Political liberalism has a lot of flaws but one of the cool things about it is how it's constructed around the insight that monarchy is a fundamental affront to human dignity π
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
The actual liberal tradition is that land should be common property, as should some kinds of monopoly (railroads, e.g), and certain government-granted privileges (taxi medallions, e.g.)
Lockean Proviso is not unlimited. Using the commons for private purpose is fine -- so long as there's as good and enough left in common for others! That limitation is crucial!
Not according to Locke, he explicitly said that the spoliage principle doesnβt apply to land that is being worked, even if itβs being worked by hands besides your own.
Private property β property worked by someone besides yourself for the purposes of profit directed towards you
Personal property β property worked by you, for your own benefit
Wow! Glad THAT never happened to the Irish, Native Americans and Bengali - and certainly not to the US because of a stock crash! Surely there were no famines, much less deliberately engineered famines, under liberal regimes, otherwise carrying on about this would just be pointless sophistry!
If all Communism does is cause the same problems as Capitalism but at higher frequencies (having had way more genocides in less time) why is it a suitable replacement for capitalism?
lol objectively false. Capitalism killed 1M Iraqis, for example, which they decide doesn't count as a genocide OR deaths by capitalism because freedom or whatever. You only get those numbers by special pleading away a billion preventable deaths caused by capitalism.
This is true, they call it βThe Great Not-Hungerβ in Ireland, when the potato crops were growing at twice the rate because of British fertilizer. Look it up
Yes, it was good that the USSR was abolished, since it was the last colonial empire, that held Ukraine, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe in chains.
Russia unfortunately is trying to recreate the empire in the invasion of Ukraine.
Some British liberal constitutionalist friends might not treat this statement very kindly. "Political liberalism" is a big tent that includes pro-monarchy members of the Labour Party.
Sure, but also worth remembering that the very origin of British liberalism was Whiggery which itself was founded on promoting and preserving parliamentary supremacy over the monarch
Getting people to agree to compromise is slow and infuriating and emotionally taxing ~under the best of circumstances.~ Democracy, at it's very pinnacle, is deeply frustrating, boring, and glacially slow.
But if the people don't rule their destiny someone else will, and we've seen that is far worse
Tame constitutional kings have generally been a feature of the most stable governments over the last 200 years. UK, Benelux, and Scandinavia only really rivaled by Switzerland and (until now) the US.
isn't the most pertinent and operative part of that statement "tame, constitutional," though? Most places with surviving monarchies don't grant them much if any policymaking role, and what Quinta was indirectly referring to was our quasi-monarchical (at the moment, anyway) policy-empowered Prez.
As I said somewhere else in the thread, I think the causality largely runs the other way. The constitutional stability of those countries has allowed monarchy to survive, not vice versa.
agreed more or less in full. I do think it's a useful complex question to ask if empowered monarchs undermine constitutional stability so much that few nations with empowered monarchies (or elective monarchies) can allow those institutions to continue and maintain their stability, though.
I only got through Britain's Victoria, Belgium's Leopold II, and the Netherlands' Willem III before John blocked me. Seems he wasn't so sure about the stability they provided after all π€·
I mean, there was really only one brief period of (relatively mild) violence between the 1801 Act of Union and the Free State's independence. Northern Ireland obviously had more endemic violence, but the overall UK constitutional order has been very stable compared to almost everywhere else.
(And obviously the big reason that Ireland is an exception is because it was always treated more like a conquered province than an integral part of the polity. Great Britain proper has had pretty general civil peace since 1746.)
Leopold II was a constitutional monarch in Belgium and a brutal genocidal tyrant in the Congo, but this person isn't interested in understanding what I'm saying, they just want to score points by showing they're more moral than me, so I am going to block them.
Add Australia, Canada and NZ into that mix, of comparable tenor overall to those you list - particularly if the pre-independence periods of responsible government included, i.e. beginning ~1848. And with no civil wars.
Burning of the parliament in Montreal by a mob (1849) deserves a shout out. Still, I think, only time this has happened in a British territory. And possibly no-one died. Far short of a civil war anyway.
I'm not sure what you mean by "constitutional self-government" as that could also apply to an Imperial Dominion, but as colonies they are part of Great Britain. The monarchy part doesn't actually change.
the parallel political systems based on blood lines that override democratic functions. like the governors general, privy council, and other secret interventions, in the shadows, to change laws around, or overthrow prime Ministers. it's not even about the expense accounts of "the firm"
I'm really not aware of any even half-way imperfection to "political liberalism"?
Unless we mean the (just apparent) paradoxes like the one of tolerance and freedom.
Putting aside that "political" did a lot of heavy lifting, even in the most loose sense nothing of that is a consequence or an implication of it?
In fact they seem a lot like to directly run counter to the supposed principles of freedom, pluralism and pretty much even just a functioning democracy.
"I wish I might live fifty years longer; I believe I should see the thrones of Europe selling at auction for old iron. I believe I should really see the end of what is surely the grotesquest of all the swindles ever invented by man - monarchy." Mark Twain disdained the Russian monarchy the most.
Mark Twain criticized Teddy Roosevelt for helping end the Russo-Japanese War in 1905. He wanted to see a humiliating defeat: "I think the czar will now withdraw the small humanities that have been forced from him and resume his medieval barbarisms with a relieved spirit and an immeasurable joy."
"I have never belonged to a party nor a church. A person cannot be free & belong to either." In 1906, Mark Twain helped Maxim Gorky, a fellow writer, raise money for the Russian revolution. "Because we were quite willing to accept France's assistance when we were in the throes of our Revolution..."
With all due respect, none of the constitutional monarchies of Europe or North America seem to be a threat to human dignity in the way the American republic is right now, and they tend to do rather well on the old equitable outcomes front tooβ¦
Plus, many 19th century monarchies were, in fact, constitutional systems. Even the liberal star, JS Mill, never challenged British monarchy - in fact, worked for it (as a colonial administrator in India, on top of that)
The Belgian queen & king do a very good job of being mother & father archetypes for people who need that, of representing our country abroad and of not interfering with politics.
I don't need a president who needs to get rich(er) in a 4 year term.
Most of our presidents did not succumb to cupidity but itβs a bad trait of Americans. As a continental power the temptation to imperialism is too strong for most men with access to power.
One did. Leopold II of Belgium held the Congo as a private property and, as the true capitalist he was, exploited the Congolese for profit in incredibly cruel ways.
Belgium is disgusted of him now.
BTW, in a democracy, there's only a place for powerless kings.
Perhaps people that live in Nazi countries run by Nazis shouldn't throw stones? Why don't you put that in Latin if you want to continue feeling lofty and superior?
Comments
Personal property β property worked by you, for your own benefit
Russia unfortunately is trying to recreate the empire in the invasion of Ukraine.
But *absolute* monarchy, yes.
But if the people don't rule their destiny someone else will, and we've seen that is far worse
one big benefit in America is none of that nonsense over us
but as a treat for you here is an example of why the anglo monarchy sucks
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/23/gough-whitlam-1975-coup-ended-australian-independence
Unless we mean the (just apparent) paradoxes like the one of tolerance and freedom.
In fact they seem a lot like to directly run counter to the supposed principles of freedom, pluralism and pretty much even just a functioning democracy.
Liberalism is Good so anything that is Bad must be entirely unrelated to liberalism.
The Belgian queen & king do a very good job of being mother & father archetypes for people who need that, of representing our country abroad and of not interfering with politics.
I don't need a president who needs to get rich(er) in a 4 year term.
Belgium is disgusted of him now.
BTW, in a democracy, there's only a place for powerless kings.
We now have two choices. Live free or kneel to your MAGA king like a slave.
Color? Gender? Race? Immigrant? Rural? Urban? Worker? Boss? Poor? Rich? Red? Blue? Your flag is one of these.
I know which one is mine.