tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-593520416078776027.post818958813808229048..comments2023-03-28T14:51:32.074-06:00Comments on Man of the West: The problem is with democracy, not with the birth certificate (from Belmont Club)Matt Beckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18243180819805009566noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-593520416078776027.post-3939623164498499452011-05-09T13:49:58.045-06:002011-05-09T13:49:58.045-06:00Gentlemen,
I’m sorry for my delayed responses. I ...Gentlemen,<br /><br />I’m sorry for my delayed responses. I spent most of last week writing the long “memoir” post above, but I greatly appreciate your comments.<br /><br />********<br /><br /><b>Dear Robbins Mitchell,</b><br /><br />I wouldn’t mind hearing a bit more about your case, although I don’t know how “active” I could be in promoting the claimant. I wouldn’t interfere in the internal politics of another state without good reason, and I would need to be thoroughly convinced of the merits of the case. However, I certainly would like to see the English monarchy restored to its former glory. Almost anybody would be better than "Elizabeth the Useless."<br /><br />http://www.vdare.com/gabb/110429_monarchy.htm<br /><br />*******<br /><br /><b>Dear Foont,</b><br /><br />The same downside exists for any government whatsoever, but it’s more destructive in a democracy since the people there actually choose the reigning idiot, and they usually choose poorly. The accident of birth has a better track record of nominating successful rulers than plebiscites do. But I wholeheartedly agree with restricting the franchise, perhaps to net tax-paying <i>males</i> who will owe a military obligation in the event of any declared war (to be fulfilled either in service or money as the case may be).<br /><br />*********<br /><br /><b>Dear Tom Love,</b><br /><br />Good one!<br /><br />*********<br /><br /><b>Dear Anonymous,</b><br /><br />Thank you for your kindness and encouragement. Your comment merits a longer response; so if you don’t mind, I’m going to quote this, bump it, and answer it in a new post. Watch this space for something this evening.<br /><br />*************<br /><br />Thanks to all for contributing,<br /><br />-MattMatt Beckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18243180819805009566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-593520416078776027.post-6323754331804781922011-05-08T15:24:40.734-06:002011-05-08T15:24:40.734-06:00Matt-
Great post. Years ago at BC I praised your...Matt-<br /><br />Great post. Years ago at BC I praised your sensibilities and eloquence when other were browbeating you and encouraged you to keep on in that direction. I'm glad you did, the results are evident.<br /><br />I read with especial interest the part about the obsession with authority with regard to the Truther movement.<br /><br />Your analysis is spot on with regards to the left and its dysfunctional attitude towards authority. I've always thought that nearly all of those people who put on bumper sitckers reading "Question Authority" really mean "disrespect authority". A few opportunistic, faux conservatives have made these mistakes too, albeit far fewer. However, I would have to point out that this approach is not limited to leftists on the political spectrum. A disturbing number of doctrinaire, capital "L" libertarians also share this dysfunction. <br /><br />At the time of the 9/11 attacks I was a pretty out-there libertarian. The libertarians had coopted much of the neocon language about the end of history, and it seemed that the age of anarcho-capitalism was upon us and that it would be a good thing. It seemed that the left was on the ropes and that we would enter a new age, a return to the decency and normalcy you reference elsewhere in your essay. I would guess that a lot of folks with libertarian, conservative tendencies were traipsing this way - it sure seemed like it at the time.<br /><br />The 9/11 attacks changed that forever for me. While I still buy into much of what libertarians tout - "bill of rights" type negative liberties, free enterprise, and limited government - I also have come to realize that the world is a dangerous, nasty place, and that some level of authority must exist in order to deal with the nastiness. And my fellow traveler libertarians were so wrapped up in their avoidance of obeying authority that they couldn't or wouldn't understand what was going on. I discovered what I should have known all along - that they were, like leftists, more interested in power and more interested in winning some imagined debate than they were in doing the right thing. It was then that I reconnected with a more true form of conservatism, and, not so surprisingly, became interested in philosophers and theologians who decried those folks more interested in what they CAN do than what they SHOULD do (in other words, doctrinaire liberals and libertarians).<br /><br />My conservatism will always be laced with strong libertarian sensibilities. I guess that's just how I'm built. But the straight line stuff no longer has a hold on me.<br /><br />OK, then, the question is now this. The American public, wanting a return to normalcy after 75 years of Gramscian and overt leftism, modernism, and postmodernism, is simply voting for "something different" every six or eight years in the hopes of acheiving said return (almost as if by magic), but failing each time. How do we break this cycle and get to that return?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-593520416078776027.post-36130394025763965472011-05-03T10:37:30.754-06:002011-05-03T10:37:30.754-06:00To that, I would propose a constitutional amendmen...To that, I would propose a constitutional amendment that we should not be able to intervene militarily any country unless at least half the adult population can locate it on a map.Tom Lovenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-593520416078776027.post-76962597118632176762011-04-28T08:34:13.636-06:002011-04-28T08:34:13.636-06:00The downside of monarchy (a downside of any heirar...The downside of monarchy (a downside of any heirarchical system) is that every so often a fool or an idiot will be crowned king or prime minister or whatever. I know of no way to prevent this.<br /><br />The franchise should be restricted. There have been many suggestions as to what criteria should be met in order to be allowed the privilege to vote. Right now age is about the only one in place in the U.S. Personally I would up this to at least 21 and maybe 25. I would also add that only payers of net taxes be allowed to vote and that every voter pass 100% a simple test designed to demonstrate at last a rudementary knowledge of the Constitution and recent history (e.g. - name the last 5 presidents; how many branches of federal government are there and name them; name the governor of your home state and at least one of its two senators).foontnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-593520416078776027.post-73474322814559529752011-04-28T04:09:31.718-06:002011-04-28T04:09:31.718-06:00Matt:
You claim to be a 'Monarchist'.....Matt:<br /> You claim to be a 'Monarchist'...what would be your thinking if you knew that a native born American of Royal descent was in fact the rightful heir to the Crown of St Edward by virtue of blood ancestry?...that his claim on the Crown was in fact better than that of Prince Charles or any of the House of Windsor?...would you actively seek to see the American claimant crowned?...Needless to say,I have more than a mere academic exercise in mind here...best regards<br /><br />Robbins Mitchell<br />Houston,TX<br />armigerous@earthlink.netAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com