In a comment at The Joy of Curmudgeonry, Mr. Akaky Bashmachkin wrote:
A better world is possible, but it all depends on what your definition of better is, doesnt it? From 1789 onwards, we've had any number of people tell us that a better world was possible for everyone, and if everyone didnt want that better world then the people offering us all this chance at utopia would shoot the dissenters until we all got the message and marched forward into paradise together.previous
Please also feel free to see the post on the petition to let the legacy go.
Also, Clifford F. Thies goes through the monetary history of those United States.
Further, Robert Blumen comments Benn Steil's The End of National Currency.
Over at Enter Stage Right, I have an article published today in support of King Juan Carlos and his outburst – “por qué no te callas?” – against the Venezuelan President.
Please also feel free to visit or revisit this post.
Who now is in doubt that what we are seeing on the political circus stage in Kathmandu is only an appetizer – for those who can stomach it – for what is to come once the monarchical brake is permanently removed?
For those who put their faith in courts to protect people from politicians, this news report might give you second thoughts on that issue.
Supposedly and reportedly, Nepalese royalists are demanding a referendum. Reportedly, Ms. Sujata Koirala-Jost has recently spoken for a revival of the 1990 Nepalese Constitution.
The people might not get what they want in a democracy. It has been said that in a democracy the people at least get what they deserve. It would be more precise to say that the people get what the majority deserves.
We recall some of what C.S. Lewis told us:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.And:
There, right in the midst of our lives, is that which satisfies the craving for inequality, and acts as a permanent reminder that medicine is not food. Hence a man’s reaction to monarchy is a kind of test. Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.
Western Defence honors the deceased. Comments too at View from the Right.
As a curiosity, Graf von Berchtold, who pushed his Emperor to war, died on the day a couple of baker's dozen years later. I do not think we can complain about the extent to which he got to see the consequences of his politics.
To Her Britannic Majesty and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh.
Elsewhere: The Monarchist, Tea at Trianon
In this day and age, where we are told monarchs are merely to smile and shut up, while this is not done in a very royal or diplomatic tone, I just have to post this. A king tells – or more precisely, rhetorically asks – an elected politician to shut up.
While a lot of people, most fortunately, cheer King Juan Carlos I of Spain on this occasion, we do in response hear questions like:
On this day we recall the words of Samuel Langhorne Clemens:
Wherefore being all of one mind, we do highly resolve that government of the grafted by the grafter for the grafter shall not perish from the earth.
The pro-monarchy rally in Vienna last Monday was reported by official television of the Austrian Republic (in German, of course).
I love those neckties.
Reuters also reported on the adoption of the non-binding resolution. Mr. Maila Baje has commented on the resolution.
Given the history of the 20 th century, we really must put our trust in the Nepalese Maoists. Indeed!
I stayed at the Topkapı Palace Hotel, next to the Kremlin Palace Hotel. My business all week took place at these two hotels. I can actually say I walked several times a day from the Topkapı Palace to the Kremlin and back.
This was actually quite enjoyable. However, from time to time, something got in the way. Why can't modern Turks make a concept like this without a scratch? Why do they have to put a monument of Atatürk in each hotel lobby? Have they no sense of consistency at all?
The concept is the Ottoman residence, and what they do is put a monument to honor the founder of the Turkish Republic in the lobby. Give me a break!
My last full day there was November 10. Supposedly, there is a moment of silence at 0905 hours that day every year to honor this man. People put wreaths at his monuments. They hail his achievement of ousting the “antiquated” Ottoman Empire.
From what I can tell, Atatürk must be modern Turkey's secular God. We say that government rather should be of laws than of men.
The ruling principle in Turkey must be government by a single dead man!
Reportedly, a Nepalese politician has said:
[We] would not go for any move that would deprive the people of their right to choose the political system of their choice.Is that why these politicians have abolished the monarchy in all but name?
Already in 1884, Herbert Spencer observingly noted:
The function of Liberalism in the past was that of putting a limit to the powers of kings. The function of true Liberalism in the future will be that of putting a limit to the power of Parliaments.Yet, we are met even today with boatloads of people who are far more concerned with kings not having power than the extensive powers of modern parliaments. They even claim that those of us who believe in figures with crowns live in the past.
[T]he myth that nothing has gotten worse when it so clearly has. When things reach the absolute bottom, we'll be told that we're resisting the inevitable and living in the past, no doubt.Again, who is living in the past? Those who react to the negative features of our time? Or those who act like such negative experiences never happened?
I am 2007 JCI World Debating Champion.
For reference, please see this summary.
Disclaimer: In no way whatsoever is it to be construed that JCI or affiliated organizations in any way whatsoever, in content, form, or otherwise, endorse this weblog. Moreover, this blogger does not necessarily endorse the positions taken by him in the roleplays which the championship debatings are. This also goes for debatings for training and demonstration in connection with such championships.
He was given shelter in Macau, where his house, which I have visited, still stands today – or at least it did in 1999.
Macau was at the time of the sheltering a colony of Portugal, where the monarchy fell in 1910. With the help of Sun Yat-sen, the Chinese monarchy fell in 1911.
The speech in its entirety is available in the Commons Hansard for November 11, 1947. The speech may also be available in Churchill speech collections.
While sadly having no regrets about being on the side of the emasculation of the House of Lords when creating Parliament Act 1911, Winston Churchill spoke on this November day against further emasculation, proposed by the Attlee Cabinet.
Would you have guessed that this dictum was from a speech defending the rights of the House of Lords?
Please feel free to visit or revisit my article that revisits Churchill on democracy.
There are certainly aspects of Kierkegaard's philosophy that we could use today.
Joachim Garff, Bruce H. Kirmmse, and Tom Carter note:
Politically, Kierkegaard, was an extraordinarily conservative defender of the aristocracy. A close political ally and acquaintance of the king of Denmark, Kierkegaard expressed a mixture of fear and disdain toward the emerging socialist and democratic movements in Europe.Further:
By and large, Kierkegaard, a misogynist himself, regarded the masses, or he called them pejoratively, “the multitude,” as the inferior “woman” in the struggle between the classes (p. 483). With equal measures of arrogance and fearfulness, Kierkegaard regarded the broad majority of ordinary people as “the most dangerous of all powers and the most insignificant”Moreover:
Kierkegaard argued that democracy, not monarchy, is “the most tyrannical form of government,” and that of all forms of government, the government by a single individual is best: “Is it tyranny when one person wants to rule leaving the rest of us others out? No, but it is tyranny when all want to rule”To add:
“A people’s government,” wrote Kierkegaard, “is the true image of Hell” (p. 487). Kierkegaard was unabashedly an apologist and supporter of the monarch, and when democratic revolution swept the country in 1849, Kierkegaard hid in his apartment and hoped it would all blow over.We could certainly use some of Kierkegaard today. Indeed we need more such philosophers alive and ticking!
Total votes: 140.
See also reports here, here, and here.
The Nepali Times says the conflict prolongs the life of the monarchy. I might add that that's a good thing. In the present situation buying time could serve well for exemplifying what life under a democratic republic can be like.
Shastri Ramacharan has an interesting column. So does Shirish Ranabhat, who actually acknowledges that there are worse things than absolute monarchy.
Chinese Professor Wang Khongwe has given an interview, where he states:
The only force authorized to decide the fate of Nepali monarchy is Nepali people.Oh, yes! That popular sovereignty! It has given so much progress to the West and the world at large since the days of the French Revolution!
Our system is based upon the assumption, popularly regarded as implicit in the doctrine of equality, that everybody is educable. This has been taken without question from the beginning; it is taken without question now. The whole structure of our system, the entire arrangement of its mechanics, testifies to this. Even our truant laws testify to it, for they are constructed with exclusive reference to school-age, not to school-ability.
Posts
All Comments
