I got a comment to the Onion News Network satire bellow, the poster the self named 'Dirty European Socialist' stated Democracy is always better the monarchy.
I would disagree, I am unaware of the British queen's wealth, and see that as irrelevant to the issue of whether someone is a monarchist or not.
The problem with politicians is that the seek office, that those who do so are by nature odd, egotistical and usually desire money as well as power, so once in a position of power seek to enrich themselves at our expense, I believe that Elizabeth II inherited much of her wealth and has invested wisely over the past 50 + years resulting in her very healthy bank account.
The 17 billion quoted is something I am unaware of and am not certain whether this includes such places as Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace which belong to the Crown and not personally to Elizabeth Windsor.
The strength of monarchy is exactly that it is an accident of birth, that most monarchs are wealthy and have everything they can want, there is no reason to implement a 'programme' to prove or to feign activity or concern, they have no reason to enrich themselves as they are already rich beyond anyone's dreams, and they have nothing to prove.
A lazy King would be a big improvement on an elected politician seeking to secure his position and please his constituency at the expense of his enemies!
But anyway, one comment shall not convert me to what I see as the con that is called 'democracy', a false god that promises much and makes us think we actually have a say in how we are constantly defrauded, taxed and censured by the 'democratically' elected government!
I have decided to include an interesting HBO video on the Diebold voting machines here, it describes what can happen and most probably happens in the 'land of the free'.
Tuesday 1 April 2008
The prostitute that calls itself 'democracy'!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Bu tthe queen has ego. Look at the way she expects people bow to her and to courtsey to her. She is a bigger ego than any elected leader. Often they get angry if they are not given bows and courtseys.
Plus
How can you claim that someone appointed by accident would be better than someone appointed by work, and education? Would you be happier to have a doctor by accident or that they got their by work and qualifications.
These anti-monarchists are not ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so.
A monarch is not untrained.
As "Deogolwulf" nicely put it 2 years ago today:
[A] fairer analogy would see a pilot training his son from an early age, instilling in him not just the skills but the qualities required for the task, which son, when he was ready to become a pilot in his own right, would have at hand many advisors and co-pilots—or in other words, the analogy would run: “I’m a trained pilot, I was trained by my father who was a trained pilot, as was his father, etc, and I am in touch with many people who know a thing or two about piloting aeroplanes – so don’t worry”. It is an analogy that speaks in favour of heredity, not against it. Whilst we’re playing this sort of game, however, it is quite easy to draw another analogy, one that speaks against democracy: “I’m not, in fact, a trained pilot - but I have been voted into the cockpit by a gaggle of ill-informed passengers at the back of the plane, near the lavatories - but don’t worry, I shall not betray the trust they have placed in me”.
Post a Comment