|
On June 29 2009 07:49 L wrote:
If you think that explanation was long, you're fucking retarded. OK, I won't hold back from criticizing your tone this time, since it's hard to misread it now. Your posts are arrogant and condescending and frankly not nearly as brilliant as you seem to think they are.
I took a grand total of 1 sentence to show exactly what my use of the word was. I should have instead said "go look it up, you're on the internet". You took 2 paragraphs to justify your eccentric use of "untrammeled" (yes, I know what it means).
You can't slog through clicking back 1 page? Wow. At least you're upfront with your laziness. Sure, I could click back 1 page and read through another post of yours, but the turgid content of the post that refers me rather discourages me from doing that. If you expect the reader to want to follow you back, you ought to make at least a token effort to convince him that it will be worth his while. On the other hand, if your sole purpose in posting is to stroke your ego as you read your own words and think how smart you are, by all means continue as you are.
I guess I could attack you for using big words in your attempt to show that "unelaborated references = intimidation" too. Instead I'll just note that in doing so you've admitted you're afraid of large words. Boo! I don't see how using big words constitutes admitting to fear of them. Maybe you meant instead to say that by saying "using big words = attempt at intimidation" I admit that I am afraid of big words, but that does not follow either. I am a fan of using any words, big or otherwise, that heighten the precision of your writing: in that I agree with you in sentiment, at least. When Moltke uses big words, they tend to contribute to his meaning. Your writing, on the other hand, tends to be obscure, your usage of language eccentric at best, shifting the burden to the reader to decipher what you meant. Big words imply that the writer has a degree of education; when the meaning is nonetheless hard to parse, the reader is inclined to think, "He's obviously educated, so my difficulty in following his meaning must be a failure in my ability to understand, rather than his to communicate". That is how big words can intimidate, but I decline to be intimidated. If I don't see anything worth reading in your mass of words, I am not going to "slog back 1 page" to read further, because you have not justified the additional effort on my part.
As for your interpretation of what prose is, go read some kafka and tell me what you think about his prose style. Not a fan of Kafka, myself. In any case, should I have said expository prose? Kafka should not be your model for writing posts in a forum.
I specifically brought up Orwell's critique of the braindead use of simplifying language to show that the your preference isn't shared by more lucid writers, and by extension thinkers. The fact that you implicitly hold up your writing as an exemplar of lucidity, apart from being slightly laughable, shows that you are a little too in love with it to see it objectively. It's too bad that you are too sensitive to be able to take any constructive criticism--otherwise, at least, the reactions of others might enlighten you as to how opaque it really is. I rather agree with your comment that lucid writing implies lucid thinking, and urge you to take it to heart.
Why? This blog wasn't about the whole discussion, it was about the "tangential point". That's what I was responding to.
PS - I understand why you are flaming me, since my last post criticized yours, even though I tried to phrase it constructively. I don't blame you for your sensitivity, but there is never much point in getting into a flame war. So I will leave the off-topic posting at this. Don't feel obliged to respond, unless you want to get the last word in.
|
Moltke is making the point that even ancient monarchs did not have as much power as modern heads of state--but surely this is not because they were monarchs but despite that fact.
Perhaps. This is not a central argument, but I would like to use one illustrative example to defend my point: during the English Republic, parliament levied four times the taxation which they found intolerable under Charles I.
My original intention was not necessarily juxaposing the despotic power of old monarchs with modern presidents, but with modern mass sovereignty. This is again something I have absorbed from Tocqueville:
In a chapter of his Volume II of Democracy in America, Tocqueville authored a chapter titled: What Sort Of Despotism Democratic Nations Have To Fear. To spare my own exertions, I will quote large portions of this chapter (I assume that you are are not too fatigued to read it):
I had remarked during my stay in the United States, that a democratic state of society, similar to that of the Americans, might offer singular facilities for the establishment of despotism; and I perceived, upon my return to Europe, how much use had already been made by most of our rulers, of the notions, the sentiments, and the wants engendered by this same social condition, for the purpose of extending the circle of their power. This led me to think that the nations of Christendom would perhaps eventually undergo some sort of oppression like that which hung over several of the nations of the ancient world...
...No sovereign ever lived in former ages so absolute or so powerful as to undertake to administer by his own agency, and without the assistance of intermediate powers, all the parts of a great empire: none ever attempted to subject all his subjects indiscriminately to strict uniformity of regulation, and personally to tutor and direct every member of the community. The notion of such an undertaking never occurred to the human mind; and if any man had conceived it, the want of information, the imperfection of the administrative system, and above all, the natural obstacles caused by the inequality of conditions, would speedily have checked the execution of so vast a design. When the Roman emperors were at the height of their power, the different nations of the empire still preserved manners and customs of great diversity; although they were subject to the same monarch, most of the provinces were separately administered; they abounded in powerful and active municipalities; and although the whole government of the empire was centred in the hands of the emperor alone, and he always remained, upon occasions, the supreme arbiter in all matters, yet the details of social life and private occupations lay for the most part beyond his control. The emperors possessed, it is true, an immense and unchecked power, which allowed them to gratify all their whimsical tastes, and to employ for that purpose the whole strength of the State. They frequently abused that power arbitrarily to deprive their subjects of property or of life: their tyranny was extremely onerous to the few, but it did not reach the greater number; it was fixed to some few main objects, and neglected the rest; it was violent, but its range was limited.
But it would seem that if despotism were to be established amongst the democratic nations of our days, it might assume a different character; it would be more extensive and more mild; it would degrade men without tormenting them. I do not question, that in an age of instruction and equality like our own, sovereigns might more easily succeed in collecting all political power into their own hands, and might interfere more habitually and decidedly within the circle of private interests, than any sovereign of antiquity could ever do. But this same principle of equality which facilitates despotism, tempers its rigor. We have seen how the manners of society become more humane and gentle in proportion as men become more equal and alike. When no member of the community has much power or much wealth, tyranny is, as it were, without opportunities and a field of action. As all fortunes are scanty, the passions of men are naturally circumscribed—their imagination limited, their pleasures simple. This universal moderation moderates the sovereign himself, and checks within certain limits the inordinate extent of his desires.
...When I consider the petty passions of our contemporaries, the mildness of their manners, the extent of their education, the purity of their religion, the gentleness of their morality, their regular and industrious habits, and the restraint which they almost all observe in their vices no less than in their virtues, I have no fear that they will meet with tyrants in their rulers, but rather guardians. I think then that the species of oppression by which democratic nations are menaced is unlike anything which ever before existed in the world: our contemporaries will find no prototype of it in their memories. I am trying myself to choose an expression which will accurately convey the whole of the idea I have formed of it, but in vain; the old words "despotism" and "tyranny" are inappropriate: the thing itself is new; and since I cannot name it, I must attempt to define it.
I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest—his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind; as for the rest of his fellow-citizens, he is close to them, but he sees them not—he touches them, but he feels them not; he exists but in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country. Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications, and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks on the contrary to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness: it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances—what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living? Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range, and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things: it has predisposed men to endure them, and oftentimes to look on them as benefits.
After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp, and fashioned them at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a net-work of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided: men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting: such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd. I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described, might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom; and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people. Our contemporaries are constantly excited by two conflicting passions; they want to be led, and they wish to remain free: as they cannot destroy either one or the other of these contrary propensities, they strive to satisfy them both at once. They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people. They combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; this gives them a respite; they console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be put in leading-strings, because he sees that it is not a person or a class of persons, but the people at large that holds the end of his chain. By this system the people shake off their state of dependence just long enough to select their master, and then relapse into it again. A great many persons at the present day are quite contented with this sort of compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people; and they think they have done enough for the protection of individual freedom when they have surrendered it to the power of the nation at large.
I do not however deny that a constitution of this kind appears to me to be infinitely preferable to one, which, after having concentrated all the powers of government, should vest them in the hands of an irresponsible person or body of persons. Of all the forms which democratic despotism could assume, the latter would assuredly be the worst. When the sovereign is elective, or narrowly watched by a legislature which is really elective and independent, the oppression which he exercises over individuals is sometimes greater, but it is always less degrading; because every man, when he is oppressed and disarmed, may still imagine, that whilst he yields obedience it is to himself he yields it, and that it is to one of his own inclinations that all the rest give way. In like manner I can understand that when the sovereign represents the nation, and is dependent upon the people, the rights and the power of which every citizen is deprived, not only serve the head of the State, but the State itself; and that private persons derive some return from the sacrifice of their independence which they have made to the public. To create a representation of the people in every centralized country, is therefore, to diminish the evil which extreme centralization may produce, but not to get rid of it.
...Subjection in minor affairs breaks out every day, and is felt by the whole community indiscriminately. It does not drive men to resistance, but it crosses them at every turn, till they are led to surrender the exercise of their will. Thus their spirit is gradually broken and their character enervated; whereas that obedience, which is exacted on a few important but rare occasions, only exhibits servitude at certain intervals, and throws the burden of it upon a small number of men. It is in vain to summon a people, which has been rendered so dependent on the central power, to choose from time to time the representatives of that power; this rare and brief exercise of their free choice, however important it may be, will not prevent them from gradually losing the faculties of thinking, feeling, and acting for themselves, and thus gradually falling below the level of humanity...
I recall in my early years I had always assumed that the Second German Empire was a state of an old-fashioned, authoritarian mould. When I at some point ventured to read the constitution of the Second Empire, I was struck by how similar that constitution was to the American constitution. The German Emperor, apart from his hereditary assignment, held offices and duties not vastly different from a President of the United States. I can still imagine a use for constitutional monarchs, who may serve as an important institutional check on the dangers of popular sovereignty which I referred to, and defuse the risks of popular dictatorships. Perhaps especially today, when the prevalent dangers to civilization are no longer posed by monarchs, but by populist radicalism.
|
On June 29 2009 06:25 MoltkeWarding wrote:
I'll try to sum up Boblion's main points:
1) I don't understand Boblion's attitudes toward the class system of (?) in all of French history prior to 1XXX (?)
I might make some assumptions based on your ideological background, but since you have made no attempts to argue for, or even state what your position is, how am I supposed to understand anything?
My position is:
- There should be no State religion. ( =/= monarchy in France )
- Freedom of expression ( religion, political opinions, etc ... ) must be protected by the laws. ( =/= of monarchy in France ^2 )
- No discriminations between genders, "races", etc ... adult citizens must have the same rights. ( =/= of monarchy in France ^3 )
- I'm against death penalty
So i'm convinced that the political system of the Fifth Republique is better than the ancien régime because those principles are written in the Constitution.
I also think that the average Frenchmen is more educated, wealthier and healthier than his ancestors not only because of the progress of science and technique but also because the Fifth Republique provide an almost free education and healthcare to its citizens. Monarchy didn't.
On June 29 2009 06:25 MoltkeWarding wrote:
2) Kings could not be religiously tolerant.
On the contrary, Charles I, James II, most enlightened despots were relatively tolerant religiously. The English Republic, parliament during the era of the glorious revolution, the Jacobin republic, the Soviet Union were religiously intolerant. The one possible case you might make would be the relative intolerance of Charles V in the protestant Netherlands, as compared to the tolerant Dutch republic, but in the Netherlands the Duke of Alba clearly overstepped his legal boundaries, and revolt was by the law of the realm a legitimate one.
The kings could be religiously tolerant if they wanted
In an absolute catholic monarchy there were no laws protecting people if the king didn't want to be tolerant ( Like Louis XIV or François 1er ).
This difference between laws and guaranted rights and "la bonne volonté" of the king is HUGE.
On June 29 2009 06:25 MoltkeWarding wrote:
3) Kings had a general ability to act with arbitrary despotism, such as imprisoning or even executing individuals
As I already indicated this was the worst a King could have done. Whether a King could have enacted something akin to the Jacobin reign of terror by the 18th century is doubtful. However discriminatory royal justice could have theoretically been (true for all forms of justice,) its reach was limited. Justice in France did not become centralized until 1804. Justice in the feudalized and even early-modern state was so decentralized and fragmented, that Royal courts rarely pontificated directly in the day to day handling of justice throughout the Kingdom. Justice was for the most part executed by baronal, clerical, or municipal courts, so the majority of carriages or miscarriages of justice in the Kingdom had nothing to do with the King.
The particularity of justice in the middle and early-modern ages was not its arbitrary nature (there were diverse legal procedures in place very early on, handed down from various Roman and Germanic customs,) but its decentralization and overlapping jurisdictions of the various courts. The system may have been confusing, and occasionally with superstitious procedures thrown in, but it could hardly be compared to Stalinist justice.
-I have never said that the king ordered the execution of peasants for fun. However if he wanted he could have technically done so and i'm sure that you can find examples through history. Furthermore i talked about the repression of the jacqueries in France. Lot of people died, were tortured or imprisoned during those contestations because they challenged the authority of the king.
-Maybe you are blind ( i have already said it before ) but i do not consider the Terreur or even the Napoleon era as a success. More people died because of Robespierre and Bonaparte than because of Louis XVI.
The Empire and the Terreur were what you can call "experiences" who relied on the charisma of a leader obsessed by the conquest of the whole Europe and who wanted to be even more prestigious than the kings ( he even created his own "noblesse d'Empire" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobility_of_the_First_French_Empire) or an highly violent and chaotic nationalist republic ( the first republic whith its own flaws and problems )
However if you look at the big picture you will find here the foundations of the next and more successful republiques ( La Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen de 1789, le Code civil de l'Empire, etc ... )
On June 29 2009 06:25 MoltkeWarding wrote:
4) A democratic society naturally tends toward several virtues, including freedom of expression, equality, and elections.
Any argument on a subject this general is destined to be incomplete, and produce unforeseeable tangents
This is a complex subject, because it deals with the nature of democracy itself. Complex because what democracy is is difficult to define (contrary to election slogans, the people never really "speak" in modern democracies, much less "govern.") Complex because any incarnation of any political system cannot but bear unique cultural features. Also complex because we live in a democratic age, where the entire fabric of political thought has been unrecognizably altered by yawning normative assumptions.
ALthough i doubt that a true and perfect democracy ( where each citizen would have to vote for each decisions of the State ) can be achieved, a regime where people have the same fundamental rights, freedom of expression and can vote for their president, mayors etc ... is a democracy ( maybe not perfect but it is clearly different of a monarchy )
On June 29 2009 06:25 MoltkeWarding wrote:
As some people may know, Tocqueville's Democracy in America, volume 2 even more than 1, is a kind of bible for me. At the risk of appearing fawningly dependent, I will attempt to summarize some ambiguities which it imparted to me.
That democracy is the epoch where the masses of men tend toward increasing equality is a given. That equality is not necessarily compatible with liberty was known by our aristocratic ancestors better than by our generation (Tocqueville predicted that if forced to choose, men of the democratic age would choose equality over liberty.) That ages of equality produced novel kinds of dangers to civilization and to individuals was also better understood by them than by us. Tocqueville, who saw the future more clearly than most aristocratic conservatives of his time, differed from their critiques of democracy in several ways:
The majority of anti-democratic conservatives of his generation saw in the age of equality a tendency toward intellectual and social anarchy; they saw a mass of men, each with self-important opinions and ideas, grappling in contest with a sea of other individuals. In these circumstances all social institutions must break down before the uncontrollable chaos of individual diversities.
Right.
On June 29 2009 06:25 MoltkeWarding wrote:Tocqueville saw differently, that the danger which confronted democratic minds was not anarchy, but conformity. He saw like his peers the inflated appetites of every individual in a democratic age for intellectual distinction, but he also saw other things: he foresaw the impatience of the mobile, democratic man, who would be more prone to intellectual shortcuts than his aristocratic ancestor. He saw the fondness of democratic mind for vast generalizations. He saw that the coming weakness of the individual in the age of mass sovereignty would prod the individual toward forms of collective thought. He foresaw the democratic propensity to deny free will, and to move toward certain mechanical forms of thought and living. He saw the possibility of a new kind of tyranny emerging upon the shoulders of mass sentiment, degrading the individual without tormenting him. He would have recognized Kierkegaard's lamentations on the democratic mutations of speech and thought: Show nested quote +The people demand freedom of speech as a substitute for freedom of thought which they rarely exercise. Yet for all this, Tocqueville cannot be called an anti-democrat, and contrary to Boblion's indictment, neither can I.
Moltke how can can you dare to say that you agree with Tocqueville when he says that democracy might deny free will ( an interesting idea but i still fail to understand how in the Fifth Republique, the liberty is denied so i doubt that this point is really accurate when we are talking about France nowadays ) whereas you are at the same time defending absolute monarchies.
That's hypocritical.
On June 29 2009 06:25 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Nonetheless, it must be recognized that for all our intellectual "freedom," the democratic, uncensored world has yet to produce a Shakespeare or Dante, or even a Voltaire or Johnson. For "freedom," our minds are in some ways more confined, our horizons more myopic, our capacities for concentration weaker, than the educated men of aristocratic times. That our generation has a weaker ability to deliver those rare but awesome geniuses of the aristocratic or semi-aristocratic ages is obvious.
That's highly subjective Moltke. It is a weak argument tbh. There were several important artists or thinkers during the 19th and 20th century. That's not because you enjoy Mozart and Shakespeare and because they have been influential in culture that the Beattles and Hemingway ( random examples ) are complete dipshits.
What you fail to understand is that culture evolves and that there is no point in writing ala Shakespear nowadays except if you wanted to be a pathetic "pasticheur".
Do you think that Shakespear tried to write like his ancestors of the Middle Ages ? No he let his creativity soar.
Btw all the great thinkers and artists you are whorshipping were often also highly controversials. I have already said that some thinkers could be banned or imprisoned if the kings disliked their ideas but they were also controversial among thinkers and artists.
For example in France: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarrel_of_the_Ancients_and_the_Moderns
I think it is funny you are claiming your love for artists of the 18th century whereas during the 17th century ( and even the 18th ) several "Moltke" were blaming them for being blunt or on the contrary subversives.
Moreover i think that the average human is nowadays more educated ( at least in Western countries ) maybe you would have enjoyed to be a cultivated aristocrate during the 18th century but if you were born during this era you would have probably been an illeterate peasant (around 70+ % of the population i guess ).
On the other hand those thinkers are not only still influential nowadays but there are also way more easier to study. People have been writing thousands of thesis on their works.
I highly doubt that many people could have made this comment about Tocqueville idea ( about democracy vs free will ) when he wrote his book. He wasn't even studied eh. And to be honest you are not the first to make this remark ( this have been studied over and over by Sci-Po students )
On June 29 2009 06:25 MoltkeWarding wrote:
On the matter of elections, there is not much to be preferred of an elective monarchy over a hereditary one. The degeneration of modern elections from popularity contests to publicity contests, with the simultaneous elevation of executive powers and the breakdown of traditional constitutional mechanisms of checks and balances is the consequence of accidental democratic and populist pressures, rather than of sober design.
Minding the world in which I live, I would have no complaints against a traditional kind of constitutional monarchy, with powers balanced among the monarchial, aristocratic, and democratic elements of society. It is alas, too late for that.
Hmmm i somewhat agree that the mandates should be slightly longer. I think that even if the quinquennat here provide more fun with more frequent presidential campaigns and debates, the septennat was probably more efficient because the first year of the quinquennat is basicly making a government, starting "the road map" of reforms and the last year is an extension of the presidential campaign ( with a lot of demagogy because the president will do anything to be reelected ). Hence there are only three effective years of governance during a quinquennat. That's short and not effective.
But an elected monarchy hell no.
On June 29 2009 06:25 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Having said that, I do not oppose or even resist the prevailing democratic age. I was born into it, and it is integral to who I am. At the same time, I must be honest in evaluating the past, and cannot join in the parade of discrediting our ancestors by simplistic cliches and knowing remonstrations. Alongside our gains, I must at least try to remember our losses. I cannot view monarchies, particularly in the proper historical context, as something detrimental to progress. At the risk of making a vast generalization, the institution of monarchy was at least, a historical necessity, and at its best, a fundamental pillar of western civilization.
Yea you are probably right, 1000 years of monarchy are definitly important ( at least in France ) but the 1st Republique and the Empire too. Also i would like to repeat again that i have never said that Louis XVI was a cruel man or anything i even admited that his trial for high treason wasn't fair ( for today standarts ) and that i'm against death penalty.
However i'm still convinced that the situation in 1792 in France is really different than in Iran today. The "révolutionnaires" were really scared that the king could use his connexions with Austria and others European monarchies to regain all his powers. The agressive and paranoid stance of the 1st Republic can be explained because the "révolutionnaires" wanted to export their ideology with wars ( which is bad you are right ) but also because they were surrounded by hostiles monarchies ( The others European kings were scared an angry because of Louis XVI fate).
This is completly different with the current situation in Iran. It actually shares more similarities with the 1979 Revolution.
|
Moltke how can can you dare to say that you agree ...whereas you are at the same time defending absolute monarchies.
I would defend Stalin if you accused him of being a cannibal. Similarly, I would defend Louis XVI if you accused him of being a traitor to... (to whom?)
- There should be no State religion. ( =/= monarchy in France )
- Freedom of expression ( religion, political opinions, etc ... ) must be protected by the laws. ( =/= of monarchy in France ^2 )
- No discriminations between genders, "races", etc ... adult citizens must have the same rights. ( =/= of monarchy in France ^3 )
- I'm against death penalty
Again, you are confusing liberalism with monarchism, of which I repeat: there is no inherent contradiction. Your simplistic interpretations of which institutions are inherent to monarchies are blatantly unhistorical and do not even attempt to admit the ambiguities which is true of all historical life. Equality in the radical sense may be incompatible with monarchy, but isonomy isn't.
Here is some basic reading material for you so that you don't make this confusion again:
http://www.mises.org/books/liberty.pdf
I have never said that the king ordered the execution of peasants for fun. However if he wanted he could have technically done so and i'm sure that you can find examples through history. Furthermore i talked about the repression of the jacqueries in France. Lot of people died, were tortured or imprisoned during those contestations because they challenged the authority of the king. -Maybe you are blind ( i have already said it before ) but i do not consider the Terreur or even the Napoleon era as a success. More people died because of Robespierre and Bonaparte than because of Louis XIV. The Empire and the Terreur were what you can call "experiences" who relied on the charisma of a leader obsessed the conquest of the whole Europe and who wanted to be even more prestigious than the kings ( he even created his own "noblesse d'Empire" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobility_of_the_First_French_Empire) or an highly violent and chaotic nationalist republic ( the first republic whith its own flaws and problems ) However if you look at the big picture you will here the foundations of the next more successful republiques ( La Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen de 1789, le Code civil de l'Empire, etc ... )
Again, you are nitpicking from both fields: on one hand ignoring the tendency of republicanism to popular or even unpopular dictatorships (nor was the 3rd republic entirely free from tendencies) and then nitpicking atrocities of the middle ages, which were not particular to monarchies. I doubt you would absorb anything I could tell you about medieval social ethics. If you wish to bring up any particular "Jacquerie" incident beyond what we already addressed, you are welcome to do so. Else you are merely making indictments left and right without even attempting to look at the case (much like how an arbitrary monarch, according to you, might have behaved)
Do you think that Shakespear tried to write like his ancestors of the Middle Ages ? No he let his creativity soar.
Shakespeare did not distain history. Like most educated renaissance poets, Shakespeare was versed in the classics and many of his plots were based on medieval literature. Similarly, I must insist that Hemingway ranks nowhere near the same stature as Shakespeare, and I doubt he will outlive this century. Longevity and repute are the only objective arguments one may use when defending literature. As for subjective arguments, let me know if Hemingway ever glues your eye to a single passage for minutes, repeatedly wondering at its sublime statement, as appears on any Shakespeare page.
I think it is funny you are claiming your love for artists of the 18th century whereas during the 17th century ( and even the 18th ) several "Moltke" were blaming them for being blunt or on the contrary subversives.
Shakespeare and Johnson do not fall into this category. Dante was exiled, but not for his art. Voltaire similarly was temporarily exiled, but again, Voltaire was a tactless wag who made too many enemies whereever he went.
The kings could be religiously tolerant if they wanted
In an absolute catholic monarchy there were no laws protecting people if the king didn't want to be tolerant ( Like Louis XIV or François 1er ).
And republics do not inherently protect religious minorities either. Again: you are confounding religious radicalism with monarchism. Let me repeat everything I have already stated:
1) Religious radicalism was grassroot and populist first and foremost during the 2 centuries following the reformation
2) The only examples of Republics during the aforementioned period were the Dutch Republic, a state which inherited liberal traditions from pre-Republican culture, and the English Republic, arguably the most intolerant regime of all.
3) If we move away from the aforementioned period, religious fundamentalism tends to ebb. Maria Theresa, Queen Victoria, for all their personal religiosity, were not oppressive. The emancipation of Catholics in England, of Jews in most Western European states, occurred under monarchies.
Religious fundamentalism was a feature of a certain epoch, not of a certain political system.
But an elected monarchy hell no.
Please re-read
Moreover i think that the average human is nowadays more educated ( at least in Western countries ) maybe you would have enjoyed to be a cultivated aristocrate during the 18th century but if you were born during this era you would have probably been an illeterate peasant (around 70+ % of the population i guess ).
There is of course something to be said for the middle-classed structure of contemporary society, a product both of political and technological revolutions. However, there is something lost by the mobile, inflationary and rootless features of the democratic mind as well. One very dangerous loss is the loss of the aristocratic concern for perpetuity through inheritance. The mobility of our circumstances makes us more aware of the mutability of time, and less aware of its continuity.
The aristocrat concerned himself not only with honouring his ancestors, but securing the prosperity of generations to come, two features nearly lost in the democratic age, displaced with a culture of instant self-gratification.
Concerning education, there is the obvious problem of inflationary mass education whose comical latent effect today is the decline in public standards of literarcy and speech in advanced democratic societies. Isn't it ironic, that in an age where 99% of the public is literate, that standards of mass literacy should be so low?
This is completly different with the current situation in Iran. It actually shares more similarities with the 1979 Revolution.
I don't understand how after all this time you still fail to comprehend the nature of the original allusion.
P.S. I'm going to ignore your laudation of "La Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen de 1789," I am simply going to cite Burke:
This sort of people are so taken up with their theories about the rights of man that they have totally forgotten his nature.
|
|
|
OK, I won't hold back from criticizing your tone this time, since it's hard to misread it now. Your posts are arrogant and condescending and frankly not nearly as brilliant as you seem to think they are. Ok  . Your criticism can be levied right back at your own writing, with the added weight that you were the one who found my forum writing style constituted such an offence as to merit a post. Seems quite a bit haughty. By the tone, topic and specific content, your writing comes off as both arrogant and condescending as well.
Perhaps if you stopped trying to make TL.net a hub to dock your e-penis into, you wouldn't have come off as such a hypocrite.
As for the rest; I don't really need to elaborate. You're an admitted lazy reader and took offence to the relative 'fancy' level of the word untrammeled. 1+1 on that one.
PS. I took a single sentence to say what the use of untrammeled meant. The rest of the space was describing why I did not pick other options; TL DR version: depth and clarity.
|
On June 29 2009 12:37 travis wrote:
woa I recall a certain benevolent poster of TeamLiquid who once held the same interjection, and who was eventually trolled along with his friends and family for them.
|
Am I the only one who has been skimming this blog looking for gold because it's too long and involves moltke?
|
This is why I like the sciences.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On June 29 2009 08:50 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +Moltke is making the point that even ancient monarchs did not have as much power as modern heads of state--but surely this is not because they were monarchs but despite that fact. Perhaps. This is not a central argument, but I would like to use one illustrative example to defend my point: during the English Republic, parliament levied four times the taxation which they found intolerable under Charles I. My original intention was not necessarily juxaposing the despotic power of old monarchs with modern presidents, but with modern mass sovereignty. This is again something I have absorbed from Tocqueville: In a chapter of his Volume II of Democracy in America, Tocqueville authored a chapter titled: What Sort Of Despotism Democratic Nations Have To Fear. To spare my own exertions, I will quote large portions of this chapter (I assume that you are are not too fatigued to read it): Show nested quote +I had remarked during my stay in the United States, that a democratic state of society, similar to that of the Americans, might offer singular facilities for the establishment of despotism; and I perceived, upon my return to Europe, how much use had already been made by most of our rulers, of the notions, the sentiments, and the wants engendered by this same social condition, for the purpose of extending the circle of their power. This led me to think that the nations of Christendom would perhaps eventually undergo some sort of oppression like that which hung over several of the nations of the ancient world...
...No sovereign ever lived in former ages so absolute or so powerful as to undertake to administer by his own agency, and without the assistance of intermediate powers, all the parts of a great empire: none ever attempted to subject all his subjects indiscriminately to strict uniformity of regulation, and personally to tutor and direct every member of the community. The notion of such an undertaking never occurred to the human mind; and if any man had conceived it, the want of information, the imperfection of the administrative system, and above all, the natural obstacles caused by the inequality of conditions, would speedily have checked the execution of so vast a design. When the Roman emperors were at the height of their power, the different nations of the empire still preserved manners and customs of great diversity; although they were subject to the same monarch, most of the provinces were separately administered; they abounded in powerful and active municipalities; and although the whole government of the empire was centred in the hands of the emperor alone, and he always remained, upon occasions, the supreme arbiter in all matters, yet the details of social life and private occupations lay for the most part beyond his control. The emperors possessed, it is true, an immense and unchecked power, which allowed them to gratify all their whimsical tastes, and to employ for that purpose the whole strength of the State. They frequently abused that power arbitrarily to deprive their subjects of property or of life: their tyranny was extremely onerous to the few, but it did not reach the greater number; it was fixed to some few main objects, and neglected the rest; it was violent, but its range was limited.
But it would seem that if despotism were to be established amongst the democratic nations of our days, it might assume a different character; it would be more extensive and more mild; it would degrade men without tormenting them. I do not question, that in an age of instruction and equality like our own, sovereigns might more easily succeed in collecting all political power into their own hands, and might interfere more habitually and decidedly within the circle of private interests, than any sovereign of antiquity could ever do. But this same principle of equality which facilitates despotism, tempers its rigor. We have seen how the manners of society become more humane and gentle in proportion as men become more equal and alike. When no member of the community has much power or much wealth, tyranny is, as it were, without opportunities and a field of action. As all fortunes are scanty, the passions of men are naturally circumscribed—their imagination limited, their pleasures simple. This universal moderation moderates the sovereign himself, and checks within certain limits the inordinate extent of his desires.
...When I consider the petty passions of our contemporaries, the mildness of their manners, the extent of their education, the purity of their religion, the gentleness of their morality, their regular and industrious habits, and the restraint which they almost all observe in their vices no less than in their virtues, I have no fear that they will meet with tyrants in their rulers, but rather guardians. I think then that the species of oppression by which democratic nations are menaced is unlike anything which ever before existed in the world: our contemporaries will find no prototype of it in their memories. I am trying myself to choose an expression which will accurately convey the whole of the idea I have formed of it, but in vain; the old words "despotism" and "tyranny" are inappropriate: the thing itself is new; and since I cannot name it, I must attempt to define it.
I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest—his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind; as for the rest of his fellow-citizens, he is close to them, but he sees them not—he touches them, but he feels them not; he exists but in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country. Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications, and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks on the contrary to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness: it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances—what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living? Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range, and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things: it has predisposed men to endure them, and oftentimes to look on them as benefits.
After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp, and fashioned them at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a net-work of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided: men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting: such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd. I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described, might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom; and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people. Our contemporaries are constantly excited by two conflicting passions; they want to be led, and they wish to remain free: as they cannot destroy either one or the other of these contrary propensities, they strive to satisfy them both at once. They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people. They combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; this gives them a respite; they console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be put in leading-strings, because he sees that it is not a person or a class of persons, but the people at large that holds the end of his chain. By this system the people shake off their state of dependence just long enough to select their master, and then relapse into it again. A great many persons at the present day are quite contented with this sort of compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people; and they think they have done enough for the protection of individual freedom when they have surrendered it to the power of the nation at large.
I do not however deny that a constitution of this kind appears to me to be infinitely preferable to one, which, after having concentrated all the powers of government, should vest them in the hands of an irresponsible person or body of persons. Of all the forms which democratic despotism could assume, the latter would assuredly be the worst. When the sovereign is elective, or narrowly watched by a legislature which is really elective and independent, the oppression which he exercises over individuals is sometimes greater, but it is always less degrading; because every man, when he is oppressed and disarmed, may still imagine, that whilst he yields obedience it is to himself he yields it, and that it is to one of his own inclinations that all the rest give way. In like manner I can understand that when the sovereign represents the nation, and is dependent upon the people, the rights and the power of which every citizen is deprived, not only serve the head of the State, but the State itself; and that private persons derive some return from the sacrifice of their independence which they have made to the public. To create a representation of the people in every centralized country, is therefore, to diminish the evil which extreme centralization may produce, but not to get rid of it.
...Subjection in minor affairs breaks out every day, and is felt by the whole community indiscriminately. It does not drive men to resistance, but it crosses them at every turn, till they are led to surrender the exercise of their will. Thus their spirit is gradually broken and their character enervated; whereas that obedience, which is exacted on a few important but rare occasions, only exhibits servitude at certain intervals, and throws the burden of it upon a small number of men. It is in vain to summon a people, which has been rendered so dependent on the central power, to choose from time to time the representatives of that power; this rare and brief exercise of their free choice, however important it may be, will not prevent them from gradually losing the faculties of thinking, feeling, and acting for themselves, and thus gradually falling below the level of humanity...
Wurd,
awesome quote
|
Moltke's posts are awesome.. I really admire his knowledge.
|
On June 29 2009 10:26 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +Moltke how can can you dare to say that you agree ...whereas you are at the same time defending absolute monarchies. I would defend Stalin if you accused him of being a cannibal. Similarly, I would defend Louis XVI if you accused him of being a traitor to... (to whom?)
Well if he left to Austria do you think he would have stayed here forever ?
I guess he would have just started a coalition with the others European kings to regain his full power.
On June 29 2009 10:26 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Again, you are confusing liberalism with monarchism, of which I repeat: there is no inherent contradiction. Your simplistic interpretations of which institutions are inherent to monarchies are blatantly unhistorical and do not even attempt to admit the ambiguities which is true of all historical life. Equality in the radical sense may be incompatible with monarchy, but isonomy isn't.
Maybe in Moltkeland there are monarchies with freedom of expression and guaranted rights but please don't say THIS:
are blatantly unhistorical
Because you are wrong. Take a look at the 1000 years of monarchy in France for fuck sake. No freedom of expression, no equality of genders, no election of the head of State ( Eh king ), no guaranted rights etc ...
YOU are unhistorical here.
I think you have already given me this link in another thread and i will try to take a look if i have some time this week. However Moltke i think that i can find many great links about "the glorious achievements" of democracy too.
On June 29 2009 10:26 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Again, you are nitpicking from both fields: on one hand ignoring the tendency of republicanism to popular or even unpopular dictatorships (nor was the 3rd republic entirely free from tendencies) and then nitpicking atrocities of the middle ages, which were not particular to monarchies. I doubt you would absorb anything I could tell you about medieval social ethics. If you wish to bring up any particular "Jacquerie" incident beyond what we already addressed, you are welcome to do so. Else you are merely making indictments left and right without even attempting to look at the case (much like how an arbitrary monarch, according to you, might have behaved)
Moltke you are trolling here. Most of the Jacqueries started because the king or nobles started to raise some taxes ( to make wars, building some castles etc ...) whereas most of the peasants were already really poors.
A short list from wiki/
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquerie
Maybe we should also talk about torture ( which was popular during the 1000 years of monarchy in France ) too ?
Also i'm not "on one hand ignoring the tendency of republicanism to popular or even unpopular dictatorships" want me to quote again when i said that i disliked the Terreur and the Empire and my several flame posts about China in others threads ?
Once again you are making attacks and lies using your prose ( because you think people won't pay attention with all your big words ).
On June 29 2009 10:26 MoltkeWarding wrote:
"nor was the 3rd republic entirely free from tendencies"
I might agree this wasn't the perfect political system but it is still >>>>>>>>>>> than any king during the 1000 years of monarchy here.
On June 29 2009 10:26 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +Do you think that Shakespear tried to write like his ancestors of the Middle Ages ? No he let his creativity soar. Shakespeare did not distain history. Like most educated renaissance poets, Shakespeare was versed in the classics and many of his plots were based on medieval literature.
But did he write like them, using the same words ? No he wasn't a pasticheur and that's why he is a great artist.
I also highly doubt that Hemingway or any semi decent modern writer "distain history" they just think that writing about the present times is something more important and genuine than using an outdated prose and writing fictions about the 16th century.
Why are you even posting here on a video game forum ? This kind of leisure would have been something disliked by many and the "background" of broodwar universe "ranks nowhere near the same stature as Hemingway" ( to quote your words ).
On June 29 2009 10:26 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Similarly, I must insist that Hemingway ranks nowhere near the same stature as Shakespeare, and I doubt he will outlive this century. Longevity and repute are the only objective arguments one may use when defending literature. As for subjective arguments, let me know if Hemingway ever glues your eye to a single passage for minutes, repeatedly wondering at its sublime statement, as appears on any Shakespeare page.
I'm not a fan of either Hemingway and Shakespeare and to be honest i have a limited knowledge about both.
On June 29 2009 10:26 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Shakespeare and Johnson do not fall into this category. Dante was exiled, but not for his art. Voltaire similarly was temporarily exiled, but again, Voltaire was a tactless wag who made too many enemies whereever he went.
There were still Moltkes who thought that any kind of drama should be about Antiquity.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Querelle_des_Anciens_et_des_Modernes ( French version )
On June 29 2009 10:26 MoltkeWarding wrote:
And republics do not inherently protect religious minorities either.
They have to according to "the declaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen." ( at least here ).
On June 29 2009 10:26 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Again: you are confounding religious radicalism with monarchism.
Here they were linked. State religion was the source of legitimacy of the king. It is 1000 years of history vs "Moltke idealized monarchy".
On June 29 2009 10:26 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Let me repeat everything I have already stated:
1) Religious radicalism was grassroot and populist first and foremost during the 2 centuries following the reformation
1- Maybe but the kings were almost always on the catholic side.
2- The source of intolerance was ... the State religion and the lack of education of people. Again two majors problems of the 1000 years of monarchy in France that the Third Republic settled with the free education and the laïcité.
On June 29 2009 10:26 MoltkeWarding wrote:
2) The only examples of Republics during the aforementioned period were the Dutch Republic, a state which inherited liberal traditions from pre-Republican culture, and the English Republic, arguably the most intolerant regime of all.
Once again you miss the big picture. The first experimental Republics were not perfect. However it is where you can find the foundations of our current systems.
On June 29 2009 10:26 MoltkeWarding wrote:
3) If we move away from the aforementioned period, religious fundamentalism tends to ebb. Maria Theresa, Queen Victoria, for all their personal religiosity, were not oppressive. The emancipation of Catholics in England, of Jews in most Western European states, occurred under monarchies.
But the powers of the kings have declined and nowadays the monarchy in England is a symbol without any real political powers.
On June 29 2009 10:26 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Religious fundamentalism was a feature of a certain epoch,
Right
On June 29 2009 10:26 MoltkeWarding wrote:
not of a certain political system.
1000 years of monarchy, 1000 years of State religion, 1000 years of uneducated masses. That's a weird correlation indeed.
On June 29 2009 10:26 MoltkeWarding wrote:Please re-read
Moltke i'm not retarded. Although i think you have some disgusting, dangerous and old fashioned ideas, i know that your idealized "monarchy" with an elected king is different of the absolute monarchy.
However there are reasons why the Restauration and the Monarchie de Juillet failed here. Kings are human beings hence "faillible" and reluctant to lose their powers. So when the population disagree with the king what will happen ?
Either a revolution or a slaughter. I doubt that all the kings are smart enough to understand the desires of all their "sujets". That's why there are presidential elections. People can vote for another leader if they disapprove their current president.
So i might agree with longer mandates for the reasons we mentioned before but life mandates no. Never.
On June 29 2009 10:26 MoltkeWarding wrote:
There is of course something to be said for the middle-classed structure of contemporary society, a product both of political and technological revolutions. However, there is something lost by the mobile, inflationary and rootless features of the democratic mind as well. One very dangerous loss is the loss of the aristocratic concern for perpetuity through inheritance. The mobility of our circumstances makes us more aware of the mutability of time, and less aware of its continuity.
The aristocrat concerned himself not only with honouring his ancestors, but securing the prosperity of generations to come, two features nearly lost in the democratic age, displaced with a culture of instant self-gratification.
For one aristocrat there were nine peasants without guaranted rights. But you are right the aristocrat were highly concerned by securing their "privilèges". Life is easier when others people are working for you.
On June 29 2009 10:26 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Concerning education, there is the obvious problem of inflationary mass education whose comical latent effect today is the decline in public standards of literarcy and speech in advanced democratic societies. Isn't it ironic, that in an age where 99% of the public is literate, that standards of mass literacy should be so low?
You are so biaised Moltke. For one Shakespeare there were million of illiterates.
On June 29 2009 10:26 MoltkeWarding wrote:
I don't understand how after all this time you still fail to comprehend the nature of the original allusion.
P.S. I'm going to ignore your laudation of "La Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen de 1789," I am simply going to cite Burke:
This sort of people are so taken up with their theories about the rights of man that they have totally forgotten his nature.
Haha good old Burke. An highly controversial and pompous conservative. A Moltke of the 18th century. Some of his predictions about the rise of Napoleon might have been true, however i highly doubt that his analysis are still interesting and accurate after 1815 ( For France ). The history of the five Republics here can't be summarized to the Empire and the Terreur.
But maybe you want to talk about communism, USSR and your dear China ? :D
|
This blog hurts my pretty eyes.
|
Well if he left to Austria do you think he would have stayed here forever ?
I guess he would have just started a coalition with the others European kings to regain his full power.
1) I have yet to see you make a single argument insinuating that Louis XVI's reign was without the boundaries of law, nor even the assertion that his reign was particularly tyrannical.
2) I have yet to see you make a single logical argument on how the legal definition of treason can be applied to the King of France
3) I have yet to see you make a single logical argument legitimizing the authority of the National Convention which held itself competent to try a King.
Nor are you likely to provide such arguments. Ever. That is not to say that there are no philosophical arguments which can be made for any of those positions, but your position is neither historical, nor even philosophical. Your position is: any deposition of tyrannies (which you generalize as all monarchies) is inherently just, regardless of legal legitimacy, or even individual guilt. The fact that the First Republic quickly degenerated into a tyranny worse than any monarchial precedent does not dissuade you. The fact that the history of the transition itself showed how much the First Republic depended on the Ancien Regime's social institutions (see Tocqeville's L'Ancien Regime) does not persuade you that continuity is a natural necessity recognized even by revolutionary governments. The dictatorial aftermath of the First Republic was not some episodic freakshow which was antithetical to the overthrow of the Monarchy, but the inherent consequence of it, just as the English parliament by nature was transformed into a tyrannical institution by the deposition of the monarchy. By destroying that restraining power in whom national law was embodied, society is not liberated, but reduced to its natural elements. The systematic suppression and elimination of the monarchy and aristocracy, the hijacking of the Jacobin faction by radicals, the expulsion of Girondins from the Assembly, the dictatorial reign of terror unleashed by the committee of public safety, were not events antithetical, but natural to the elimination of traditional and natural spheres of authority and sources of law and order.
We have seen the historical tendency of the French monarchy as she entered the Democratic age to grow milder and less despotic by generation. We have seen the ultimate fulfillments of democratic mass sovereignty in the 20th century, how entire peoples became radicalized and seduced by charismatic figures. We have in the modern age witnessed the reducing waging of arbitrary power, and the ascending furor of mass fanaticism. During the 20th century, it eventually meant that a Horthy must make way for a Bardossy, a Carol for an Antonescu, a Victor Emmanuel for a Mussolini. The restraining influence of monarchs has sadly collapsed, in the age when they were needed most.
I asked you to make an argument and you link a wikipedia article which makes absolutely no case on your behalf. Your case is: peasant uprisings occured under various Kings. Therefore Kings are guilty. I can well imagine Stalinist judges wincing at your lack of concern for even the appearance of fairness.
This is quite irrelevant to Shakespeare and Hemingway; Shakespeare was no ancient, nor could he be substituted for an ancient; the structure of his dramas fall outside of classical classifications. My insistance on the superiority of Shakespeare is not on account of his conformity to a certain dramatical structure, or his preoccupation with intellectually fashionable themes. Shakespeare's superiority is aesthetic- in his poetry, in his characterizations, in the diversity of voices and minds his pen created. Whether one prefers Greek drama to Shakespearean drama is a matter of taste. As I said before, there is no objective defense of literature apart from its longevity. Shakespeare and Aeschylus continue to be relevant after centuries. Hemingway certainly won't be, if he ever was.
They have to according to "the declaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen."
Are you joking? The declaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen was essentially the establishment of Roman religious codes. It completely subverted the rights and independence of churches (churches were essentially confiscated by the state 2 years later) and was simply a statement of state supremacy. That is: destroying the traditional checks and influences of the Church in moderating secular power. The French Republic went on a sporadic rampage of dechristianization, and initiating its own short-lived state religious cult.
Here they were linked. State religion was the source of legitimacy of the king. It is 1000 years of history vs "Moltke idealized monarchy".
I have no idea what you are talking about, since you don't seem to have any idea of what happened during that 1000 years of history, when the balance of power between temporal and spiritual authorities was ever-shifting, and for the most part imposed important institutional checks on each other. The phenomenon of Caesaropapism rarely occured in Western Christianity. What you are describing here is 1000 years of Byzantine history, not Western history.
1- Maybe but the kings were almost always on the catholic side.
Henry VIII? Elizabeth I? Gustavus Adolphus? Christian IV of Denmark? Frederick III of Saxony? William of Orange? What are you talking about?
2- The source of intolerance was ... the State religion and the lack of education of people.
The among the most intolerant factions of the reformation were:
The Anabaptists, who waged war against the Bishop of Münster
The Scottish Presbyterians, who deposed Mary of Scotland
The Puritans who founded Plymouth Colony
The Puritans, who again, were the leadership of the English republic
How you manage to make vast sweeping interpretations about history without knowing any facts is astonishing.
Education is no antidote to intolerance.
Moltke i'm not retarded.
That was not my contention. My contention was that you did not properly read or understand my original post. I cannot help but begin to think that there is a linguistic problem in our communications. Whatever the case, my OP was not advocating an elective monarchy, but condemning them.
Once again you miss the big picture. The first experimental Republics were not perfect. However it is where you can find the foundations of our current systems.
I have no idea what is supposed to be meant by a perfect republic. Of course, neither the English nor French first republics were "firsts": both looked back in one way or another on the Great Roman Republic. The same institutional weaknesses of the Roman Republic which led to her decline and fall are of course, still present in modern repubics.
P.S. See my long citation from Tocqueville above, or better yet, read the entirety of his volume 2 of Democracy as originally written in your language. I am not interested in acting as defendant against monomaniacal prosecution. As far as defense goes, it is different in temperment and nature from advocacy. My intention here has never been to elevate to infallibility any particular doctrine or idea. It has always been the reduction of simplistic or one-sided views. If I cannot achieve this, I can at least draw some atavistic pride at having attempted to perform the duties of an English mind.
|
Boblion, Moltke is not trolling. He simply takes a position which is opposite to the historical generalizations most people learn. He defends this with clear facts, historic knowledge and an astounding ability to think outside the box. Stop thinking rigorously inside the box, and read what he is saying - because it makes sense, however strange his point might sound at first.
|
Boblion, you get 5 stars for putting up with our shit.
Thanks for being a swell guy.
|
|
|
On June 29 2009 01:17 Fontong wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2009 01:02 Wurzelbrumpft wrote:
well anybody who writes that way, can only be a dick Anybody who writes the way you do can only be a dick as well, unfortunately.
this, is sadly true...
erm, at least give some kind of bg on wat's going on? or previous threads? or something?
i am so lost right now...
|
Can't answer before the end of this week Molkte but i will have time to make a longer and a better answer hehe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i405.photobucket.com/albums/pp131/preeto_f10/drooling_homer-thumb.jpg)
