Where is the option for the cotton planter to change careers to something they find interesting and challenging?

Does it matter? If you have a job that you studied for in college and suddenly notice it doesnt fit you, you have to work a lot to correct that for no pay, you actually have to pay for it. Also if youre 40+ and want to start a new career human resource managers will rather take someone who didnt have the issues like you and has the years experience in actual work at the same job. So you will always be at a huge disadvantage if you decide to change professions.
All these "super successful" people you see on TV that proudly talk about how they did all that so well, "just because they worked soooooo hard" (everyone either does that, or claims it), are exceptions to the rule!



Where are the benefits of infrastructure?

Uhm, those infrastructures are mostly used to get to your job or do your job anyway. What good are they if you work where you live, like those slaves?



How about healthcare?

AFAIK slaves got good healthcare, since they were property and the owner would lose money if they "broke" and couldnt be fixed.
Also I wouldnt call American healthcare good. People have to pay for it. And often have to take huge debts on themselves and their family to survive or be still able to work.



How about individual's rights?

Individual's rights? Yeah, maybe against other "slaves", but not against the state or rich people. They will always have a huge advantage compared to you. And actually they do what they want all over the world. Just look at those cesspools Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Millions killed for what? Are you safer now than before 9/11? No. The whole world is actually MUCH MUCH unsafer now. All thanks to your masters that care so much about the "individual's rights".
They even have the audacity to threaten NATO countries with invasion if they ever dared to bring one of them before an international tribunal.



How about protection from hostility?

Hostility from whom? Terrorists? Are you kidding me? Terrorists who are only created due to inhumane politics aswell? Criminals? Do you know that crime is actually not something we are born with, but we actually learn to do, because of our surroundings? If a lot of people feel treated unfair and cant do anything about it, crime rate will skyrocket. It has been that way for thousands of years. Look at other countries that treat their people much more humane and actually even pay then enough to live a good life even if they dont work, or have never worked! They shudder when seeing American crime rates. You can compare yourself more to Brazil than to Europe.



How about ever improving quality of life?

Most people are extremely stressed in their life, due to their job, not having enough time because of their job, being frustrated because other people have more then them, while working less (or not at all), having health issues due to their work and they know they cant change the job because they wont get another one, they simply hate their job, but also know they cant get a better one, etc, etc, etc.
There was a study a few years ago where they found out that people 500-1000 years ago were actually very happy. They didnt have to work nearly as much as we do nowadays! It wasnt rare that they only worked 6 months a year, and even if they worked they had MUCH longer breaks every day and didnt work as long. And they lived a good life for those times. Of course nowhere near as good as the monarchs, but it wasnt nearly as bad as its commonly claimed.

One thing has changed though: If youre smart and/or lucky (as in having a rich family) you can open your own company, do what you love. But even that gets harder and harder because the competition gets higher in numbers and in quality.

Ayn Rand's philosophy is definitely responsible for many of the 21st Century's ills.
If I had to choose among Fascism, Communism, Monarchism and Objectivism for the one which was to survive beyond the 20th Century, I'm not at all sure I would have picked Objectivism.

I am from the Republic of Ireland if that's what you mean, although I'll happily drink protestant whiskey (or hindu whiskey or buddhist whiskey or even muslim whiskey if such things existed and tasted good).

And when you grow up learning about your nations struggle to free itself of a foreign monarch, you tend to appreciate the ability to self-govern rather than hand it over to a bunch of corporations.

That said... I am not a "dyed-in-the-wool pro-government statist". I have many issues with many governments. Some are better than others. In some ways, I understand the prevalence of libertarianism in the US, given how particularly messed up your own government is.

So not so much "pro-government" as "anti-libertarian"

Drop the passive aggressive tone. It's not intellectual dishonesty to recognise that not all situations are the same.

Texas doesn't have a right to secede. There is no legal framework for it to do so under US law. That has nothing to do with my opinion, that is reality.

Scotland, OTOH, did have a right to secede based on the Edinburgh Agreement.

Whether they should secede is a different argument, and one of sufficient complexity that I don't feel a blanket yes or no could cover all cases.

I see no reason for Texas to secede, so I don't believe it's warranted.

I sorta wanted Scotland to secede, partly out of interest, partly because of my aforementioned dislike for monarchy, but even then I wasn't sure it was in Scotlands best interests. Since I don't live there, my interest really didn't go much beyond Groundskeeper Willie and John Oliver.


As for whether the US can learn lessons from monarchical governments, of course it can. Just because you shouldn't adopt their system of a head of state, doesn't mean there aren't aspects of their government/society that aren't vastly superior to your own (arguably broken) democracy.

To claim otherwise would be hubris.

Sure. But it makes it hard to take you seriously when you cite monarchical governments as examples of ways to do things better in the States, is all. And further sillier to claim somehow Scotland has a right to secession while, say, Texas does not.

Just making sure we shine a light on intellectual dishonesty, is all.

Yes, monarchies are inherently oppressive. They're an archaic throwback and an embarrassment to any country that still clings to them.

For the record I am a citizen of the Republic of Ireland and a permanent resident of New Zealand. I'm a member of the NZ Republic movement. I am not a subject of the crown, and the requirement to swear allegiance to the Queen is the one thing that is stopping me getting my NZ citizenship (which I have long since qualified for).

This is a point of principle and I would support any movement in any country to remove the monarch as head of state, even if they are only a figure head.

Now, all that said, what does that have to do with my approval for Norway's oil industry, NZs gun laws or socialised healthcare in pretty much the entire developed world?

You do realise that one can approve of one aspect of something while simultaneously disliking another aspect of the same thing? I think fast cars are cool, but I don't like their environment impact. I love beer, but I know that it's full of calories, and so on.

Anyway how would secession work in this case? There's no single geographical region to secede. Unless by secession you mean that the citizens of a country should have the right to determine how their country is run, in which case I wholeheartedly agree.

Up until I saw my fellow countrymen (including many I respected) fawning like chimps at a tea party during that whole "jubilee" thing I might have agreed. There seems to be a huge cognitive dissonance for most people when it comes to the royals.

On the one hand most don't really take it very seriously, on the other many (maybe even most) appear to have a sub-conscious desire/need to submit to their natural betters. Our whole national identity is built on the myths of Kings and failed rebellions and I fear for many the Monarchy represents a kind of bizarre political security blanket. We claim to not really care but deep down I think many of us secretly fear loosing our mythical matriarch.

One might liken it to celebrity worship backed by 100's & 1000's of years of religious mythology. The Royal's aren't really human to us, they are more like some closely related parent species born to a life we could only dream of. I realise that when asked directly most people would consciously acknowledge that was silly, but most would also respond the same to say Christian sexual repression. They know sex and nakedness when considered rationally are nothing to be ashamed of, but they still continue to treat their own urges as somehow sinful when they do not fall within rigidly defined social parameters.

We still haven't gotten over such Judeo-Christian self policing because the social structures built up around it are still with us (even if we fool ourselves into thinking we are beyond the reach of such sub-conscious influences). I don't think we will ever get over our master-slave culture while class and unearned privilege are still built into the fabric of our society. Having a Royal family, no matter how symbolic, is the very living embodiment of this kind of backwards ideology.

It's like trying to quit heroin while locked in a room with a big bag of the stuff.

It's true to say most don't take the whole thing very seriously but that to me is almost as concerning. Most people when asked don't believe advertising has a significant effect on their psyche but Coke-a-cola still feels like spending about 3 billion a year on it is worthwhile. One of them is clearly mistaken!

Our royal family here, is to me working in the same way as coke's advertising. It's a focal point for a lot of sub-conscious concepts we are bombarded with our whole lives. Naturally there are many sides to this and it wouldn't work without heavy media manipulation, state indoctrination etc. but it's an intrinsic part of the coercive myth none the less. Monarch's, Emperors and wealthy Dynasties are all poisons to me. No matter the pragmatic details, the sub-conscious effect seems significant and cumulative.

"Dead" symbolisms IMHO can often be the most dangerous. At least one is consciously aware of the devils we see. No one is watching the one's we have forgotten.....

The above is reason enough for me but I have bog all better to do this aft so I'll dive into the rabbithole a bit.....

(We do very quickly start getting into conspiracy theory territory hare so I'll try to keep it as uncontroversial as I can.)

A. The UK is truly ruled by financial elites not political ones IMHO. "The city" says jump, Whitehall says how high. The Royal family being among the wealthiest landowners and investors in the world (let alone UK) presumably can exert the same kind of influence. Naturally this occurs behind closed doors, but when the ownership class puts it's foot down the government ignores them to their extreme detriment. (It's hard to argue with people who own your economy de-facto and can make or break your career)

B. The queen herself sits on the council on foreign relations & Bilderberg group and she was actually the chairwoman of the "committee of 300" for several years. (and that's not even starting on club of Rome, shares in Goldman Sachs etc.)

C. SIS the uk's intelligence services (MI5/6 etc.), which have been proven to on occasion operate without civilian oversight in the past, are sworn to the crown. This is always going to be a most contentious point as it's incredibly difficult to prove wrongdoings, but I have very strong suspicions based on various incidents (David Kelly, James Andanson, Jill Dando etc.), that if they wanted/needed you dead/threatened that would not be especially difficult to arrange.

D. Jimmy Saville. This one really is tin foil hat territory, but it's no secret he was close to the Royal family. I am of the opinion this is because he was a top level procurer of "things", for which I feel there is a great deal of evidence, but I can't expect people to just go along with that idea. However given the latest "paedogeddon" scandal involving a extremely high level abuse ring (cabinet members, mi5/6, bankers etc.) it certainly would come as little surprise to find royal family members involved.

Points A&B I would stand behind firmly. C&D are drifting into conjecture but still potentially relevant I feel.

But even if we ignore all of them, our culture is built from the ground up upon the idea of privilege of birth. That there are some people born better or more deserving than the rest of us. When I refer to symbolism this is what I mean. Obviously the buck does not stop with the monarchy, England is hopelessly stratified by class all the way through, but the royal family exemplify this to absurd extremes.

At best I feel this hopelessly distorts and corrupts our collective sense of identity on a sub-conscious level. At worst....Well you must have some idea now how paranoid I'm capable of being about the way the world is run. (Not that I necessarily believe it all wholeheartedly, but I'm open to the possibility and inclined to suggest it more likely than the mainstream narrative)


On a pragmatic note: Tourism would be fine without them I think, we still have the history and the castles and the soldiers with silly hats etc. And I think the palaces would make great hotels and museums. They make great zoo exhibits I agree, just maybe not let them continue to own half the zoo and bribe the zoo keepers?


Anyway much love as always. You responded with considered points which is always worthy of respect, regardless of whether I agree with it all.

What you seem to overlook is that Samsom is basically a PR guy. As far as the Bilderberg attendees go, he ranks rather low on the totem pole, way below monarchs, American military brass, defense contractors, oil barons, and the many others with more real power.

Shiites and Alevites are not silent. Why do you think Sunnites hate them so much and take every opportunity to kill and oppress them?
But they are such a small minority, that they are simply silenced by the public in whatever way.

Look at the Arab Spring. All the Sunnis revolting was an act of democracy, freedom, etc, blah blah, but the revolts of Alevites and Shiites against Sunni monarchs, dictators (mostly installed and/or supported by the USA) were not mentioned much and quickly dealt with lots of violence. Even sport events were still held in those countries, after and WHILE they were slaying and oppressing their minorities that dont share their extreme views.

For a women who hates monarch style rule . . . I'm pretty sure Lady comes from the monarchy.


(Or at least for the vast majority will conjure that idea.)

@Trancecoach @enoch

Enoch's questions:

1. People should be producing something if they are getting paid for it - whether that is a good, service, etc. If someone else pays them to create or perform they are owed exactly what they have been promised to be compensated.

2. Enoch I think you are misunderstanding what a free market is. A free market is not a marketplace without regulations. A free market is not anarchy - there are still rules. Instead a free market is a market without a centralized or directing authority. To clarify a free market is one in which government policy does not set pricing.

3. You don't believe or disbelieve in democracy. It isn't a religion, it is a form of government. There is nothing inherently wrong with regulations. The devil is in the details. Regulations can be good or bad for a marketplace.

4. Enoch, I think that is a gross oversimplification of why corporate profits have been as high as they are. Many things have led to large corporate profits including globalization, expanding markets, etc. Yes, here in the USA corporations exercise influence on government, but its only one part of the bigger picture.

5. Completely incorrect. A free market has nothing to do with the existence of copyrights or patents.

6. Democracy is a form of government. A Free Market is a type of market structure. You could have a dictatorship and a free market. A monarch and a free market. A republic and a free market. A Theocracy and a free market.

Furthermore you could have a "Free Market" for automobiles but a "regulated" or "controlled" market for electricity within one country.

For example:

In the USA I would argue automobiles operate in a "Free Market". Yes there are certain standards the government sets (safety, fuel efficiency, etc) but the pricing is determined by the automakers. You can argue about the restrictions. Do they go far enough? Do they go too far? etc.

Conversely, most electric companies prices are regulated by the government and they are required to provide services to certain areas.

Lastly, a free market does not mean the market operates without laws. Copyright and patent law being just a small part of those laws.

I hope this clarifies some of these questions for you.


Best,

Kgrr

Um, Ok, then go ahead and stop them.


Whoever controls the government, controls everyone else.
The problem with plutocracy: the plutocrats rule over you.
The problem with monarchy: the monarch rules over you.
The problem with 'democracy:' the mob (the supposed "majority") rules over you.
The problem with republics: the "people's representatives" rule over you.
The problem with dictatorships: the dictator rules over you.
The 'problem' with anarchy: no one rules over you.

So if you think you can take over the government and rule over everyone else, go ahead, try. Let me know how it goes.


Most (granted not all) so-called crime has more to do with law enforcement than with 'criminals.' Don't believe me? Check out this recently sifted video about the enforcement of the so-called war on drugs.

The royal family may not have the power it once held, but don't you think any last vestiges of the monarch represents something reprehensible from days gone by? Doesn't the perpetuated existence in itself demonstrate a passing acceptance of them and what they once stood for? It's not like the English don't have to pay for the queen's luxurious lifestyle, either. That makes them somewhat culpable, in my opinion.

I can't downvote, but if I had to hazard a guess, I'd go with "monarchs just as bad if not worse as Hitler" as the bit of your comment that would be most likely to draw a "challenge" as you put it. You kinda godwin'd the whole thread right out of the gate which is a bit ... trollish.

I suppose one could maybe make a reasonable attempt at justifying that statement with regards to a few specific past monarchs, but even though I couldn't care less about the British monarchy I think it would be rather unfair to hold the current Queen accountable for what some of her predecessors may have done many, many years before she was born.

I'm an American citizen with ancestors originally from Germany, so by those standards I should personally be held to blame for slavery, Little Bighorn and smallpox blankets, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, AND the holocaust.

I think it's funny when the White Monarch of a country known for subjugating Africans (and half the world) is still putting black people in their place. Even the most powerful man in the world isn't immune to this old cunt and her cunty aristocratic ways.

Seriously this bullshit needs to stop, sell off those fucking castles and send the queen packing. The British Monarchs are just as bad if not worse than Hitler, but England wrote the history so we gotta respect that shit? Fuck them.