Gyroscopic Investing

Posted: **Mon Jul 14, 2014 9:32 am**

[align=center]

[/align]

Bastille Day or, as the comic singers who take it seriously prefer to call it, the Fete de la Federation, is the embarrassing event that exposes the cultural, moral and constitutional bankruptcy of what was once the greatest civilisation in Europe.

When you are reduced to celebrating the murder by the canaille of Paris in 1789 of the French equivalent of the Chelsea Pensioners, you are inadvertently advertising the sinister origins of the dysfunctional state you are trying to prop up with a mythology as grotesque as it is pathetic. The Umpteenth French Republic is the one entity whose absorption by the European Union is not to be regretted.

Pompous parades will today celebrate the event that triggered the French Revolution, that is to say, the most appalling bloodbath anterior to the Russian Revolution. Seven prisoners were released from the Bastille – four counterfeiters, an accomplice to murder and two lunatics - whose return to the community was hardly beneficial. The attack on the prison, reserved for the well-off, was orchestrated by the Marquis de Sade and Camille Desmoulins on behalf of the Nine Sisters masonic lodge.

There followed the September massacres, the marriages republicains in which people of opposite sexes were stripped naked and lashed together in obscene postures before being drowned, mothers forced to watch their children being guillotined and the massacre of 400,000 Catholic royalists – the majority of them women and children – in La Vendee. Sounds like the perfect excuse for a celebratory knees-up.

Read the rest here...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geral ... _Republic/

Posted: **Mon Jul 14, 2014 10:10 am**

John, what is your obsession with monarchies?

Posted: **Mon Jul 14, 2014 6:14 pm**

At least I got to learn a new word - canaille!

Posted: **Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:24 pm**

dualstow wrote: John, what is your obsession with monarchies?

It's probably the best form of government. If nothing else think of it as a little counterbalance for all of the ad infinitum anarchist threads on here.

Posted: **Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:33 pm**

Ad Orientem wrote:
dualstow wrote: John, what is your obsession with monarchies?
It's probably the best form of government. If nothing else think of it as a little counterbalance for all of the ad infinitum anarchist threads on here.

Ok.

A benevolent monarchy, perhaps.

Posted: **Mon Jul 14, 2014 8:25 pm**

Ad Orientem wrote:
dualstow wrote: John, what is your obsession with monarchies?
It's probably the best form of government. If nothing else think of it as a little counterbalance for all of the ad infinitum anarchist threads on here.

I for one appreciate the monarchy threads. Monarchy seems like a brutally realistic form of government in its convictions that the masses basically couldn't find their way out of a paper bag and that they need a strong, benevolent leader to guide them. The challenge--every form of government has one--is getting that strong and benevolent leader. All too often, the monarchs can be psychos, or warmongers.

Posted: **Mon Jul 14, 2014 8:53 pm**

Pointedstick wrote: [The challenge--every form of government has one--is getting that strong and benevolent leader. All too often, the monarchs can be psychos, or warmongers.

Getting one and keeping one. Passing the torch to your son is probably not the safest idea, even for a single generation.
As soon as I start thinking about how a group of people should choose the successor rather than the monarch himself/herself, it's a short jump to democracy/a republic.

Posted: **Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:53 am**

dualstow wrote:
Pointedstick wrote: [The challenge--every form of government has one--is getting that strong and benevolent leader. All too often, the monarchs can be psychos, or warmongers.
Getting one and keeping one. Passing the torch to your son is probably not the safest idea, even for a single generation.
As soon as I start thinking about how a group of people should choose the successor rather than the monarch himself/herself, it's a short jump to democracy/a republic.

Elective monarchies are not unknown. The Polish crown was elective but this proved a huge weakness that ultimately contributed to the failure of the state and Poland's partition by Prussia, Austria and Russia. The Holy Roman Empire had an elective monarchy and it seemed to work tolerably well. And of course the Papacy remains an elective monarchy. In all those cases the electorate was/is extremely small. That's really the only way it can work. Once you start handing out the franchise to anyone, irregardless of whether or not they have the IQ of a houseplant, then you end up with... well the United States in its current state.

The main arguments for hereditary succession are...

* There is no interregnum with a line of succession clearly laid out.
* The heir is raised from birth to rule and educated accordingly with every effort made to instill a proper sense of responsibility.
* A family that owns something tends to take better care of it than someone who is hired as a temporary manager and knows he will only have the job for a short period of time.

The main downside is...

* If you get someone who is morally or mentally unfit for the job it can be difficult to bypass them. In serious cases though a way is usually found. Parliament declared George III insane and his son was appointed as regent until the King died. In the case of absolute monarchies things can be a little more tricky but if you have a monarch that just has to go, it usually happens one way or another. Think Czars Peter III and Paul.

Posted: **Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:26 am**

Right, but the problem with the small electorate is that you may wind up with an evil or greedy conspiracy.

Posted: **Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:52 am**

dualstow wrote: Right, but the problem with the small electorate is that you may wind up with an evil or greedy conspiracy.

You mean like our current POTUS, SCOTUS, Congress?

... Mountaineer

Posted: **Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:53 am**

dualstow wrote: Right, but the problem with the small electorate is that you may wind up with an evil or greedy conspiracy.

Granted. The history of the Polish monarchy is a good example of that danger. Which is why I tend to favor hereditary monarchy. But no form of government is perfect. I see the state as a necessary evil and look for the one that is least likely to do stupid things or interfere in people's lives unnecessarily. Seriously though, does anyone think the Congress of the United States is less corrupt than say the Cardinals who elected Pope Alexander VI?

Posted: **Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:59 am**

What about a hereditary monarchy with an electorate (large or small) that can veto a rising monarch? In other words, make the throne go to #2 in line instead of #1.

Posted: **Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:01 am**

Ad Orientem wrote: , does anyone think the Congress of the United States is less corrupt than say the Cardinals who elected Pope Alexander VI?

Perhaps not, but it's probably easier to keep tabs on Congress.

Posted: **Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:42 am**

I think the founders of the US shared your concerns, AO.

-voters are white, property owning men
-US senators chosen by each state gov't, not by popular vote
-poll tax
-electoral college, not popular vote, to choose president
-federal form of gov't
-constitutional republic, not a democracy (mob rule)
-acknowledgement that the form of gov't was only suitable for a moral people

Posted: **Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:51 am**

murphy_p_t wrote: -acknowledgement that the form of gov't was only suitable for a moral people

That was the kiss of death, IMHO. There's simply no way to guarantee this. Modern liberals of all flavors seem to recognize this as well when they talk about how college education is important for the foundation of our democracy or something. They understand that stupid and ignorant people cast votes essentially at random.

Unfortunately, there is no way to ensure that the general populace is either "moral" or "educated", or whatever. Any government that requires this to function will fail sooner or later, as ours is doing right now. It's an example of a design that's inherently fragile rather than resilient.

Posted: **Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:53 am**

Xan wrote: What about a hereditary monarchy with an electorate (large or small) that can veto a rising monarch? In other words, make the throne go to #2 in line instead of #1.

Basically you are describing a limited or constitutional monarchy. I have no objection to that, provided that parliament or whatever you call the legislative body doesn't reduce the monarchy to a face on the nation's stamps and coins. The British system worked decently until a series of unfortunate events combined to effectively reduce the monarchy to it's current figurehead status.

*First were the so called Reform Acts beginning in 1832 that gradually expanded the franchise to idiotic degrees.

* The death of the Prince Consort which precipitated a mental breakdown on the part of Queen Victoria from which she never fully recovered. After his death she withdrew into permanent mourning and effectively ceased to attend to affairs of state leaving the business of governing entirely to her ministers. This might not have been the catastrophe that it turned out to be, save for the fact that she outlived her husband by forty years. By the time her son finally succeeded the precedent was set in stone.

* The final nail in the coffin was the parliamentary reform of 1912 that stripped the House of Lords of most of its constitutional prerogatives and reduced it to a rubber stamp of the Commons.

Posted: **Tue Jul 15, 2014 12:36 pm**

You know how the hardcore Russian mafia bosses would cut off their own fingers so that they could not enjoy material possessions? A sort of vow of poverty with a physical guarantee? I think I could trust a monarch like that.

Posted: **Tue Jul 15, 2014 1:33 pm**

Pointedstick wrote:
murphy_p_t wrote: -acknowledgement that the form of gov't was only suitable for a moral people
That was the kiss of death, IMHO. There's simply no way to guarantee this.

No but there are effective ways to eradicate them.

Posted: **Tue Jul 15, 2014 2:34 pm**

Benko wrote:
Pointedstick wrote:
murphy_p_t wrote: -acknowledgement that the form of gov't was only suitable for a moral people
That was the kiss of death, IMHO. There's simply no way to guarantee this.
No but there are effective ways to eradicate them.

Eradicate immoral people?

Like people that advocate for Social Security or public education? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but these are some of the advancements of our "democracy" that a lot of "Constitutional republicans" seem to abhor... though I wouldn't have thought their solution was to "eradicate" them.

Posted: **Tue Jul 15, 2014 3:44 pm**

Sorry, I need to work on being clearer.

Since moral people were being discussed I was referring to morals i.e. there is no way to guarantee that you have a population of moral people but there are effective ways to make sure your population is not made of moral people.

Posted: **Tue Jul 15, 2014 4:07 pm**

Benko,

Makes sense... I figured I wasn't reading you correct.

Posted: **Tue Jul 15, 2014 6:47 pm**

Benko wrote: Sorry, I need to work on being clearer.

Since moral people were being discussed I was referring to morals i.e. there is no way to guarantee that you have a population of moral people but there are effective ways to make sure your population is not made of moral people.

So, shall we return to the "proving morality" or the "figuring out religion" thread? One, Both, Neither? Threre really isn't much of sustained interest to discuss other than religion and politics. Maybe we could start a "Figuring Out Moral Politics" thread.

... Mountaineer

Edited to add link that I just read after making my original post:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/ ... more-19391

Note references to French Revolution, morals, governments.

Gyroscopic Investing

Bastille Day

Bastille Day

Re: Bastille Day

Re: Bastille Day

Re: Bastille Day

Re: Bastille Day

Re: Bastille Day

Re: Bastille Day

Re: Bastille Day

Re: Bastille Day

Re: Bastille Day

Re: Bastille Day

Re: Bastille Day

Re: Bastille Day

Re: Bastille Day

Re: Bastille Day

Re: Bastille Day

Re: Bastille Day

Re: Bastille Day

Re: Bastille Day

Re: Bastille Day

Re: Bastille Day

Re: Bastille Day