Yes yes yes, I _know_ he’s not really exactly quite entirely totally Greek, so there. (He’s a Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderberg-Glücksberg actually.)
David Davis
I liked Gerald Warner’s piece though, the old whinger.
You see, you must imagine the stormy raging waters, in the darkness of the Endarkenment, dotted here and there with pathetic bits of cultural wreckage to which distraught human shapes cling in the gloom. This scenario is what will be left to us to sort out after the Brown Terror will have passed.
But there will be some bits of stuff slightly more substantial and inviting in a tradition-building sense than some other bits. one of these more inviting bits, which we do know did work quite well for a time, until it got overwhlemed and corrupted, was constitutional monarchy, based on a crowd of mountebanks slightly less unappealing than some other similar mountebanks. Our lot of mountebanks agreed to play by classical liberal rules even.
It owuld have been better if Phil had managed to get Brenda to stand up to her rotten scumbag politicians (which is to say pretty much all of them) more than she has (which is not a lot.)
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Happy 88th Birthday, Your Royal Highness. He deserves a proper mentioning since he is far better than the media potray him.
I like his sense of humour. And he is not kissing babies like our pollies.
No anarchist has ever upheld constitutional monarchy (except in the “least”worst” sense). Why do we need these Statist father-figures? Are we all little children? How is this helpful to libertarian-minded people?
I’m not an anarchist; but the core of monarchy is Eugenics Theory — the idea that a Ruling Class can breed itself. Do you subscribe to this notion?
Tony
Tony, I nearly correctly predicted to myself what you would say about Phil the Greek. (I didn’t predict “father-figure” though.)
Would you describe the British Royal Family as a ruling class?
I would not in any sense. Come on, man, get out more.
Lots of people like having them where they are, they being generally harmless and entertaining. I suspect most of the same people who like looking at them would happily pay for them too, certainly at the current rates.
Perhaps you should rather consider the psychology associated with a poor captive member of the Royal Family having to live like a zoo-animal all its life?
Sometines, Tony, in my sadder moments, I think you are a droid.
It is arguable whether you live enough time on the same planet as the rest of humanity.
Libertarianism, if it is not satisfactorily-internally-logical-in-the-extreme, for you, if it is to survive, will have to live in the real world. It does not have Khalashnikovs wielded by “student freddom fighters” or “cadres”.
It will have to live with the foibles and preferences of lots of individual humans who have rough edges, and even some who like Kings and Queens, and who also like stuff that you (and often other equally-intellectually-consistent but disagreeing libertarians) do not like, and do not believe in, and execrate daily on here.
‘I’m not an anarchist; but the core of monarchy is Eugenics Theory — the idea that a Ruling Class can breed itself. Do you subscribe to this notion?’
Monarchy is based on hereditary and not eugenic principles. There is a difference, especially when the bloodline concerned is in some way less than desireable.
I’m not sure why any libertarian would object to eugenics in toto anyway – any society run along libertarian lines would be at least mildly eugenic in function. Natural selection and freedom of choice are certainly not complete strangers!
http://www.darwinawards.com/
Dave:
The key issue is that the theoretical power of the Crown is the legitimating doctrine for everything done in its name. Since the power of the Crown is an Absolute Sovereignty, this means that the powers inherent in the “Crown-in-Parliament” are absolute and unlimited in scope and rationale. While this does mean that the Crown Power has — in theory — the “right” to do anything to anyone, that same Power is used to prohibit people doing what they want to within their own lives. This cannot be consistent with any version of libertarian ideas.
You misunderstand me when you suggest that I would want to stop people showing allegiance to members of this or any other Royal family if so inclined. People should be free to declare allegiance to another person if they so wish. I might (or might not) advise them on this; but I would no more try to stop them than I would try to stop them having religious beliefs. The two cases have similarities.
So be up front with us: Do you favour a Parliament exercising absolute Power in the name of the Crown? Or would you prefer a Constitutional Republic with a token Head of State, with a comprehensive written Constitution, and a comprehensive Bill of Rights which is valid in all cases?
Regards,
Tony
Graham:
There are two ‘flavours’ of Eugenics theory: one says “Let’s help people with good genes (howsoever defined) to have more healthy kids.”
The other says “Let’s stop people with bad genes (howsoever defined) having kids at all.” There is little room for doubt that some soi-disant Classical Liberals support the latter, in the form of abolishing welfare supports and bans on discriminatory practices. Do you think that it’s OK for a public restauranteur to refuse President Obama the right to buy a lunch? As recently as the ‘Sixties, this was the law in some parts of the US.
Tony
Broadly, eugenics just means good breeding. This occurs naturally and would do so in a free society, where the more capable, healthy and successful would tend to have more children that survive to have children themselves (known as biological fitness). What we have now is a society that is arguably dysgenic, that is, it favours bad breeding.
‘Do you think that it’s OK for a public restauranteur to refuse President Obama the right to buy a lunch? As recently as the ‘Sixties, this was the law in some parts of the US.’
Of course. For any reason of the proprietor’s choosing, without the need for explanation.
I’m a bit unclear on part of what you have said, though. Are you saying that banning discrimination is both eugenic and liberal?
GrahamDavies:
So you ARE a Social Darwinist and you see no problem with racism. You really do want to score Own Goals, yeah?
Tony
Graham Davies:
Let’s try you out with some further ideas….
Grocery Stores at Auschwitz?
Wearing Nazi uniforms in public?
Selling copies of Mein Kampf outside of synagogues?
Unimpeded Membership of the Ku Klux Klan?
Go on, make up some more for us…
Tony
In answer to all your questions, I am a 19th century liberal. I believe that the criminal law should be based on Mill’s harm principle. I do not believe that individuals should be sent to prison in any of the situations you have mentioned.
None of those problems existed in Mill’s time, though.
Tony
I’m not overly keen on imprisonment anyway.
House arrest is sufficient remedy in most cases.
Tony
Possibly, but that does tend to suggest that what is today referred to as multiculturalism is inversely proportional to individual liberty.
Tony Hollick”I’m not overly keen on imprisonment anyway.House arrest is sufficient remedy in most cases”
Can you please explain the difference between being confined to your home and a state prison?The essential point is the lack of freedom not the decor.
Gary Aronsson:
Having had to cope with having a friend in aUS prison, I have a fairly extensive knowledge of what a day in the life of a prisoner looks like. I can assure you that the differences extend far beyond decor….
The aptly-named “US Criminal Justice System” has over two million inmates and over five million on parole or probation. I suggest you start by asking some of them. One in 35 of the population…
It’s difficult to explain degrees of freedom to someone who insists on a binary view. You might try “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch” by Solzhenitsyn. Or:
http://www.STARGATE.uk.net/nobel.txt
Tony