The King

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
Hjarloprillar
Posts: 952
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:36 am
Location: Sol sector.

The King

Post by Hjarloprillar »

We desperately need a king.
humans are too stupid to be political. it gave us MAD and vietnam
The king at whatever age
A Good man untethered from political infighting bs.
the new age of autocracy is NOW.

We live in times of George. Who will lead us. To make australia the greatest nation on earth.

at under a year.
"Ms Austin, who is associated with the Wool Board and part of the international Campaign for Wool, of whom the patron is Prince Charles — George’s grandfather — is sending the Dutch and Duchess of Cambrige a collection of Cable baby wear for George to wear when he arrives in Australia.
Ms Austin said parents were happy and willing to invest for non-disposable, Australian-made fashion for their children, in particular because quality items can be handed down to other children.
tbieter
Posts: 1201
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:45 pm
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Re: The King

Post by tbieter »

Are you high or drunk?
User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Norway

Re: The King

Post by The Voice of Time »

I was actually walking thinking today about kings ^^

My problem though was not that I wanted an autocracy, but that the Norwegian King doesn't have a proper job description and lacks a set of duties that could justify the high income he has and which he uses to run his Palace. While I think we're better suited with a king than not because he is doing a good job at being a symbol of unification at the moment and so he carries out an important and pragmatically desirable function, I think he is 1) inefficient, 2) he's not held accountable for the result of his own actions, and 3) he's not held accountable to a tighter budget and his personal body guard is waaay to big compared to what he needs and their function is all too small to be worth all the cost.

My solution was that his (or her) job description and duty should be to acquaint and bring into public consciousness the problems people perceive from as many and as a diverse as possible a representation of his or her people. Through this, they become the reverse of what used to be the job of the king in the middle ages, and the royalty will develop in the same manner that business has developed. In the past, business developed by controlling the market and let the customer come to you, today the market is free and the business seeks out the customer, and the king, or queen, has to learn to do the same thing. Instead of the old times where people came to the king with problems they wanted the king to solve, the king should seek out people to make it easy for them to tell of their problems and him thereby becoming a symbol for the nation's desires, wants and problems, but not in a manner that leaves partial to specific groups, he must retain a high minimum of neutrality and diplomatic skill. And last but not least, the king's job should be granted based on merit, where the crown prince/princess can remain the first choice for pragmatic reasons of maintaining some outward look of not "re-inventing" royalty which could damage the legitimacy received by traditionalists, but merely a confirmation and formalization, but to avoid a situation where the royal family is not able to produce competent candidates for the job, the title of "Jarl" should be re-instated, and the kings job will also consist of finding and naming jarls throughout their reign who can become kings in case the royal family does not itself have good candidates.
Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: The King

Post by Blaggard »

Yeah man, that was a walk and a half, feudal monarchy do you know the history, it was palpably fucking awful. Democracy may not be perfect but compared to autocracy it's sublime.

I am not anti royalist don't get me wrong but we have to see them as they are, people who probably contribute to society but thankfully no longer contribute to government. I mean you take a person who is immune from prosecution from anyone, give him absolute power, and you are in the main going to create dictatorships who really are not well balanced. Sure the odd one or two weren't too bad, but in the most part the feudal monarchy were and without doubt a bunch of war mongering, self serving imperialist twats. :)
User avatar
Hjarloprillar
Posts: 952
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:36 am
Location: Sol sector.

Re: The King

Post by Hjarloprillar »

Blaggard wrote: Sure the odd one or two weren't too bad
exactly
Anything above total assholee is a step up, aus is run now by total asshole.
Our prime minister is a turd sqeeeky clean with 5000$ hair transplant. looks a lot like Reinhard Heydrich.

"the feudal monarchy were and without doubt a bunch of war mongering, self serving imperialist twats. :)"

true . but George will avoid that history [his story] by being smart.

prill
______________
tbieter
when you answer without personal comment. i may reply.
Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: The King

Post by Blaggard »

"A democracy ensures only that we are governed as well as we deserve."

George Bernard Shaw.

At least we have some say in who rules us, and if they are crap they are usually booted as quickly as is possible. The problem comes when you are stuck with very small amounts of choices of government such as in the US and to some extent the UK. You're asked to vote between a turd and a douche. Then there is a sort of lack of choice. This in itself though means that voter turn out goes down at least in the UK. This is the least representative government in history in this country and people are starting to notice amongst the parties that they are losing the people. This should in theory drive them to appeal more to the average voter, and it does at least, to some extent.

I know democracy isn't perfect but it's ten thousand times better than having some deranged egotistical mad man on the throne, and let's face it most kings weren't the most humble of people.

Take Vlad the Impaler also known as Vlad Drakul (whose stories of drinking the blood of peasants inspired Dracula), Vlad eliminated crime in his country and lowered taxes, now this might seem a good thing but to do so he had every criminal impaled and killed in the most heinous manner, this of course relieved the country of a need for watchmen which in turn lowered taxes. The Ottomans sent a diplomatic envoy to him when they approached though the king noted they were wearing turbans, so he asked them to remove them, the Ottomans humbly declined as it was part of their religion, so the king had them nailed to their heads. When the Ottomans attacked, Vlad was at least a shrewd general, after he won a famous victory he had the thousands of corpses crucified in a long macabre avenue of human death leading to his capital. It's of course not just ancient dictators either take Idi Amin who had a tendency to take political dissenters up in helicopters and push them out. And who could forget the attempted genocides of Pol Pot or the Rawandan forces.

Now I know MPs are twats for the most part these days but that's just the tip of the iceberg, don't even get me started on some of the really nasty butchers from history. It's often the case that when history is removed from our view we take a rose tinted set of spectacles to it. When in reality it was a series of robber barons finding excuses to plunder and rape other nations and a whole slew of mass violence in the name of imperialism and colonisation. Now I'm not saying your average democracy is a peace loving saint, but there's at least outside the US and UK a more pragmatic view about war with the majority of Western nations abstaining from taking part in the more imperialist campaigns with fake reasoning glued over the top. And these days the people aren't enslaved and sent to other colonies and their countries sovereignty usurped. Generally for the most part sovereignty is assured for the nation, even in the more dubious campaigns. Generally when a dictator or monarch invades another country they are there to stay.
User avatar
Hjarloprillar
Posts: 952
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:36 am
Location: Sol sector.

Re: The King

Post by Hjarloprillar »

B

I agree on just about all of it..
and may even be more angry at stupidity of man than you.. being mil historian i ferret out some weird stuff over the years.

stuff that you sit back in chair and say out loud 'no' it cant be.. but it is. and suddenly a whole
bunch of dangling ideas click together like lego..
"it is"

When i was young i was taught in school to love the queen.
There was framed pic of her in every classroom above blackboard so it seemed teacher was spokesperson for her majesty.
In those days history was very 'there' [as opposed too being not quite there in our curriculum]

I was awarded a special rank once for story of rorke's drift. The sun never set on britannia.
it crossed the atlantic and vietnam nearly occluded it.

when iwas young

Prill

_______________________
Now I'm not saying your average democracy is a peace loving saint, but there's at least outside the US and UK a more pragmatic view about war with the majority of Western nations abstaining from taking part in the more imperialist campaigns

iraq?
tbieter
Posts: 1201
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:45 pm
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Re: The King

Post by tbieter »

Hjarloprillar wrote:
Blaggard wrote: Sure the odd one or two weren't too bad
exactly
Anything above total assholee is a step up, aus is run now by total asshole.
Our prime minister is a turd sqeeeky clean with 5000$ hair transplant. looks a lot like Reinhard Heydrich.

"the feudal monarchy were and without doubt a bunch of war mongering, self serving imperialist twats. :)"

true . but George will avoid that history [his story] by being smart.

prill
______________
tbieter
when you answer without personal comment. i may reply.
Your initial post was incoherent. It seemed that the author advocated a king, instead of democracy, for Australia. For a writer, clarity is a virtue to be practiced.
User avatar
Hjarloprillar
Posts: 952
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:36 am
Location: Sol sector.

Re: The King

Post by Hjarloprillar »

Your initial post was incoherent. It seemed that the author advocated a king, instead of democracy, for Australia. For a writer, clarity is a virtue to be practiced.
incoherent? And the author is Prill lad.. me, myself and I [the trinity ;)]
Democracy lol. Democracy died a long time ago. [see below for what it used to be]

Niether Voice or Blaggard commented/intimated incoherency.
But yes, i can seem so to those unable to comprehend certain concepts :arrow: But it only 'seems' so.


"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The mid east does not apply. It gets m1 Abrams by Chrysler. Dupont rounds and warthogs from Fairchild Republic.
So much for democracy .. its imperialism

coherent enough?

Prill
-------------------------------------
you are at rear of line of 100's who tried the 'incoherent angle' since i went online with 386 back in early 90's. All fell not by me but from others who understood my pov.
!. in civilized talk we don't lead with a perceived insult. Tho that depends on how much rum i drink.
Advocate
Posts: 988
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: The King

Post by Advocate »

>Yeah man, that was a walk and a half, feudal monarchy do you know the history, it was palpably fucking awful. Democracy may not be perfect but compared to autocracy it's sublime.

>I am not anti royalist don't get me wrong but we have to see them as they are, people who probably contribute to society but thankfully no longer contribute to government. I mean you take a person who is immune from prosecution from anyone, give him absolute power, and you are in the main going to create dictatorships who really are not well balanced. Sure the odd one or two weren't too bad, but in the most part the feudal monarchy were and without doubt a bunch of war mongering, self serving imperialist twats. :)

Pff. Democracy isn't even potentially good. Even if it worked exactly as intended it would be a terrible evil. Most people are not, have never been, and will never be sufficiently involved or informed to make decisions that have meaningful effects on others, not to mention being inacapable of understanding others' priorities. Oligarchies of various kinds at least have the potential to be good if they're filled with good acting (conscientious) experts (intelligence plus knowledge). And a dictatorship of whatever kind adds the potential for efficiency.

I think the problems with such statement is more about the broth rights and other historically arbitrary methods of choosing who gets that position, but actually a randomly selected person with the minimum qualifications to be a good leader would probably be vastly better than any collaborative system merely on account of that efficiency. Everyone knows how to make things better than they are now and the position of a leader should be as a navigator, and to delegate as much of their authority as possible otherwise.

A benevolent dictatorship is the only system that has ever worked well at scale and you can see numbers examples of why and how in most family units across the land. Being immune from prosecution isn't a meaningful problem. Have you heard of assassinations and coups?

"Who gets to decide?" is Always a problem. The solution isn't to fil dilute that authority until you get all the problems of "design by committee", but to create a system in which expertise and trust play their appropriate roles.
Post Reply