And I'll gladly take a generally hands-off agrarian ruler governing according to religious and traditional principles which have stood the test of time over the rule of a maleducated, concupiscent mob that has no idea about the personal boundaries of others and is easily swayed by whatever "novelty," no matter how violent, counterproductive, or illogical.
Does this régime accord liberty? Try starting a business, raising a family, smoking in a pub, distilling your own whiskey, not paying taxes, building an addition onto your house, digging a well, hunting for your food, keeping chickens for eggs, etc., and then tell me.
"I'll gladly take a generally hands-off agrarian ruler governing according to religious and traditional principles which have stood the test of time over the rule of a maleducated, concupiscent mob that has no idea about the personal boundaries of others and is easily swayed by whatever "novelty," no matter how violent, counterproductive, or illogical."
Okay- first problem, the assumption that concentration of ultimate power into one person's hand, or the hands of one family, is patently false and proven so over centuries. Secondly, the contention of these somehow "religious and traditional principles", which, of course, you refuse to define beyond mentioning them, being preferable to today's system of civil liberties and secularism is ludicrous. The Inquisition, for one, serves to display the horror of these principles in practice. As far as a maleducated, concupiscent mob? This is a representative democracy, Matthew, not a pure democracy, so your argument can't even stand the test of the first adjective. Secondly, the well-documented sexual perversions of the royalist ruling class display a far more concupiscent population than the common people. As far as personal boundaries, in a monarchy there are no boundaries, as you know. As far as "novelty", without defining the term properly, there isn't much of an answer to it. I can only assume that you mean a type of political novelty- much like monarchism to a civilian of a democracy seems.
"Does this régime accord liberty? Try starting a business, raising a family, smoking in a pub, distilling your own whiskey, not paying taxes, building an addition onto your house, digging a well, hunting for your food, keeping chickens for eggs, etc., and then tell me."
I think one can raise a family freely, seeing as it is our evolutionary calling to propagate. Again, your argument has absolutely no definition or sources to its claims... Smoking is unhealthy for humans, so I find no issue with it being prohibited in public places. As far as the rest go, property is 9/10ths of the law, thus the bureaucratic bullshit you refer to here- still, I'll take it over the preposterous argument that a monarchist system, in which no-one's right to their property supersedes the ruler's, is a better one.
You as well, Matthew.
P.S. You can't possibly support the pro-Iranian Shah crap that your blog friends do, do you?
*Okay- first problem, the assumption that concentration of ultimate power into one person's hand, or the hands of one family, IS A POSITIVE THING is patently false and proven so over centuries
I'll take the liberty and lack of incest at the top tier of government afforded by democracy, thank you.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'll gladly take a generally hands-off agrarian ruler governing according to religious and traditional principles which have stood the test of time over the rule of a maleducated, concupiscent mob that has no idea about the personal boundaries of others and is easily swayed by whatever "novelty," no matter how violent, counterproductive, or illogical.
ReplyDeleteDoes this régime accord liberty? Try starting a business, raising a family, smoking in a pub, distilling your own whiskey, not paying taxes, building an addition onto your house, digging a well, hunting for your food, keeping chickens for eggs, etc., and then tell me.
Anyway, it is good to hear from you, Eoin.
"I'll gladly take a generally hands-off agrarian ruler governing according to religious and traditional principles which have stood the test of time over the rule of a maleducated, concupiscent mob that has no idea about the personal boundaries of others and is easily swayed by whatever "novelty," no matter how violent, counterproductive, or illogical."
ReplyDeleteOkay- first problem, the assumption that concentration of ultimate power into one person's hand, or the hands of one family, is patently false and proven so over centuries. Secondly, the contention of these somehow "religious and traditional principles", which, of course, you refuse to define beyond mentioning them, being preferable to today's system of civil liberties and secularism is ludicrous. The Inquisition, for one, serves to display the horror of these principles in practice. As far as a maleducated, concupiscent mob? This is a representative democracy, Matthew, not a pure democracy, so your argument can't even stand the test of the first adjective. Secondly, the well-documented sexual perversions of the royalist ruling class display a far more concupiscent population than the common people. As far as personal boundaries, in a monarchy there are no boundaries, as you know. As far as "novelty", without defining the term properly, there isn't much of an answer to it. I can only assume that you mean a type of political novelty- much like monarchism to a civilian of a democracy seems.
"Does this régime accord liberty? Try starting a business, raising a family, smoking in a pub, distilling your own whiskey, not paying taxes, building an addition onto your house, digging a well, hunting for your food, keeping chickens for eggs, etc., and then tell me."
I think one can raise a family freely, seeing as it is our evolutionary calling to propagate. Again, your argument has absolutely no definition or sources to its claims... Smoking is unhealthy for humans, so I find no issue with it being prohibited in public places. As far as the rest go, property is 9/10ths of the law, thus the bureaucratic bullshit you refer to here- still, I'll take it over the preposterous argument that a monarchist system, in which no-one's right to their property supersedes the ruler's, is a better one.
You as well, Matthew.
P.S. You can't possibly support the pro-Iranian Shah crap that your blog friends do, do you?
*Okay- first problem, the assumption that concentration of ultimate power into one person's hand, or the hands of one family, IS A POSITIVE THING is patently false and proven so over centuries
ReplyDelete