The Prince of Wales

[SwordsMaster]

SwordMaster looks back at the good ol' days of the slave trade, after all, it was merely exchanging one master for another which also brought about a great economy with it.

People should be prim and proper and know their place. Only speak when spoken to, never disobey. Do as Master says and not as Master does.

That is bull and you know it, and I have never defended anything like that.

What I am defending is restricting the pool of candidates, and doing so by allowing votes to people who are capable of making a decision and appreciating its consequences. I don't want idiots who don't know where they are on a map to be deciding anything for me! And I was pointing out that an educated and sane candidate such as Charles would be a good head of government. I take Louis' point about inbreeding and so on, but that's not what I'm advocating, which is why I brought up the Vatican as an example of an election of a "first among the peers", rather than elevating this man so high from so low he gets vertigo. I mean, think about it, a college degree, which makes you minimally competent to have a job takes 4 years. You're not put in charge of the company at that stage, you're given an internship. Why do you think, then, that a man that has been in power for merely 4 years has any real idea of what he's doing?

The fact that the Netherlands started as a republic and ended up as a monarchy is quite telling too. As it has been pointed out the dutch could have replaced the system if they had wanted to, but didn't. You think they're stupid-"do as Master says and not as Master does"?

As of Hore's rant about corruption, I daresay, yet again, that corruption is unavoidable as long as there is power and people to hold it. British MPs got caught with their expenses accounts, but that only makes me wonder what didn't they get caught with? Or you think that is their only crime?

Honestly, I have to say,

Only speak when spoken to

is not so bad.

[Beskar]

That is bull and you know it, and I have never defended anything like that.

However, what you imply and suggest is that style of system with the bottom working for master as it is inevitable, right? On the same lines, your stance on the slave trade is you transfer your same argument across is that "you will be serving one master or another, what is the big fuss?".

What I am defending is restricting the pool of candidates, and doing so by allowing votes to people who are capable of making a decision and appreciating its consequences. I don't want idiots who don't know where they are on a map to be deciding anything for me!

And this same elite will be telling you what to do as you won't have the vote either. Then again, you don't care if you are pushed around, abused and told what to do from what you are saying. The problem with having a true democracy and fair system of government are people like you who seek to distroy the notion of what government should be and you concentrate everyone on the worse examples and rather play fetch with master.

And I was pointing out that an educated and sane candidate such as Charles would be a good head of government. I take Louis' point about inbreeding and so on, but that's not what I'm advocating, which is why I brought up the Vatican as an example of an election of a "first among the peers", rather than elevating this man so high from so low he gets vertigo. I mean, think about it, a college degree, which makes you minimally competent to have a job takes 4 years. You're not put in charge of the company at that stage, you're given an internship. Why do you think, then, that a man that has been in power for merely 4 years has any real idea of what he's doing?

You are forgetting just like in companies, politicians work up job-ladder in just the same. Becoming PM/President is merely a promotion from a previous position such as member of the cabinet or a senator, they do know what is going on. Then again, why do we need a Head of State?

Honestly, I have to say, is not so bad.

Yes it is.

[SwordsMaster]

However, what you imply and suggest is that style of system with the bottom working for master as it is inevitable, right? On the same lines, your stance on the slave trade is you transfer your same argument across is that "you will be serving one master or another, what is the big fuss?".

Don't be naive. Who do you pay your taxes to? What are they used for? Anything you voted they were used for? Who is responsible for the frankly education systems? High crime? How much money is on your paycheck vs what your company makes from you? I'm not even bringing up child labour in some of these "democracies".

Why is it that these "democratic" governments have failed to protect my savings in the financial crisis, ant not only that, but have sunk more billions of public funds into paying bonuses so the people responsible for them could manage to come out on top? Is that not an oligarchy? Is that not preferential treatment? Where are the interests of the man on the street represented?

When "democratic" governments dragged everyone in a war in Iraq and Afganistan despite massive popular protests were they serving your interests? Or those of Blackwater, Colt, Boeing and Co? Do you not see that what you are so fervently attacking is already almost here. It just has a different name.

And this same elite will be telling you what to do as you won't have the vote either. Then again, you don't care if you are pushed around, abused and told what to do from what you are saying. The problem with having a true democracy and fair system of government are people like you who seek to distroy the notion of what government should be and you concentrate everyone on the worse examples and rather play fetch with master.

If voting made any difference it'd be illegal. I care if I'm being pushed around and told what to do. Which is why I change countries as often as I do. I don't like the feeling of anyone watching my life, and I value my independence.

Also I have lived in enough democracies to know that they are not better in any way than any other system. It all depends on the person in power, not the structure of it. I'm yet to see a "true democracy and fair system of government" where people like me actually get to have an opinion that even gets put to a vote. When that happens I will consider changing my mind.

Yes it is.

Well, I, for one, think that your lack of manners is not something to be proud of.

[HoreTore]

I don't want idiots who don't know where they are on a map to be deciding anything for me!

You don't? Well, then your job is to educate them.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Maybe people should only be able to vote if they go to government run education camps?

[SwordsMaster]

You don't? Well, then your job is to educate them.

Not MY job. It's their job to educate themselves if they wish to be relevant. Or their parents' job to point out the need for them to educate themselves. I will do my part when or if I'm a parent or I'm setting up my own country.

Maybe people should only be able to vote if they go to government run education camps?

What's the public education system?

[HoreTore]

Not MY job. It's their job to educate themselves if they wish to be relevant. Or their parents' job to point out the need for them to educate themselves. I will do my part when or if I'm a parent or I'm setting up my own country.

You don't see the obvious benefits of having a well-educated work-force...?

Idiots affect you, whether you want to or not. And they will affect you economically in a dictatorship. The more educated a people are, the better your economy becomes.

And in a democracy, it will also affect your way of life, as they can vote for their government.

But hey, if you want oppression, who am I to argue? Some people desire freedom, I guess some people desire mistreatment.

[SwordsMaster]

You don't see the obvious benefits of having a well-educated work-force...?

Idiots affect you, whether you want to or not. And they will affect you economically in a dictatorship. The more educated a people are, the better your economy becomes.

And in a democracy, it will also affect your way of life, as they can vote for their government.

But hey, if you want oppression, who am I to argue? Some people desire freedom, I guess some people desire mistreatment.

I've already answered that I don't want oppression. I just want leaders worthy of their name and I want my independence which I cannot get if my political opinions are determined by a few million other people whose opinion I didn't actually want to know.

As of having a well-educated workforce, as I said that's te government's responsibility if they want one, or the individual's responsibility if they want to move up in the world.

[HoreTore]

I've already answered that I don't want oppression. I just want leaders worthy of their name and I want my independence which I cannot get if my political opinions are determined by a few million other people whose opinion I didn't actually want to know.

So.... Basically, anyone who disagrees with you is stupid?

Have a nice life. I sincerely hope you will never hold public office anywhere, and especially not where I live.

[SwordsMaster]

So.... Basically, anyone who disagrees with you is stupid?

Have a nice life. I sincerely hope you will never hold public office anywhere, and especially not where I live.

Not what I said. There are many people's opinions I respect that are different than my own. As I said, I don't want to have their opinion considered in the same bag with people who can't find themselves on a map.

Or people who have been contributing with taxes for 20 years vs people who have been living off scamming the welfare system.

[Beskar]

Don't be naive. Who do you pay your taxes to? What are they used for? Anything you voted they were used for? Who is responsible for the frankly education systems? High crime? How much money is on your paycheck vs what your company makes from you? I'm not even bringing up child labour in some of these "democracies".

What does that have to do with anything? Democracy is nothing to do with child labour, why is it even being mentioned? You also saying child labour is a bad thing, but on the same time, you are advocating a system which makes everything like that.

Why is it that these "democratic" governments have failed to protect my savings in the financial crisis, ant not only that, but have sunk more billions of public funds into paying bonuses so the people responsible for them could manage to come out on top? Is that not an oligarchy? Is that not preferential treatment? Where are the interests of the man on the street represented?

Because they aren't real democracies. Closest currently in the world is probably Switzerland. Because the systems in place aren't right, doesn't mean you can dismiss the correct way with the logic of "we tried (when we haven't) we failed (when it hasn't been done) lets give up (let oppression come upon us)". Infact you really really want to know the clincher? With the last election of 30% of the population even bothering to vote, it is basically your elite running the country anyway, so if anything, your elite-style is where all the problems are.

When "democratic" governments dragged everyone in a war in Iraq and Afganistan despite massive popular protests were they serving your interests? Or those of Blackwater, Colt, Boeing and Co? Do you not see that what you are so fervently attacking is already almost here. It just has a different name.

Because they aren't democracies. Isn't that simple? It is a representative of your elites with your elites voting for them and your elites lobbying and other methods making things go their way. So instead of trying to fix the problem, you are advocating just giving it to your elites.

If voting made any difference it'd be illegal. I care if I'm being pushed around and told what to do. Which is why I change countries as often as I do. I don't like the feeling of anyone watching my life, and I value my independence.

??? What?

Also I have lived in enough democracies to know that they are not better in any way than any other system. It all depends on the person in power, not the structure of it. I'm yet to see a "true democracy and fair system of government" where people like me actually get to have an opinion that even gets put to a vote. When that happens I will consider changing my mind.

From what are you talking about, you don't know what a real democracy is as there currently aren't any, with as I said, with the closest probably with Switzerland. You need to brush up on your political theory.

Well, I, for one, think that your lack of manners is not something to be proud of.

I think your talk of advocating oppression stupid and if you were a politician and said about letting your masters take us, you will get the infamous shoe/egg thrown at you.

[SwordsMaster]

There we go again, I'm not advocating oppression in the same way I'm not advocating slavery, or idiocy, or any of those things.

What does that have to do with anything? Democracy is nothing to do with child labour, why is it even being mentioned? You also saying child labour is a bad thing, but on the same time, you are advocating a system which makes everything like that.

Please review what I said. You were the one suggesting I advocated slavery and submission when I never did either.

What I'm trying to put across is that people should be ruled by those fit to rule, which in turn should be decided by those who are capable of making that decision.

Infact you really really want to know the clincher? With the last election of 30% of the population even bothering to vote, it is basically your elite running the country anyway, so if anything, your elite-style is where all the problems are.

That's exactly it, except those showing up to vote are not those better suited to vote, but rather those who could make time for it - i.e. the unemployed, maybe the single, or the very commited.

Sure, the lobbying is being done by the elites, but their target is those who will vote. It is also in their interest not to allow discerning adults to vote. Which is why elections son't usually happen on saturday afternoons, when adults get time off work.

What would be your definition of a real democracy? I only have my opinion of what I have experienced. You seem to have an opinion pouring from the magical fountain of abstract democratic ideals.

PS: Sorry BG, got carried away.

[HoreTore]

That's exactly it, except those showing up to vote are not those better suited to vote, but rather those who could make time for it - i.e. the unemployed, maybe the single, or the very commited

What? You've been living far too long in dictatorships to even remember how a democracy works, mate.

You have a couple of months to make that vote. It takes 20 minutes to do. Even the busiest man in the world has 20 minutes free in a period of a couple of months.

[Rhyfelwyr]

What's the public education system?

Well since everyone goes through that, do you not come full circle and say everyone should vote?

[SwordsMaster]

Well since everyone goes through that, do you not come full circle and say everyone should vote?

Well, considering its quality, probably not. Besides, there are a great many who don't even finish that...

Even from my class in primary school, as many people went on to college as went on to prison. So odds are not that good.

What? You've been living far too long in dictatorships to even remember how a democracy works, mate.

You have a couple of months to make that vote. It takes 20 minutes to do. Even the busiest man in the world has 20 minutes free in a period of a couple of months.

Haha, that just may be true. It's been too long since I voted... As far as my memory goes, electoral colleges are open only 1 day though.

Regardless though, I'd like to know of those 30% who vote how many have finished secondary education and their occupations.

[Beskar]

The 30% was the rough British turn out in the MEP elections, the American election was around 50% mark, if I remember correctly. In some countries like Australia, you have to vote.

[HoreTore]

Haha, that just may be true. It's been too long since I voted... As far as my memory goes, electoral colleges are open only 1 day though.

Make that 2 months. At least. Our election is 14th septembre, if my memory is sound, and the voting started a couple of days ago.

And all you have to do to vote is mail a letter anyway.

Regardless though, I'd like to know of those 30% who vote how many have finished secondary education and their occupations.

The voting percentage gets higher with more education. Why do you think people without education are the ones voting? Political interest usually goes roughly hand in hand with education, and those without any political interest don't vote, except for the odd protest party.

Anyway, why do you think that being a doctor of philosophy, for example, makes you qualified to come up with proper working conditions for industrial workers? Don't you think that the industrial worker knows what's best?

[Adrian II]

The fact that the Netherlands started as a republic and ended up as a monarchy [..]

---> post 89

[Rhyfelwyr]

Regardless though, I'd like to know of those 30% who vote how many have finished secondary education and their occupations.

I would think most of them did, voter turnout is always particularly low in poorer areas. And if an educated person chooses not to vote, I don't see how they can complain about those who do, if they want to be heard then they can vote themselves.

[InsaneApache]

You're all wrong.

as usual.

[tibilicus]

Just watched something on BBC1 called the Richard Dimbelby Lecture or something and the Prince of Wales was on it. he actually came across as an intelligent guy with some interesting points to raise.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Is this what they teach you in the finest schools in France?

Before we decided we'd had enough of them, we went through a bunch of dukes, kings and emperors. Three fine Charleses come to mind: Charlemagne, Charles the Bold and Charles V.

Does the permissive Dutch 'education' system not even teach its pupils the difference between duke/king/emperor of the Netherlands, and duke/king/emperor ruling over a territory part of which would later become the Netherlands?

If Charlemagne or Charles V were king of the Netherlands, then Sharp-Clawed-Eagle-Who-Hunts-Puny-Raccoons III was president of the United Sates. And August the first president of Italy.

They were not monarchs of the Netherlands because there was no Netherlands. Only a collection of lowland German and French provinces. The Netherlands came about when the États généraux of several lowland provinces assumed sovereignity themselves. The birth of republicanism in, and the birth of the country of, the Netherlands, is a single event.

As with so many of what today are thought of as ancient, timeless monarchies, the Dutch monarchy only came about in the nineteenth century. Monarchy is an alien institution to the Netherlands. Bold Republicanism is what made the Netherlands the envy of Europe. What left Europe speechless, breathless, awestruck.

In a previous thread, I accused the Dutch of lacking a sense of history. Well here you have it. How a country that was once the proudest and mightiest Republic in Europe can let itself be turned into a petty Legoland monarchy, and take pride in that too, is beyond me.

Napoleon's brother Louis turned out to be an excellent choice, by the way. His smart and humane rule

Throughout Western Europe Napoleon installed enlightened, liberal governments. This is the beauty of it all. Despite Napoleon's ultimate military defeat, he had made the Revolution succeed in Europe. Peoples everywhere had had a taste of liberty and of modern governance, instead of old regime tyranny and particularism.

Enlightened legal systems, neutral bureaucracies, national harmonization and standardization - these were installed by Napoleon. And they were not fully removed after the restauration because of their clear effeciency and widespread popularity.
However, they are at odds with absolutism. They are the very foundation of the liberal democratic state. The Restauration failed to comprehend this. Liberty in the hearts of the people, and rationality in the body of the state, this is the Revolution's legacy.

This left the area that had been under Napoléon's control with only two options after the Restauration: go liberal after all, or learn how to use this modern state apparatus for totalitarian means and fight democracy. Ancient regimes themselves had been rendered impossible in any long run.

This is why I'd have followed Napoléon to the ends of the earth. Who cares about dying in the Russian winter when the seeds that have been sown will survive for a spring of democracy? For that I'd have followed him, and for his sheer testicular fortitude. There is only so much glory a man can be impervious to.



The two replies show the ambiguity one feels about Napoléon. To preserve the republics, he destroyed them. By destroying liberty, he enabled it.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Regardless though, I'd like to know of those 30% who vote how many have finished secondary education and their occupations.

In all Western countries, the rule is: the more education, the more likely a person is to vote.

We are not ruled by the unemployed and uneducated. Nor do governments conspire with the masses against the elite.

*Returns to the other internets where elitist governments are accused of conspiring against the masses...*

[Adrian II]

[..] a territory part of which would later become the Netherlands?

The name 'the Netherlands' was older than the Republic, dear Louis. They were called the 'Burgundian Netherlands' under Charles the Bold, the 'Habsburg Netherlands' under Charles V, and the 'Spanish Netherlands' under Philip II. So there.

And from 1815 to 1830 the Kingdom encompassed a territory much larger than that of the Republic, since it included Belgium (previously known as the 'Spanish Netherlands').

If I were you, I would reclaim some of those tuition fees...

[Rhyfelwyr]

The name 'the Netherlands' was older than the Republic, dear Louis. They were called the 'Burgundian Netherlands' under Charles the Bold, the 'Habsburg Netherlands' under Charles V, and the 'Spanish Netherlands' under Philip II. So there.

And from 1815 to 1830 the Kingdom encompassed a territory much larger than that of the Republic, since it included Belgium (previously known as the 'Spanish Netherlands').

If I were you, I would reclaim some of those tuition fees...

Doesn't work for the bit you said about Charlemagne though... the closest thing to any sort of distint state in the area before the Frankish conquest was a collection of petty Frisian kingdoms... then from 843AD the Netherlands were just the fringe of the realm of Middle Francia, no more distinct in modern national terms than any of the rest of the kingdom which was made up of east France, western Germany, and northern Italy...

[Adrian II]

Doesn't work for the bit you said about Charlemagne though... the closest thing to any sort of distint state in the area before the Frankish conquest was a collection of petty Frisian kingdoms... then from 843AD the Netherlands were just the fringe of the realm of Middle Francia, no more distinct in modern national terms than any of the rest of the kingdom which was made up of east France, western Germany, and northern Italy...

Gadzooks... Ok, skip the first Charles, that means I have two left.

[Romanus]

Throughout Western Europe Napoleon installed enlightened, liberal governments. This is the beauty of it all. Despite Napoleon's ultimate military defeat, he had made the Revolution succeed in Europe. Peoples everywhere had had a taste of liberty and of modern governance, instead of old regime tyranny and particularism.

He said that his brother was a good fellow. Napoleon himself was a tyrant and dictator who ruined our country, destroyed what was left of our industry and trade and conscripted our manhood. The french had been robbing us blind since 1795 when they where allowed to march in with the help of the so-called exiled patriots. Freedom and liberty my arse.

[Adrian II]

The french had been robbing us blind since 1795 when they where allowed to march in with the help of the so-called exiled patriots. Freedom and liberty my arse bummy-bum.

That, too. But they brought some very necessary changes, for instance administrative centralisation, the dissolution of the guild system, the emancipation of the Jews. If only their language hadn't been this unfathomable brabble...

[Louis VI the Fat]

The name 'the Netherlands' was older than the Republic, dear Louis. They were called the 'Burgundian Netherlands' under Charles the Bold, the 'Habsburg Netherlands' under Charles V, and the 'Spanish Netherlands' under Philip II. So there.

And from 1815 to 1830 the Kingdom encompassed a territory much larger than that of the Republic, since it included Belgium (previously known as the 'Spanish Netherlands').

If I were you, I would reclaim some of those tuition fees...

Oh. Dear. :feignedshock:

'The Netherlands' was a geographic name. 'Les Pays-Bas', that is, 'The Low lands'. It was also a political name, a collective name for seventeen Germanic/French provinces.

The [/i]country[/i] of the Netherlands, in any name, shape or form, only came about when several provinces sat themselves together and assumed sovereignity.


Likewise, the name 'the America's' is older than the United States of America. It was called 'Spanish America', or 'French America'. Yet, the country 'The United States of America' dates back not to Columbus, not to the first British settlementm but to, exactly, July 4th, 1776.
Similarly too, there has always been a 'Germany'. Yet, the country of East Germany does not date back to 1870 or before. It dates back to 1949.

As with East Germany in 1900, there was no notion of a country of the Northern Netherlands in 1500. The birth of the Netherlands was simultaneous to the birth of Republicanism.

[SwordsMaster]

In all Western countries, the rule is: the more education, the more likely a person is to vote.

We are not ruled by the unemployed and uneducated. Nor do governments conspire with the masses against the elite.

*Returns to the other internets where elitist governments are accused of conspiring against the masses...*

Hahaha, no you're right. My point was more along the lines of the governments ignore the masses largely, and those who wouldn't be ignored don't really get to participate.

The Napoleonic experiment failed in Spain however, and except for the independence of the american colonies brought very little in terms of political reform for a good 40 years. King Ferinand's restoration even brought back the Inquisition. Not that the successive government of his daughter was better, allowing the state to transition from revolution to revolution in a two party system in which they succeeded each other with monotonous predictability while she bedded most of the Royal Guards. Enfin, I suppose we all get the governments we allow to stay in power and deserve.

Anyway, I adhere to my point that in my view voting should be limited, or at least weighted, and that heads of governments should be elected from among the most capable to govern for much longer than 4 years and even for life.

Consider this though: what would happen if Charles, or Philippe of Spain started a political party, won an election due to the imbecility dominating the current benches, and then pushed a law through making his position permanent and hereditary, which would get approved by the Head of State, mom or dad, and therefore potentially become law. Then, once the venerable ancestor is dead, they would become both heads of State and government, and therefore chiefs of both the legislative and executive branches, wielding quite a bit of power. And so democratically defeat democracy in an ironic turn of events. No need to accuse me of monarchism again, it's just a mental exercise, and spanish that I am, I like our prince better than our PM.

In any case I will cease to derail the discussion onto the nature of power and allow it to return to Charles, and I apologise to Louis for having hijacked his thread.