douglas denny

Welcome! I like the name. I think UKIP should change its title to yours

DED
-

g hall

A loyal subject wouldn't however a person who thinks and wants to be a citizen will that is the difference between a subject and a citizen

Carry on abasing yourself you will only get trodden on

__________________
"That government is best which governs least."
"This is a sharp Medicine, but it is a Physician for all diseases and miseries".
"To be "matter of fact" about the world is to blunder into fantasy --and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."

noachian

Smidgey; I know longer wish to constantly argue with you. You don't know me, you don't know me at all. I am sorry if what I put offends you, I am only 16; I don't have a monopoly on life.

You said in one post "Ron Paul isn't actually a libertarian" well your wrong, your just an anarchist. I have only one agrument against you and that is, from what I have gathered of you from your posts is that you seem to have an unbalanced philosophy. You freely exercise your rights, good, but you do not consider the right to individual opinion of other people.

I am sure you are aware of extremes. Collectivism/Statism - Anarchism.... well I think it is best to be in the middle. Don't you?

I believe in a balanced Constitution where 'power' is exercised equally and not abused by a single institution (like the Commons in this country), a commonwealth of close nations (England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland possibly) based on individual rights but the respect of the institutions which are established to defend them. I believe in a Constitutional Monarchy where the Head of State is a non-political emobdiment of the State, where the various cultural tradtitions are manifest in a hereditary, ceremonial office. A cultural society where the citizen is free to own property, free to access a free-market and where the Government has no right to put a persons rights on paper and read it to them. The liberty of the citizen is supreme above all 'nitty-gritty' regulatory beuarocracy, but still one must abide by laws set down in order to preserve liberties, just because they are laws this does not of course make them morals, this just protects the morals to which already exist in the universe. For instance because murder is illegal, that does not make it immoral, it is immoral because it violates somebody's rights; the law simply punishes people who violate this in order to protect it.

Where we are a society, but we are truely free. Britain has not achieved this, or atleast not anymore.

I would love to hear what you think.

__________________
"A Monarchy which above all, values the Liberty of the subject." Marcus Aurelius on perfect society.

"Control thy passions, lest they take vengeance on thee." - Epictetus.

douglas denny

Highlighted above in red/purple:I am very impressed.

You may only be 16 Noachian but you already have a good grasp of sensible, equitable, free-thinking, liberal (note:small 'l') - political concepts. Keep an open mind with your eyes open to everything, and I am sure you will continue to mature into a very powerful (in ideas if not direct) and worthwhile political activist in the world.

DED
-

noachian

Thankyou douglas denny, I find as i get futher in life the more I learn.

__________________
"A Monarchy which above all, values the Liberty of the subject." Marcus Aurelius on perfect society.

"Control thy passions, lest they take vengeance on thee." - Epictetus.

noachian

I would have to dissagree, you are over emphisising the status of citizen. One is still subject when one is a citizen (repectively). Zimbaweians (SP) are, I'm sure; still subject to the laws and regulations of the Zimbawe Government. When a country is/becomes a republic does that make one automatically a free and independant being? No. One is always subject to something when living in a society.

If Britain were to become republic and except a politician as head of state; do yuo think that would some how make us not subject to the Government?

History has often shown that Absolute or Semi-Constitutional Monarchies have been the most free and indeed the subject has been 'least subjectable'. For instance Socialist Nationalism (a form of fascism) usually forbids a Monarch, but you would agree I'm sure that under a fascist reigme one is still very subject indeed....?

I long for a model/system similar to that of Litchenstein to be introduced into the United Kingdom. Where the King desolves parliament to protect the Liberty of the subjects when necesary.

An interesting article for both you and smidgey would be on this blog which I came across:
A Very British Dude: Libertarian Monarchist?

__________________
"A Monarchy which above all, values the Liberty of the subject." Marcus Aurelius on perfect society.

"Control thy passions, lest they take vengeance on thee." - Epictetus.

steve fowler

I think i can say the same now Noachian.

I have now started to look at life now with an open mind.

__________________
RULE BRITANNIA BRITANNIA RULES THE WAVES, BRITONS NEVER EVER SHALL BE SLAVE'S.

Never give in - never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.
Winston Churchill.

When Labour won the 1997 General Election, Enoch Powell told his wife that the electorate had voted to break up the United Kingdom.

g hall

Clearly there is a difference between being a monarch's subject and all it implies against being a citizen of a state where in theory ALL are equal and everybody is subject to the same laws


Where have I said this is what I want ?

What is the difference between an absolute monarch and a dictator ?
National Socialism forbids a monarch well let us look at the 3 examples in the 20th century
Italy Mussolini may as well been an absolute monarch
Germany Hitler acted like an absolute monarch
Spain Franco acted like an absolute monarch
so really the monarch is the leader with a different title

It would be better if the people could desolve parliament

I'll look when I've time ta

__________________
"That government is best which governs least."
"This is a sharp Medicine, but it is a Physician for all diseases and miseries".
"To be "matter of fact" about the world is to blunder into fantasy --and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."

g hall

noachian
I've just looked at A very British Dude and his first page and this struck me immediately

"This is not rosy-eyed wishful thinking. Countries in Europe which still have Kings and Queens tend to be the ones with the longest liberal traditions of good governance: the UK, The Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Norway. They have old institutions precisely because they have not had revolutions"

The UK has had more then it's fair share of revolutions which the government of the day have ruthlessly put down.

We could start going backwards with
The Poll tax riots in early 1990's
The Irish Free state
The Chartists
1798 Irish rebellion
The American War of Independence
Bonnie Prince Charlie
Duke of Monmouth (and if you are from the Westcountry Judge Jeffreys is a *******)
The Glorious Revolution of 1668
The English civil war
The Gunpowder plot
and so it goes
as Ricky Tomlinson might say No Revolutions My ar5e

__________________
"That government is best which governs least."
"This is a sharp Medicine, but it is a Physician for all diseases and miseries".
"To be "matter of fact" about the world is to blunder into fantasy --and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."

noachian

You can 'in theory' all you like; the United Kingdom is still a better place to live than Zimbabwe.

And who is not usbject to the same laws in a Constitutional Monarchy? (meaning that the Monarch is subject to the Constitution and thus subject to specific laws). If you're refering to the Monarch not being under common law, well in a modern Deomcratic Kingdom like Great Britain she [the Queen] most certainly is. She can be tried for war-crimes etc she is subject to exactly the same laws as we are. And just to pre-counter any arguments that are put forward about her standard of living, go to Malta to see their president or Zimbabwe and she Bob's house.

I would agree. However certain situations in which Parliament would need desolving could prove impossible for the people to actually go about doing this, since parliament technically is the people in representative democracy.

__________________
"A Monarchy which above all, values the Liberty of the subject." Marcus Aurelius on perfect society.

"Control thy passions, lest they take vengeance on thee." - Epictetus.