tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post1982370734907100198..comments2024-03-16T01:00:19.876-05:00Comments on The Mad Monarchist: Political QualificationsMadMonarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-23876313282530767322010-12-23T15:56:48.843-06:002010-12-23T15:56:48.843-06:00Thank you very much, MadMonarchist. I agree comple...Thank you very much, MadMonarchist. I agree completely. Do you have a post addressing the argument that monarchy is not fair because it puts one person above others due to birth, rather than the argument that monarchs are unqualified, which you have so skillfully dismantled here?<br /><br />Vive Le Roi, God Save the Queen, and all that,<br />Sam StarrettAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-66986782934803946692010-12-15T18:38:54.512-06:002010-12-15T18:38:54.512-06:00Have you been reading the exchange on the recent p...Have you been reading the exchange on the recent post on Japan? I have been trying to make that exact point.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-87568240962143462112010-12-15T17:23:54.837-06:002010-12-15T17:23:54.837-06:00All, as usual excellent points and I agree wholehe...All, as usual excellent points and I agree wholeheartedly. Another point I would make is that people say, what if you get a corrupt villain or a total incompetant? This argument fall down ontwo grounds. 1. If you abolished an institution because of a few bad incumbents, Parliament, Congress and most legislatures woild have have gone decades ago. 2. As members of the Royal Family are trained and prepared from birth, if one is clearly unsuitable, it is not beyond the wit of man to exclude them from the succession (this is hardly without prcedents, and in most of them the monarchy itself carried on fine).Will2010http://will2010.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-34187101701859465892010-12-15T13:49:37.223-06:002010-12-15T13:49:37.223-06:00I have said much the same thing. I never understoo...I have said much the same thing. I never understood the appeals to Logic and Reason in defence of Modern Democracy when the enture System is Based on a Popularity Contest. We are suppose tobeelve that the Voters will read a Resume and all meet together to decide hwo is most Qwualified amongs the Paplicants, and we see that this si never hwo it plays out. Meanwhile, Hereditary Leaders are bad because they wer ejust born that way, even though his means they will eb Trained. Worse still, people inherit hosues, money, and even busnesss form their parents, but somehow the Hereditary Principle is wrong in tersm fo Governance. I’ve been mocked for this but, I see a clear progression between the Republican Condemnation of Monarhcy and the condemnation fo Inheritance, which comes up in all Socialist and Communist systems.<br /><br />Really the abolition fo Private Property zRights and Inheritance make smore sense in an Egalitarian Society that shuns Hereditary Investure than Monarhcy, gine the principels behind it, even though loads of American Conservatives reject this observation.<br /><br /><br />But yor right, Democracy has not lead to Brilliant Leaders, and anyone who has called Bush, Palin, or Obama idiots has no room to sue the arugment that Monarhcy will let stupid people lead us. Obviosuly, Dmeocracy hasn’t causs that pitfall to be eliminated or even reduced.ZAROVEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17668854596329493360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-15437775375343294012010-12-15T08:53:58.833-06:002010-12-15T08:53:58.833-06:00Better be secure under one king, than exposed to v...Better be secure under one king, than exposed to violence from twenty millions of monarchs, though oneself be of the number. -- <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=9fTCg408IckC&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=Better+be+secure+under+one+king,+than+exposed+to&source=bl&ots=wnDI5u96lF&sig=GBa1PT7LsUxHAfBuCCYh88nKT2s&hl=en&ei=7NEITd-YJ9GSOuCHoNYE&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Better%20be%20secure%20under%20one%20king%2C%20than%20exposed%20to&f=false" rel="nofollow">Herman Melville</a>J.K. Baltzersenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00096616644588479917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-78074746252614958512010-12-15T03:04:35.686-06:002010-12-15T03:04:35.686-06:00Yes, I believe it was no less a figure than Voltai...Yes, I believe it was no less a figure than Voltaire who said something along the lines of the first quote.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-23546097960987013512010-12-15T01:39:20.313-06:002010-12-15T01:39:20.313-06:00In the spirit of this, there are numerous quotes b...In the spirit of this, there are numerous quotes by very influential thinkers along the lines of "I would rather be led by a single fine lion than a thousand of my fellow lowly rats," or "I prefer one tyrant to a thousand." Not to say that monarchs are tyrants, but you get the idea.Aurelien Nicotnoreply@blogger.com