Was denying nobility a fundamental mistake?

Henning

Henning

Taxi to Parking
Gone West
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
39,463
Location
Ft Lauderdale FL
Display Name
iHenning
One thing I have noticed as an advantage in countries that have a monarchy is that the moral basis of the nation is shaped by the monarchy leaving their body politic free to be amoral scumbags pursuing the business of the country. Government doesn't represent people, government represents America's economic interests and in doing so acts immorally. When we look to government or business for our moral leadership, we are shown to lie, cheat, steal, and take selfish advantage in any way possible.

The problem is, most people instinctively reject that. There are churches, but so many people see the hypocrisy, they see their church as a social club and pay no attention to the base tenants of their religion.

What our society has found to fill that void of moral leadership is the the Cult of Celebrity. Here it's all about what the people on the screen are doing and telling you to do. Hollywood idols define and lead our moral culture, they have filled the gap and become our moral guidance, our "Royalty"; and they are wholly unqualified for the vast majority of them. The worst part about this, anyone can qualify if you can lie convincingly, because that is what acting truly is.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
One thing I have noticed as an advantage in countries that have a monarchy is that the moral basis of the nation is shaped by the monarchy leaving their body politic free to be amoral scumbags pursuing the business of the country. Government doesn't represent people, government represents America's economic interests and in doing so acts immorally. When we look to government or business for our moral leadership, we are shown to lie, cheat, steal, and take selfish advantage in any way possible.

The problem is, most people instinctively reject that. There are churches, but so many people see the hypocrisy, they see their church as a social club and pay no attention to the base tenants of their religion.

What our society has found to fill that void of moral leadership is the the Cult of Celebrity. Here it's all about what the people on the screen are doing and telling you to do. Hollywood idols define and lead our moral culture, they have filled the gap and become our moral guidance, our "Royalty"; and they are wholly unqualified for the vast majority of them. The worst part about this, anyone can qualify if you can lie convincingly, because that is what acting truly is.
Click to expand...

As a short response, I instinctively reject your premise.

After longer reflection, I still reject your premise. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from hereditary socio-economic status...or from a farcical aquatic ceremony.

Additionally, the powers of the Constitution was set the way it was EXACTLY because they had lived under a king and rejected the right of one person to be better than all others or to have power over all others.

I believe no person who has ever lived under an unjust king would ever suggest a monarchy is preferable.
 
bflynn said:
As a short response, I instinctively reject your premise.

After longer reflection, I still reject your premise. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from hereditary socio-economic status...or from a farcical aquatic ceremony.

Additionally, the powers of the Constitution was set the way it was EXACTLY because they had lived under a king and rejected the right of one person to be better than all others or to have power over all others.

I believe no person who has ever lived under an unjust king would ever suggest a monarchy is preferable.
Click to expand...

But Supreme Executive Power held by the Monarchy doesn't exist in the modern system. That's what the whole Magna Carta was about. The Monarchy mostly now serves in a social function. Instead of 2/3rds of the news/gossip being about the Kardashians, it's about the Royals.


Although your rejection is based on a fallacy. While Supreme Executive Power was wrested from the Noble class, Supreme Financial Power was not, these families along with another still control most of the wealth in the world; every war we fight claims them more control and wealth. Our society is still financially ruled by European nobility. Our biggest banks are part of the Rothschild's banking empire, and that is the empire all the noble families are invested in themselves.

So in the economic sense, we only briefly escaped the European Monarchy between the Revolution and the Civil War. When the Morgan banking empire started, that was when we went back to being controlled by the European Central Banks, and that is what the founders were revolting against.

The Monarchies now rule us through the Stock Market.
 
Last edited:
Well we have a pseudo-nobility based loosely(sometimes VERY loosely) on merit. Our society, sadly, seems to rank people based on wealth and status.

Our nobility isn't a formal one- we have no ranks. However we clearly seem to value the wealthy over the poor and the high achievers over the basic laborers. You couldn't really define exactly how the system is scored but you know a gulf when you see it.

The question is what value does a more formal system have? Seems like it's just a title to block the few who might be able to jump up to higher statuses.
 
cowman said:
Well we have a pseudo-nobility based loosely(sometimes VERY loosely) on merit. Our society, sadly, seems to rank people based on wealth and status.

Our nobility isn't a formal one- we have no ranks. However we clearly seem to value the wealthy over the poor and the high achievers over the basic laborers. You couldn't really define exactly how the system is scored but you know a gulf when you see it.

The question is what value does a more formal system have? Seems like it's just a title to block the few who might be able to jump up to higher statuses.
Click to expand...

That's the thing, the merit we base it on is the ability to accumulate wealth, and of those we classify in how cool of a way you accumulate wealth. Actors, Musicians, and Atheletes for the masses, and Business Moguls for the greedy.

We most definitely have rank and class separation defined in our society and it is defined by $$$$. The more money you have, the more your life is worth. It doesn't get more formal than that.
 
Last edited:
The original design of the Senate was partially intended to counter the tendency for politicians to become soulless demagogues. Both their long terms and the indirect election of senators were intended to somewhat insulate them from the whims of the masses (among other reasons mainly to do with states' representation).

Unfortunately, it didn't work out as well as had been hoped. The question of who would be elected / appointed to the federal Senate became a campaign issue in the election of for state legislatures, which significantly reduced the political insulation.

The Founding Fathers were trying to duplicate the positive effects of a bicameral legislature in which the upper house had the relative freedom from political influence to thoughtfully consider issues free of demagogic pressures, but without the distasteful aspects of inherited nobility.

I personally think that they were right and that the 17th Amendment was the second-worst mistake in U.S. history. It's hardly a secret that republican forms of government inevitably tend to descend into demagoguery. Anyone who has even a nodding acquaintance with the writings of Plato knows that this wasn't a new concept even when the U.S. Constitution was being debated. The 17th Amendment guaranteed that this would be the case in America, as well.

With the benefit of hindsight, I think that Senators should have been appointed by the state legislatures to serve "during good behavior" just like federal judges. This would have created, in effect, a non-hereditary, politically-shielded, appointed "nobility," but one in which members would still be subject to impeachment and removal for bad conduct.

Rich
 
Henning said:
That's the thing, the merit we base it on is the ability to accumulate wealth, and of those we classify in how cool of a way you accumulate wealth. Actors, Musicians, and Atheletes for the masses, and Business Moguls for the greedy.

We most definitely have rank and class separation defined in our society and it is defined by $$$$. The more money you have, the more your life is worth. It doesn't get more formal than that.
Click to expand...

I disagree that's it's all about wealth. However, since we're going there, wealth was almost always a pre-requisite for nobility.

Think about for a second. Suppose you were a Senator and on the same date at the same time you could either meet with Paris Hilton or Steven Hawking... which one are you going to see?

Fame and money are big factors but we really do still care about merit.
 
Yeah, I thought it was a good effort, but it just didn't work out. Hey it was a new idea however it left a vacuum in effective social and moral direction. While Amercan education teaches about some of the demagogue monarchs, they fail to teach about the majority of them who were pretty decent people and had prosperous (for the time eating every day and having water and shelter was prosperous) happy societies. Then there was an equal offset to the bad actors who were very progessive and benevolent and wanted the best for their people as possible.

It's all in the parenting. If it wasn't for JP Morgan's dad, Tesla would have would have but the foundation of our electric grid under an entirely different economic model. But Junius Spencer Morgan still controlled the purse strings at the time and wouldn't let JP back him because there was no profit in it. That was the influence of the European Central Banks on the path of American society.

I think throwing out the European monarchy was the correct thing, I think Washington made a mistake not taking a crown, he really should have, he was a good man and would have started a good dynasty. That's the whole key, raising the kid into the compassionate leader they need to be.

That vacuum left was the door that was left open after the revolution, and the one that was used to overthrow the revolution and take the colony back. We fight every war for them, don't we?
 
Last edited:
Monarchy today is quite a bit different from that of Mad George's day. The British King/Queen of today is basically just a figurehead... he/she has three rights: The right to be informed, the right to advise, and the right to be seen.

Certainly, even in today's Constitutional Monarchy, the *effective* power is wider than that...one would expect that if Queen Elizabeth truly doesn't like a person, that person is NOT likely to be named to a ministerial position. But if the Prime Minister wants it, it'll happen.

The advantage, as Henning has alluded to, is the ability to separate the concept of the head of state from partisan politics. A US President scheduled to speak at, say, a 9/11 memorial will be subjected to a certain amount of rancor from those who oppose his policies in areas NOT connected to the purpose of the visit. In contrast, Queen Elizabeth can perform the same sort of function without the same "baggage."

It doesn't hurt that children are brought up to revere the King/Queen, that the members of the military are sworn to his/her service. Sure, people rebel against that kind of conditioning, but it's harder when the monarch isn't liable for the political decisions. Queen Elizabeth's portrait is on the walls of every British military office, just like President Obama's picture is in American military offices. The portraits in England remind soldiers, airmen, and sailors who they're serving. Considering the conservatist bent of the US military, Obama's picture is probably more of an irritant.

However, we see some vestiges of this "head of state reverence" today, in the US... how often do you see arguments along the lines of "I don't care what you think, but Obama/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Reagan/Carter is the President of the United States, and you should respect him!"

The British Empire hasn't done too badly since the American Revolution. They eliminated slavery without a major war, peacefully colonized (well, MOSTLY peacefully) an entire continent half a world away, and the people of Great Britain possess most of the rights that we Americans cherish.

The problem was, this probably wouldn't have happened WITHOUT the American Revolution. A lot of people today look at the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution as a quaint, outdated documents. But they're really catalogs of the kind of abuses that can happen under a traditional monarchy. The "British Constitution" exists, but it's not in writing. Accountability is therefore difficult to establish, especially when a "Royal Governor" or "Royal Commissioner" can be appointed with ambiguous powers and no stated limits.

However, I disagree with Henning regarding the Cult of Celebrity substituting for the Cult of the Monarchy outside of the Commonwealth. I think you'll find that Cult of the non-Monarchical Celebrity is alive and well in the UK...and, for that matter, you'll see plenty of the activities of the Royals in US media.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Correct, they have no political control, they do have financial control though, that's why the stock markets were created at the same time as Europe was going to Constitutional Monarchies.
 
Perhaps the mistake wasn't in denying nobility but setting aside or letting erode the concept of personal honor and consideration for how your actions impacted the family name.
 
Henning said:
I think throwing out the European monarchy was the correct thing, I think Washington made a mistake not taking a crown, he really should have, he was a good man and would have started a good dynasty.
Click to expand...
Ummm... Henning, Washington didn't have any children. There wouldn't have been a dynasty, just a huge succession crisis when he died.

How things actually occurred had the benefit of an being an absolute break over what had been done before. You couldn't take an action on the basis that Lord North had gotten away with it. The Alien and Sedition Acts would have stood, without a independent judiciary that had to power to stand up for the right of free speech.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Monarchy today is quite a bit different from that of Mad George's day. The British King/Queen of today is basically just a figurehead... he/she has three rights: The right to be informed, the right to advise, and the right to be seen.

Certainly, even in today's Constitutional Monarchy, the *effective* power is wider than that...one would expect that if Queen Elizabeth truly doesn't like a person, that person is NOT likely to be named to a ministerial position. But if the Prime Minister wants it, it'll happen.

The advantage, as Henning has alluded to, is the ability to separate the concept of the head of state from partisan politics. A US President scheduled to speak at, say, a 9/11 memorial will be subjected to a certain amount of rancor from those who oppose his policies in areas NOT connected to the purpose of the visit. In contrast, Queen Elizabeth can perform the same sort of function without the same "baggage."

It doesn't hurt that children are brought up to revere the King/Queen, that the members of the military are sworn to his/her service. Sure, people rebel against that kind of conditioning, but it's harder when the monarch isn't liable for the political decisions. Queen Elizabeth's portrait is on the walls of every British military office, just like President Obama's picture is in American military offices. The portraits in England remind soldiers, airmen, and sailors who they're serving. Considering the conservatist bent of the US military, Obama's picture is probably more of an irritant.

However, we see some vestiges of this "head of state reverence" today, in the US... how often do you see arguments along the lines of "I don't care what you think, but Obama/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Reagan/Carter is the President of the United States, and you should respect him!"

The British Empire hasn't done too badly since the American Revolution. They eliminated slavery without a major war, peacefully colonized (well, MOSTLY peacefully) an entire continent half a world away, and the people of Great Britain possess most of the rights that we Americans cherish.

The problem was, this probably wouldn't have happened WITHOUT the American Revolution. A lot of people today look at the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution as a quaint, outdated documents. But they're really catalogs of the kind of abuses that can happen under a traditional monarchy. The "British Constitution" exists, but it's not in writing. Accountability is therefore difficult to establish, especially when a "Royal Governor" or "Royal Commissioner" can be appointed with ambiguous powers and no stated limits.

However, I disagree with Henning regarding the Cult of Celebrity substituting for the Cult of the Monarchy outside of the Commonwealth. I think you'll find that Cult of the non-Monarchical Celebrity is alive and well in the UK...and, for that matter, you'll see plenty of the activities of the Royals in US media.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

The only revolution that really mattered to slavery was the industrial revolution. The Civil War really wasn't about that, it was about getting European banking financing industrial growth. The industrial revolution would have done away with slavery altogether. Slaves were far from cheap or free labor. They were expensive to buy, and like any other livestock, you have to keep them fed and watered and safe from predators. They are what make you your living, and you need a lot of them on a big plantation because the rate of production per person can only get so high. Machines are far more cost effective than human labor at the scales of production slaves were used at. Just didn't need them anymore and they were thrown away, promised 40 acres and a mule, and we still consider them refuse today.

BTW, I didn't say the "cult of celebrity" doesn't exist in monarchical Europe, just that the monarchy has the greatest influence.
 
Last edited:
Watched this the other day, wish this speech was real, don't agree with all of it..but beats the hell out of what we're doing.

 
Henning said:
Correct, they have no political control, they do have financial control though, that's why the stock markets were created at the same time as Europe was going to Constitutional Monarchies.
Click to expand...

The largest single holder of wealth on the planet is most likely the Vatican. All other "monarchs" pale in comparison. No one really knows the bottom line...are you saying because they are the big swinging Richard of bling, we all dance to their tune?

Hogwash.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
The largest single holder of wealth on the planet is most likely the Vatican. All other "monarchs" pale in comparison. No one really knows the bottom line...are you saying because they are the big swinging Richard of bling, we all dance to their tune?

Hogwash.
Click to expand...

Probably, but the only accounted dynastic fortune over a trillion dollars is the Rothschild's, and their wealth is parlayed with all the dynastic noble wealth of Europe as well into the European Central Bank Network and the Federal Reserve, along with some of the Vatican wealth, into the strongest controlling force in the world, and it's actions are determined by greed.

That's what the founders were trying to escape, but in the long run were no where near powerful enough, and I think that is because they left that vacuum in leadership. They failed to ensure continued benevolence.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Probably, but the only accounted dynastic fortune over a trillion dollars is the Rothschild's, and their wealth is parlayed with all the dynastic noble wealth of Europe as well into the European Central Bank Network and the Federal Reserve, along with some of the Vatican wealth, into the strongest controlling force in the world, and it's actions are determined by greed.

That's what the founders were trying to escape, but in the long run were no where near powerful enough, and I think that is because they left that vacuum in leadership. They failed to ensure continued benevolence.
Click to expand...

What the founders ensured was the orderly transfer of power, pretty much nothing more. Remember, "Democracy, if you can keep it?". You don't find that so much in absolute monarchies. They are born in blood through the seizing of power, maintained by blood through progeny, and end in bloody overthrow.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
What the founders ensured was the orderly transfer of power, pretty much nothing more. Remember, "Democracy, if you can keep it?". You don't find that so much in absolute monarchies. They are born in blood through the seizing of power, maintained by blood through progeny, and end in bloody overthrow.
Click to expand...

Yes, but ours didn't have to be born that way and we were already beyond absolute monarchies. Washington earned it through an act of benevolence, and through the same flawed thought process declined it, not realizing that he would create this vacuum opening the door for the failure of the Revolution. I would bet looking back from today, he would make a different decission.

He could have founded a Constitutional Monarchy to better assure the future social direction of the nation, because we are far from the society the founders envisioned. Besides, a modern Constitutional Monarchy is still set up as a Democracy.
 
Last edited:
As far as the role of religion, the Church served to protect the peasants from the monarch. The Magna Carta was the start of easing that role a bit, of lessening he divine right. The American experiment was to empower the individual, to free him from the need of protection from King or Church.

That's why Washington refused to become a monarch.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
As far as the role of religion, the Church served to protect the peasants from the monarch. The Magna Carta was the start of easing that role a bit, of lessening he divine right. The American experiment was to empower the individual, to free him from the need of protection from King or Church.

That's why Washington refused to become a monarch.
Click to expand...

Yeah, whatever his thinking, in retrospect, I think it was a mistake, a noble mistake, but a mistake none the less, because now his enemy is back.
 
Henning said:
Yeah, whatever his thinking, in retrospect, I think it was a mistake, a noble mistake, but a mistake none the less, because now his enemy is back.
Click to expand...

Being? No one is forcing us to pay tribute to a foriegn power, to open our homes to foriegn troops, or taxing us without representation. Our problems are domestic in nature, we made 'em, we can fix 'em.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
Being? No one is forcing us to pay tribute to a foriegn power, to open our homes to foriegn troops, or taxing us without representation. Our problems are domestic in nature, we made 'em, we can fix 'em.
Click to expand...

Our financial system is run by the same foreign powers the revolution fought to escape. The member banks of the Federal Reserve all belong to the European Central Bank syndicate, and that was what they were revolting from, their economic control over America because it was what was corrupting American society. The Founders were ISIS of their time, and they did not fight fair either, and implemented acts of terrorism. What was fought then, and is being fought now, is the same entity.
 
Nobility or lack there of is not the issue. The design of our government was pretty good with the intended separation of powers. It has evolved into something less good with the executive branch's power grab and the growth of bureaucracy. The other failing is allowing lawyers to be judges who get lost in the law instead of addressing the fundamental question of "what is right?"
 
Clark1961 said:
Nobility or lack there of is not the issue. The design of our government was pretty good with the intended separation of powers. It has evolved into something less good with the executive branch's power grab and the growth of bureaucracy. The other failing is allowing lawyers to be judges who get lost in the law instead of addressing the fundamental question of "what is right?"
Click to expand...

Well that's my point. The Monarchy and Government are individual entities with different roles in society. The bureaucracy is the people with the exception of the the top political positions. How a bureaucracy operates, what their goals are, are determined by the social leadership.

When you combine the social/moral leadership, with the business leadership which is what the body politic serves, then you lose the social balance in government with the bureaucracy working for the business sector's interests rather than the common good. That's why everything is a money grab, because that is what business is about.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Well that's my point. The Monarchy and Government are individual entities with different roles in society. The bureaucracy is the people with the exception of the the top political positions. How a bureaucracy operates, what their goals are, are determined by the social leadership.

When you combine the social/moral leadership, with the business leadership which is what the body politic serves, then you lose the social balance in government with the bureaucracy working for the business sector's interests rather than the common good. That's why everything is a money grab, because that is what business is about.
Click to expand...

The bureaucracy has failed as a functional unit. It no longer effectively serves any purpose but to preserve and grow itself. Once the bureaucracy ignores the political governance it is time for a revolution which dismantles the bureaucracy since it no longer serves.
 
RJM62 said:
I personally think that they were right and that the 17th Amendment was the second-worst mistake in U.S. history.
Click to expand...

Definitely a mistake.


jesse said:
Watched this the other day, wish this speech was real, don't agree with all of it..but beats the hell out of what we're doing.



Click to expand...


Enjoyed that too. Of course we all know in the TV show that Underwood is lying about his goals and aspirations behind that speech, too. Just like the real politicians...

Clark1961 said:
The bureaucracy has failed as a functional unit. It no longer effectively serves any purpose but to preserve and grow itself. Once the bureaucracy ignores the political governance it is time for a revolution which dismantles the bureaucracy since it no longer serves.
Click to expand...


They know this. That's why they pay off or pander to any large group of people that shows signs of political anxiety.

Any city could be overthrown and the government destroyed in a matter of hours by the constituents. The constituents must still feel like they're getting a better deal than anarchy, for the time being. Wouldn't take much of an event to break that fallacy.
 
Clark1961 said:
The bureaucracy has failed as a functional unit. It no longer effectively serves any purpose but to preserve and grow itself. Once the bureaucracy ignores the political governance it is time for a revolution which dismantles the bureaucracy since it no longer serves.
Click to expand...

That's because the bureaucracy has no master but money. Our country has no social direction, no goals, except to make more money. We are going nowhere with no cohesive plans to go anywhere. All we want to do is fight for more money.

There is NO social leadership for the country.
 
Henning said:
But Supreme Executive Power held by the Monarchy doesn't exist in the modern system. That's what the whole Magna Carta was about. The Monarchy mostly now serves in a social function. Instead of 2/3rds of the news/gossip being about the Kardashians, it's about the Royals.


Although your rejection is based on a fallacy. While Supreme Executive Power was wrested from the Noble class, Supreme Financial Power was not, these families along with another still control most of the wealth in the world; every war we fight claims them more control and wealth. Our society is still financially ruled by European nobility. Our biggest banks are part of the Rothschild's banking empire, and that is the empire all the noble families are invested in themselves.

So in the economic sense, we only briefly escaped the European Monarchy between the Revolution and the Civil War. When the Morgan banking empire started, that was when we went back to being controlled by the European Central Banks, and that is what the founders were revolting against.

The Monarchies now rule us through the Stock Market.
Click to expand...

I think you missed the movie reference.

There's some lovely filth down here.
 
We enjoy more freedom and prosperity than any country known history. Yet we never seem to appreciate or truly value it. Instead we like to imagine that making ourselves supine to a monarch would somehow make us better? Every time I am in the U.K. I wonder why they continue to support this crap. I'm a believer in freedom, I'll pass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top