God Save the Queen!
#121
Someone like Cicero would say that statecraft was about more traditional 'virtues' such as generosity, empathy, fortitude, truthfulness, bravery etc, but Machiavelli is more realistic, the Prince must be 100% ruthless or someones will be and tip him over.
I think Machiavelli is probably a better guide to the banking world, although no doubt Bankers see themselves full for Cireco type virtue (don't we all though?).
Banking is open to anyone at least though, but then anyone ruthless enough can become a Prince also. Still banking spills less blood.
Bank robbing is open to all too.
#123
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Karl Lagerfeld wrote on the monarchy in metro this week where he was guest editor
"It's totally unnecessary, but it's pleasant. Why not have the monarchy? People can dream about it. It is good for British tourism.
"The queen is like her grandmother - a more smiley version. In terms of what she wears, she's come into herself a little bit more, whatever that is.
So there you have it, summed up by one of her fellow countrymen
"It's totally unnecessary, but it's pleasant. Why not have the monarchy? People can dream about it. It is good for British tourism.
"The queen is like her grandmother - a more smiley version. In terms of what she wears, she's come into herself a little bit more, whatever that is.
So there you have it, summed up by one of her fellow countrymen
#124
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Karl Lagerfeld wrote on the monarchy in metro this week where he was guest editor
"It's totally unnecessary, but it's pleasant. Why not have the monarchy? People can dream about it. It is good for British tourism.
"The queen is like her grandmother - a more smiley version. In terms of what she wears, she's come into herself a little bit more, whatever that is.
So there you have it, summed up by one of her fellow countrymen
"It's totally unnecessary, but it's pleasant. Why not have the monarchy? People can dream about it. It is good for British tourism.
"The queen is like her grandmother - a more smiley version. In terms of what she wears, she's come into herself a little bit more, whatever that is.
So there you have it, summed up by one of her fellow countrymen
#128
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When convenient, yet you're comfortable alluding to another's immediate ancestry. It's a bit like flip-flopping between a 'belief' in a free market and state intervention. I guess Integral Theory's helpful, until it's not; Pragmatist or mercenary? Either way I guess it's rewarding.
#130
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When convenient, yet you're comfortable alluding to another's immediate ancestry. It's a bit like flip-flopping between a 'belief' in a free market and state intervention. I guess Integral Theory's helpful, until it's not; Pragmatist or mercenary? Either way I guess it's rewarding.
The latter posts were to make light of the subject from an airport lounge - what do you want to read from them?
Integral or Integrated?
Integrated would be to recognise the facets of any system and weaving them together to create virtue. And remember Integrated is a ME orientation (although superficially that never makes sense to me - but in reality it is very ME - YELLOW).
#131
Scooby Regular
As absurd as your example is - no I do not think there should be a cut off point.
However, there are clearly cut off points and Her Majesty is masterful in executing these in subtle ways that we rarely see, a word here, a hint there. That is true power.
My argument would be for a more democratic balancing of the scales - an elected first house and second house.
We have an elected first house and a largely inherited second house in the court of the Queen.
However, there are clearly cut off points and Her Majesty is masterful in executing these in subtle ways that we rarely see, a word here, a hint there. That is true power.
My argument would be for a more democratic balancing of the scales - an elected first house and second house.
We have an elected first house and a largely inherited second house in the court of the Queen.
In the scenario your car(s) and house (if it's over a certain size), and any other possessions deemed unnecessary, would be confiscated forcibly.
Last edited by GlesgaKiss; 08 February 2012 at 11:19 AM.
#132
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the tax bills I have just paid it already feels like everything above £30k has been redistributed forcibly.
Would I be happy - not really, at least not immediately.
Would it make me want a queen to 'save' me - attractive but not really.
I could exercise my democratic right in many ways - accept the new reality, fight the law, establish a new politic movement. These are all crucial freedoms.
For me personally, I have been and hopefully always will be very adaptable. There are many freedoms in not owning a large house and an expensive car
Would I be happy - not really, at least not immediately.
Would it make me want a queen to 'save' me - attractive but not really.
I could exercise my democratic right in many ways - accept the new reality, fight the law, establish a new politic movement. These are all crucial freedoms.
For me personally, I have been and hopefully always will be very adaptable. There are many freedoms in not owning a large house and an expensive car
#133
Flip flopping between state intervention and free market tactics might be tenable if ones end is consistent, for example like John Stuart Mill's 'greatest good for the greatest number'.
Otherwise it might looks like one is just going which ever way suits ones own pockets?
#134
Scooby Regular
I could exercise my democratic right in many ways - accept the new reality, fight the law, establish a new politic movement. These are all crucial freedoms.
For me personally, I have been and hopefully always will be very adaptable. There are many freedoms in not owning a large house and an expensive car
For me personally, I have been and hopefully always will be very adaptable. There are many freedoms in not owning a large house and an expensive car
I get the last point.
#135
With respect, if they can be taken away by the will of a 'mob', for want of a better word, they're hardly crucial freedoms, are they? More like a few choices you have in the practical reality of the situation. There are no innate 'democratic rights', per se, in that idea of democracy.
I get the last point.
I get the last point.
I am talking about rights like free speech, freedom or movement and assembly.
#136
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With respect, if they can be taken away by the will of a 'mob', for want of a better word, they're hardly crucial freedoms, are they? More like a few choices you have in the practical reality of the situation. There are no innate 'democratic rights', per se, in that idea of democracy.
I get the last point.
I get the last point.
For most people it is July before they start earning money they can call their own...
...where is the revolution?
Your real question is, would I rather be oppressed and poor in a feudal state or a democratic one.
Only the feudal lords would vote for the former, and contrary to Tony's allusions, I am not one of them!
#137
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure but if you take a pragmatic approach you must still have some ethical end in mind?
Flip flopping between state intervention and free market tactics might be tenable if ones end is consistent, for example like John Stuart Mill's 'greatest good for the greatest number'.
Otherwise it might looks like one is just going which ever way suits ones own pockets?
Flip flopping between state intervention and free market tactics might be tenable if ones end is consistent, for example like John Stuart Mill's 'greatest good for the greatest number'.
Otherwise it might looks like one is just going which ever way suits ones own pockets?
Much of the disonance we are seeing in society today is the result of a powerfully dominant ME consciousness sandwiched between and embedded and 'old fashioned' WE consciousness, and a newly emerging dominant WE, social consciousness. And so the spiral will keep on turning.
#139
Scooby Regular
To bring your argument into reality - the 'mob' has already taken a very substantial sum of money from me yet I am not railing against democracy as that is the will of the people.
For most people it is July before they start earning money they can call their own...
...where is the revolution?
Your real question is, would I rather be oppressed and poor in a feudal state or a democratic one.
Only the feudal lords would vote for the former, and contrary to Tony's allusions, I am not one of them!
For most people it is July before they start earning money they can call their own...
...where is the revolution?
Your real question is, would I rather be oppressed and poor in a feudal state or a democratic one.
Only the feudal lords would vote for the former, and contrary to Tony's allusions, I am not one of them!
You're not railing against democracy, and you're happy to go with the will of the people, yet you would like to have some 'democratic rights'. What if they go against the will of the people?
I don't know what the part in bold has to do with it.
And no, that wasn't my question. My question was pretty much as I presented it. I get the feeling you would like to avoid answering it.
#140
Scooby Regular
That's if you can get past their inconsistencies, of course.
Last edited by GlesgaKiss; 08 February 2012 at 01:48 PM.
#141
The nature of consciousness oscillates between social and personal.
Much of the disonance we are seeing in society today is the result of a powerfully dominant ME consciousness sandwiched between and embedded and 'old fashioned' WE consciousness, and a newly emerging dominant WE, social consciousness. And so the spiral will keep on turning.
Much of the disonance we are seeing in society today is the result of a powerfully dominant ME consciousness sandwiched between and embedded and 'old fashioned' WE consciousness, and a newly emerging dominant WE, social consciousness. And so the spiral will keep on turning.
I'm was asking you to nail your pragmatism to an ethical mast. It's not so unreasonable.
You don't share an ancestor with Blair to you?
#142
Exactly. I'm just wondering what rights that people have currently they are willing to sacrifice to the idea of democracy, or 'mob rule'. There are no absolute individual rights to be 'enforced' in that ideology.
That's if you can get past their inconsistencies, of course.
That's if you can get past their inconsistencies, of course.
Liberal democracy is supposed to protect natural rights and guard against a tyrany of the majority (mob rule) thorough constitutional protections and democratic institutions, which involves having much of formal power disseminated throughout society and not in the hands of a single person or institution.
If it gets spoiled by politics of emotion and mob rule it is not really a democracy, more a 'mobocracy'.
#143
To bring your argument into reality - the 'mob' has already taken a very substantial sum of money from me yet I am not railing against democracy as that is the will of the people.
For most people it is July before they start earning money they can call their own...
...where is the revolution?
Your real question is, would I rather be oppressed and poor in a feudal state or a democratic one.
Only the feudal lords would vote for the former, and contrary to Tony's allusions, I am not one of them!
For most people it is July before they start earning money they can call their own...
...where is the revolution?
Your real question is, would I rather be oppressed and poor in a feudal state or a democratic one.
Only the feudal lords would vote for the former, and contrary to Tony's allusions, I am not one of them!
What's better an oligarchy masquerading as a democracy or a feudal state? At least the feudal lords are honest oppressers.
#144
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#145
Scooby Regular
#146
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Far Corfe
Posts: 3,618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love the Queen, a wonderful head of state. Quite remarkable.
Surely it's got to be better than having some one like, Blurr or Brown, Nixon, Cameron or even Barak Obama as head of state. How could any one fight for them?
Over 370 state engagements in one year?
Surely it's got to be better than having some one like, Blurr or Brown, Nixon, Cameron or even Barak Obama as head of state. How could any one fight for them?
Over 370 state engagements in one year?
#147
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cameron has Royal ancestry, as does the Mayor of London. These people have a spiritual attachment to This Sceptred Isle that transcends petty considerations and simply cannot be fathomed by the foreign and the profane.
#148
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of the most ridiculously royalist people are from India, Australia, Canada and even more bizarrely, the USofA.
I was in the US at the time the 'royal engagement' was announced. Good grief - you would think that Michael Jackson had been resurrected given the wall to wall 247 coverage. Far more excitement and response than in the UK.
#150
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts