BRITISH ROYALS?
Out of context: Reply #13
- Started
- Last post
- 45 Responses
- zenmasterfoo0
I wonder if arguments to remove monarchies in general come from the ideology that removing those in higher income status, including royals would "equalize" the class structures of many nations, bringing people closer to each other and lessening hardship on the masses.
It never really works out that way, does it? I can see the argument for ruling classes having power because of money or influence (usually one and the same). But the more you discuss bringing those in power into account by eliminating them, you end up closer and closer to socialism/communism/marxism and all other isms of that ilk.
The end result for that saga is powerful elites controlling large swaths of the population and convincing them for short periods that the only realistic way to govern is by everyone being "equal". Reality/history shows that not to be the case.
I'm not making an argument for maintaining status quo. Just wondering out loud. Plenty of monarchies have been ruthless and lost dominance over their lands as a result of that detachment from the original ideologies. That seems like a natural selection rule for me. The strong became weak by empowering the weak with strong alternatives.
Although one of the richest women in the world, the British Queen has been a steadfast anchor for her peoples through many hard times. Good can be said of many royal families. Good can be said of Bill Gates and his wife Melinda, who through their foundation dole out countless millions in foreign aid where governments fail to act. If you act upon one, you have to - as a matter of hypocrisy - act upon all, correct?
Just wondering out loud.
- oooh really,
where you there? or are you reashing what the BBC told you?GeorgesII - not at all. just talking out loud man.zenmasterfoo
- oooh really,