It’s meant to be a statement of fact.
Well yes. And a few years after the revolution came emperor Bonaparte =] - Who was friendly to the king of russia…for a while.
That’s a strange objection. You are basically saying we’re better off now because the capital that’s not consumed by government is more productive. But that is just a function of technological evolution. The serf was as productive as the technology of the time allowed, and he was able to keep more of the fruits of his production. So comparing apples to apples, we are actually worse off.
Also, the Dark Ages weren’t. There was a great deal of scholarship, literature, visual and performing arts, and trade, free of the brutal hegemony of the Roman Empire.
Bonaparte was a dictator, not a monarch.
Those top commanders of the church being thrusted there by aristocracy for their own goals; therefore, my assertion that the aristocracy controlled the clergy, esspecially the episcopates
We are speaking of the 1780s here, not the present era.
The upper clergy was packed by the aristocracy to support the ends of the aristocracy, and it wielded very little power in France as well. Although the clergy were the first estate, they still held very little power after Louis XIV.
And I explained why that was prior.
Still, people appeared to be somewhat conservative back then. That’s smelly.
aren’t monarch’s just a kind of dictator?
Right. Kings on the other hand get their jobs as murderous parasites by ‘consent’ - they dictate nothing but are loved by their subhuman serfs.
Ha. You beat me to it =]
No.
the lord has spoken
As found in the Web 1.0 Testament;
Book of Wiki, Chapter 1
vs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_monarchy
vs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship
Hardly a new objection, considering every monarch is not a de-facto dictator, just how every democracy is not really a democracy.
I’m sure the Queen of England is currently ruling Britian with an iron fist & sending dissenters to the gulags while Parliament is scrambling to defend the rights of it’s citizens from her overwhelming armies.
Er…
Let me put it this way: a monarch may end up a dictator, but not every dictator is a monarch. Monarchs who aspire to dictatorship tend have their lines of succession extinguished.
As I’ve said before, replacing monarchy with democracy is replacing a government you can overthrow with a government you can’t overthrow.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make ? At any rate, I’m sure that all the property the queen of england has is stolen property - Or do you think she and the other royal parasites made their money by, say, running Intel ?
Oh come on. You can replace one monarch with another monarch but monarchy and all the government parasites remain.
Yes, democracy is worse in that some of the subjects may actually believe that they are the government, but in reality democracy is just a form of oligarchy and so is monarchy.
My point was that, technically, the Queen of England is a monarch, yet holds no real power (a ceremonial figurehead), versus someone like Bonaparte who was a dictator, or an actual Monarch with power that has the capacity to convert their monarchy into a dictatorship.
As for what is the Queen’s property & what isn’t, I wouldn’t know, it’s probably stolen, just like any other monarch took on property during the process of self-anointment or inheriting the throne.
It would be interesting to read up on an long-term maintained studies of property ownership to determine that, methinks.
That is true so far as it goes. But monarchy is self-limiting, in that the parasitic nature of government (a tiny minority of the populace) is clear. Monarchs who overstep their bounds are poisoned or beheaded.
Democratic states can never be overthrown, backed as they are by the will of the majority. They will continue in power until there is literally nothing left to plunder.
Beautiful. This must be made into a proverb.
Fine, but I thought we were talking about monarchy as the government of the land, like it was at some time in France, Russia, Austria, etc.
Just found this : I don’t feel like reading it right now, but if you do and find something interesting, do tell. http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/
There’s no reason for monarchies to be small governments. That’s just an ad hoc assumption of yours.
They are not backed by will - they are backed by guns. Oh wait. People pay taxes voluntarily ?
Actually, a consistent application of democracy leads to libertarianism since no ‘democratic government’ can claim power over people who don’t agree to be ruled.
"Governments…deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, " and all that.