically-elected legislatures, except when the president is held over from before the last election and the people have flip-flopped yet again. How could it be otherwise? With all power derived from the same source, it all serves the same interests.

I'd agree. I'd also say you're naive or just thick to imagine a form of government could ever be pure or not subject to corruption, especially one as cloistered and inherently snobbish as a monarchy.

Sorry, but it's a fact. Once he's in his last term, all possibility for gain by looking at the long-term disappears. So what's he going to do? Probably, he'll look at the short term.

And what might be a dying king do when he has nothing left to lose?

Democratically-elected heads of state without term limits do come closer to this than term-limited American presidents, but they lose the very longest term because they don't expect to pass power to their sons, daughters, or chosen heirs.

Assuming of course that their children or "chosen heirs" have any interest whatsoever in ruling--which is another weakness of monarchies we haven't really addressed yet, except in passing.

Moreover, being as they are far more uncertain about ruling for life than kings, they will tend to look more at the short term than do kings. I'll grant that it would be an improvement over what we have now, though.

Term limits are a fine idea on paper but create the same kind of nothing to lose, short-term thinking we've discussed. Agreed.

How do you think that happened? Most importantly, could it have to do with voter indifference or ignorance?

That's an extremely long story and deserves it own thread. And voter indifference played a part but was ultimately a small element in a much larger tale.

Well, I do like the big picture. But what do you see when you look at the smaller picture that shows you that voters are well-informed and rational enough to pick candidates who will pay close attention to them and their problems and provide real solutions, or at least that politicians think they are?

I live in a small state, so maybe my perspective's influenced by the small-scale "retail" politics we're used to out here.

Or there is no meaning to the march of history and great historical developments can be good or bad.

If you want to go looking for meaning, go ahead, but there doesn't need to be some kind of over-arching theme unless if we want to create one.

They were a product of the revolutionary leftist movement...

They were tyrants who used handy or popular rhetoric, betrayed the true believers of the revolution, and went insane with power.

That I believe it happened, or that I think it mitigates his guilt?

Both, since ya asked. I've never met an American male so desperate to run interference and spin control for these blue blooded freaks.

How can it be theft to restore property that was stolen to the heirs of the victims?

Ask the people you'd displace. (Quick aside: from all I gather you're a middle class American man, and yet you seem incredibly callous, flippant, and disinterested in your fellows. Unless you're a wealthy snob, you're really speaking out of place.)

And as far as upheaval and suffering goes, I doubt it would be as bad as you're making out. Most of the people I'd restore would be suzerains or sovereigns, not owners of land in the strict sense. Landowners in the French Republic would become landowners in the Kingdom of France. Maybe a small area would suffer upheaval upon being recognized as the personal property of Louis XX, but even there, I don't see why he couldn't or wouldn't allow most people to stay on as tenants. Of course, it would likely be far more complicated than I'm describing, and there may be places where it couldn't really be done, but I think the principle is just.

The principle's just. Property's restored to people who aren't asking for it at the expense of those who've lived there for, say, decades--maybe generations. Tough luck. What a fine attitude.

What "tradition" do you "respect," having rejected the ones I named?

Well I'm married, for one, but if you want to start a 20 Questions for Granite thread, knock yourself out.

I intended it to be an argument for respecting kings where they exist, no more.

At the end of the day you're star struck and easily impressed. Why should I respect some doofus who's never worked in his life and who spends his nights getting into the tabloids?

 

[Samstarrett]

Probably, yes...

Thank you.

...but you're not considering the possibility that it's the contrarian who's woefully misled.

Of course I consider that possibility. But no one can believe he is presently woefully misled. Thus I allow that I could be wrong, but I must believe that I am in fact right; else I could no belief whatever.

Our definitions probably differ, but when I hear "meritorious" I think battlefield/combat/astronaut type stuff. A single mother who raises her child in a safe, stable environment is as worthy of "respect" in my book as someone who walked on the moon. Probably just semantics.

Indeed. "Meritorious" in this context was meant to mean "worthy of respect, for whatever reason."

Even if that's true, you're pretty much just making my point. I don't respect someone because of who their parents happen to be. I look at their accomplishments and their life. Respect is not intrinsic.

Except that if I keep asking "Why should I respect so-and-so?", and you keep responding "He did this or that," I can keep asking, "Why should I respect this or that?", and eventually, you'll have to say that this or that is inherently worthy of respect. If I disagree, I don't see how we can settle the issue by rational argument. :idunno:

I agree, which is why this is probably my last response on this thread. From now on we should either avoid one another or figure out another subject to discuss. This is too circular a subject to ever go far.

Agreed.

I'd agree. I'd also say you're naive or just thick to imagine a form of government could ever be pure or not subject to corruption, especially one as cloistered and inherently snobbish as a monarchy.

I don't imagine that. I do believe, however, that when kings are corrupt, they will have less to be corrupt with, as monarchical states tend to be smaller, and that they will be less likely to be corrupt, as we haven't filtered out decent and harmless men the way we do with mass democracy. Moreover, by deriving power from several different sources with opposed interests, we can hold corruption in check, at least to a degree, even when everyone is out to further his own self-interest.

And what might be a dying king do when he has nothing left to lose?

That is a danger, but his expectation that his son will rule after him mitigates it. Most people care about their children's future.

Assuming of course that their children or "chosen heirs" have any interest whatsoever in ruling--which is another weakness of monarchies we haven't really addressed yet, except in passing.

Well, maybe a weakness in some cases, but I'd say also a strength in others. I think that generally those who desire and seek power use it worst.

That's an extremely long story and deserves it own thread.

Fair enough.

I live in a small state, so maybe my perspective's influenced by the small-scale "retail" politics we're used to out here.

Could be. And for the record, I think republican democracy can probably work quite well on a small scale.

If you want to go looking for meaning, go ahead, but there doesn't need to be some kind of over-arching theme unless if we want to create one.

Agreed.

They were tyrants who used handy or popular rhetoric, betrayed the true believers of the revolution, and went insane with power.

Are you saying that "true believer" Russian Communists were really good people who detested the horrors of Stalin's rule?

Both, since ya asked.

I don't see how the latter can not be mitigating. How is it not worse to commit adultery when your wife has been faithful than when she is an adulteress?

I've never met an American male so desperate to run interference and spin control for these blue blooded freaks.

I get that a lot.

Ask the people you'd displace.

People who derived their right to "their" land through theft?

(Quick aside: from all I gather you're a middle class American man, and yet you seem incredibly callous, flippant, and disinterested in your fellows. Unless you're a wealthy snob, you're really speaking out of place.)

Maybe that's because I don't see the world in terms of class warfare. :idunno:

The principle's just. Property's restored to people who aren't asking for it at the expense of those who've lived there for, say, decades--maybe generations. Tough luck. What a fine attitude.

Regarding: "...aren't asking for it...":

As regards personal property, if they don't want it, they're free to cede it to the current possessors. Suzerainty, being governed by law and not owned completely by one person in most cases, is a little thornier, but also unlikely to cause many of the problems you suggest when restored.

Regarding: "...have lived their for generations..."

Does theft become just if you get away with it long enough?

Well I'm married, for one, but if you want to start a 20 Questions for Granite thread, knock yourself out.

Being married does not make you "respectful of tradition" in my book. Even leftist revolutionaries have been married. :idunno:

At the end of the day you're star struck and easily impressed. Why should I respect some doofus who's never worked in his life and who spends his nights getting into the tabloids?

I've answered the question before. At the end of the day, if you persist in asking the same question, you must expect the same answers.

Finally, since you've indicated that you agree that this discussion is futile, I'm happy to let us both go our separate ways. You can even reply to this if you want, and if you don't ask me any questions, I'll let that be the final word, at least between us(if others wish to discuss the issue, I'll probably do so).

 

[Granite]

My only suggestion is that next time you actually try to address the subject of the OP.:chuckle:

 

[Esquilax]

Does taxation without representation constitute grounds for violent revolution?

## No.