I agree with you, and yet is was an apt comparison. The royals are a circus.
Also, I thought while reading that, “you guys have a hobbit as head of state. You wanna be talking this loud?”
Also, I thought while reading that, “you guys have a hobbit as head of state. You wanna be talking this loud?”
Kek, yeah. I don't think even the left take that little gremlin seriously. Mostly he won because:
No one wanted the corrupt "right wing" candidate
No one wanted the IRA candidate
The other popular lefty candidate was pro-palestinian and got smeared by an anonymous pro-israeli whistleblower and the press
There was a popular non-establishment candidate who looked like he might have won, but he was smeared by the state broadcaster. They claimed he was associated with the CIA and eastern european arms dealing, but they had no evidence of either. Years later he won a defamation case against them for a few million euros, but the jounalist who created the smear saw no consequences (actually she was promoted) and no one was fired.
Yeah but we chose the hobbit (I didn’t, but you know what I mean). Being ruled by someone because they have a divine right to rule you is weird and pretty archaic in comparison.
I'd take plato's view on it: Better a good monarch than a bad democracy.
Either way I'm being ruled by someone else, democracy doesn't actually make me more free than monarchism. Heck, I'd take a return to Tannistry if it's on the table.
Plato had some very good arguments against democracy that everyone today just seems to ignore. I particularly like the sweet shop owner versus the doctor parable he used. But the problem with the “good monarch” idea is that once you accept the concept of the divine right of kings you’re not guaranteed good monarchs. Look at Rome where they had nearly a century of good times under the five good emperors, but then they got Commodus. There’s also the problem with transfers of power in monarchies - because governments are regularly changed in democracies you don’t end up with the regular civil wars every time a monarch falls off their perch and the pretenders to the crown spend possibly decades fighting over succession. That kind of instability is good for nobody, and can occur no matter how stable things were when the monarch was still alive. The Mongolian empire is an example of how even when you manage to avoid civil conflict succession can be ruinous in monarchies, because the monarch was the empire made flesh when they were alive.
How bout fighting? Is that a good mandate for ruling? Like full contact, MMA style. Winner becomes fuehrer of the british isles for life. Is your money on Michael or Liz?
Sounds a bit Wakandan to me! I have no problem with the British monarchy really, I just don’t have any interest. I do find the divine right of kings to be an absurd notion in this day and age though, but it’s not like the Brits are the only ones in Europe that still practice it. I think the interest in British royalty from people who are otherwise staunch republicans in places like Ireland and America very strange though; I can’t imagine the French are similarly awed with the Spanish monarchy.
Yeah but we chose the hobbit
You were told that you chose him, it's pathetic how many grown men still believe in even slight electoral integrity. Elections are just a way of pushing the blame onto the people and pacifying them by letting them think things will change in a couple years.
Nah I have faith in our electoral system and controls. It’s the voters I've lost faith in.
(post is archived)