On Good Government

How power ought be accumulated.
A desire for power can only make a bad leader because that leader is governed by their own wishes. A good leader needs to be able to respond to having power vested in them by others. Good government is therefore not about "electability"; it is about stopping people in office choosing themselves before others! Good governments allow for people to be chosen: either by election by the people or by traditional rules like bloodline. What is critical about both of these is that people find themselves in positions of responsibility by virtue of the world around them not by virtue of their aspirations. In fact Monarchy offers a better system than democratic election because a Monarch is monarch through absolutely no desire of their own. "Politicians" on the other hand can rise through the ranks and gain positions of power because they want that power. This means they will be the worst self-serving types.

Strong government is therefore needed to thwart the aspirations of self-serving individuals who would wish power for themselves.

On Republicanism (after Diamond Jubilee)

I find the faint whiff of republicanism, which has been bobbing around this weekend like a turd which won't flush, rather irksome. Have the republicans forgotten it was them that asked the Monarch back to sort out their own petty squabbles? and it is the commoners alone, lacking strong leadership who have engaged us in too many bloody wars and brought us to virtual bankruptcy for the first time. Democracy and republicanism does for politics what X-factor does for music. It is a serious job for which aristocrats are bred since the beginning of time and remain indispensible in a seriously functioning society.
Like ·  · June 5 at 10:02am via mobile ·

Alva Gosson No one has yet argued what is wrong with blood line succession? All the republicans ever say is it's not democratic... So? Democracy always morphs into oligarchy anyway because the masses aren't politicians, haven't a clue and are easily led. Even Mill son of libertarianism argued that those with education should get two votes for obvious reason. Only poor arguments by those who would be King... and I'm not being led by them (least of all the usurper Murdoch who's been hoisted now anyway ... Off to the tower it should be not expensive Levison enquiry!
June 5 at 10:10am via mobile · Like

Michael Sissons Have you been on the tablets? I kind of agree with your gist. I may have to lie down.
June 5 at 10:31am · Like

Jeremy Edwards It is the exclusion aspect that puts me at odds with this argument, Alva. I have been prevented from being one of the aristoi by the plonkers in the establishment. If they opened their door I might be more sympathetic. One should not be denied one's place in the world just because of one's birth if one has the capability. I wouldn't even think of beating the aristcracy if they were more inclusive and meritocratic. I'm sure some of them would like the opportunity to jack it in in turn, as Tony Benn did. The question was put to the congregation last Sunday by the preacher: would you want to do the job the queen does? The tone of voice indicated a no answer was expected and it was duly received with one exception - me. But instead of getting encouraginf looks from the congregation all I got were dirty looks, as tho' I was a newly uncovered heretic. Plebs, dogs was what I thought of them at that stage. I think that qualifies me to govern, eh? :p
June 5 at 10:38am · Like

Alva Gosson Problem tho is there are probably many people who would like to self-select themselves as Monarch and somehow one must be chosen under any objective system and the rest excluded. Your argument must be that exclusion by popular vote is better than blood line ... But why? Beauty of blood-line is it's simple and predictable; everyone knows where they stand and while we all lose absolute power we all lose equally... That is why the republicans brought in a Monarch. Mike sorry I stopped taking the pills for the w/e ;)
June 5 at 12:44pm via mobile · Like

Alva Gosson The other thing is Aristocracy is spoken about like it's a rude word. Aristocracy is a funfamental tier in all societies (Kshatria in Vedic/Aryan society like our own). If you guillotine one aristoi another will rise in its place like in the US ... Indellible part of human nature. Only when aristocratic principles like property and ownership have gone (which exclude people) will things change.
June 5 at 12:49pm via mobile · Like

Jeremy Edwards What if another, more powerful family were able to pull off a palace coup: would that be accepted or would the military lay siege to the palace with the aim of reinstating the overthrown one?
June 5 at 1:30pm · Like

Michael Sissons And what would be the point of that? In any event, it ain't gonna happen. Hardcore republicans have shown themselves to be humourless snobs and radically out of step with public opinion. They've patronised and belittled the flag waving populace. They don't trust or respect the overwhelming will of the people, so it's a mystery to me how they trust democracy.
June 5 at 1:44pm via mobile · Like

Jeremy Edwards Well, if the public like it that's it, then. The problem lies not so much with the monarch/s as with the flunkies that surround them. As you say, snobs with vested interests. But they don't get it all their own way, as with that boyo who blew his head off last week.
June 5 at 1:54pm · Like

Jeremy Edwards I'm not driven, like, say, Lenin, so I ain't going to do anything about it. I just feel indifferent towards the institution, tho' it would be nice if it could be made more available to the citizenry. I doubt the replacement would be any better but it would help to reduce the us/them gap, Id've thought.
June 5 at 1:58pm · Like

Jeremy Edwards Most of Ireland decided it wasn't for them.
June 5 at 2:01pm · Like

Michael Sissons Better flunkies surrounding what we've got than expanding a political elite. When it boils down to it, I think the people have simply concluded that the political class have let them down. It's shown them the value of what they've got.
June 5 at 2:03pm via mobile · Like

Jeremy Edwards Piss poor value, I'd say.
June 5 at 2:04pm · Like

Michael Sissons Get back in the rain with the little corner of placard wavers. You'll get on great!
June 5 at 2:06pm via mobile · Like

Jeremy Edwards Our gov't establishment buggers about too much in other coutries' business and doesn't provide enough resource on the home front.
June 5 at 2:06pm · Like

Jeremy Edwards If a society of plebs subservient to an aristocratic elite is what the people want, so be it. What would my wishes count against those of 62M others? Nothing!
June 5 at 2:08pm · Like

Jeremy Edwards I don't know what's been going on; I have other things of more interest, next week's LNBR, for example :)
June 5 at 2:10pm · Like

Jeremy Edwards Oh, I did read that Philip was taken poorly but that's about it. Were you out there with the revellers?
June 5 at 2:10pm · Like

Michael Sissons ‎'Society of plebs'? That sounds pretty snobby to me! If they wanted a republic you'd be praising their wisdom.
June 5 at 2:12pm via mobile · Like

Jeremy Edwards Mike, it's up to the people to decide how they want to be governed. The majority, I think, don't care very much. The minority groups are those who believe in monarchy, those who believe in an elected head of state and those who believe in other ways. Of those minorities I'd say the monarchists have it and that situation is unlikely to change in the near future. The population is ageing in this country and that means the number of little old ladies is increasing and they are generally recognised as one of the most conservative elements in this society. The monarchy is safe in their hands if it comes to a vote. Personally I haven't finalised where I stand on the matter as I haven't given it that much thought, but I do tend to see it as a source of inequality. Palpably levelling society, even to the limited extent that Hollande is proposing, would be a step in the right direction. If society can be levelled under monarchy in the way I would envisage it then I too would be a wholehearted monarchist. As it is, the country seems to be talking itself into depression, and imposing it on substantial sections of the citizenry.
June 5 at 3:14pm · Like

Michael Sissons Ok, I agree. Let the people decide. Oh, they have. In fact they've made their feelings quite clear. QED.
June 5 at 3:17pm via mobile · Like

Jeremy Edwards ‎" ... bloody wars and brought us to virtual bankruptcy for the first time." Hold on, Alva, who's in charge here? According to this, we, under a monarchy, are facing bankruptcy. It may have been an idiot like Blair who got us into Iraq, but the monarch could easily have kept us out of it: "Tony - stand up straight when you talk to me - you're not to do it, do you hear! I forbid you to do it! I don't care if it precipitates a crisis, you've done enough boot licking; show some backbone! What are you, a man or ... !?" Maybe Ollie wasn't such a bad old stick after all :)
June 6 at 11:11am · Like

Alva Gosson There are many points that Republicans chose to ignore.
Firstly: I've already pointed out it was the Republicans who reinstated the Monarchy. That needs explaining (I explain it below).
Secondly: "equality" is one of those oxymorons which is ostensibly just propaganda for weak minds. Another example is "we are all individuals" etc. I'm always calling on people to think for just one second in order to disinfect ourselves from all this mental junk. If there is equality how come a football player can command a salary of 30,000 a day while a nurse who works longer hours and does something useful will earn that a year... is that what republican equality looks like? There is such a thing as equality but it is very different from this see Upekkha.
Third: we have the Olympics coming up soon something based in principle upon inequality - it is about who is best. It is a deep feature of the psychology of all social organisms that they require social hierarchy. This is the nature of the human society all around and is the only reason politics exists. Naive intellectuals who think politics is about organising human endeavour for some goal need look again at their facts.
Fourth: People get hung up on this existential point about "at least in Republicanism there is a chance I could be the leader" while Monarchy shuts the door. Lots of things shut the door. In addition to being King what about the fastest person on earth? Isn't that unfair and unequal? Why chose Monarch as the closed door to get existential gripes over? Our whole life is determined by things we can/cannot, have/haven't become. Don't complain; understand the deep nature of existence.
Fifth: Game Theory. This is the main point (it is true for the whole animal kingdom). The worst thing that can happen is we meet our equal. If we meet someone inferior we challenge them and they'll step down. Meet someone superior and we walk away and save the beating (if we're smart). But if we meet someone equal the battle will start and we just go on and on and on draining resources on both sides until both sides are eliminated. Animals try and avoid this at all costs. Humans do too. You see in Iraq the chaotic battle for supremacy between groups of equalish power. This is what happens in any animal society before a pecking order is established. You will have experienced this at school when you first joined. Access to mating and territory are determined by social pecking order. That is the universal law; can't escape it. Now obviously we all wish to be top dog (have free mating rights and territory - Prince Charles for example has free mating rights he can arrange to sleep with anyone he likes - this goes back to ancient Tribal customs). But the downside of a flat playing field of equals is we need to fight off everyone else. Like the protectors of the temple of Diana who having killed the previous temple guard would suffer endless sleepless nights protecting themselves from future attacks, eventually (a la Hobbes) people grow tired of constant battles and competition and agree to inequality. This equality of peace is where we all agree to be unequal under an all powerful leader. That is the nature of peace. Democracy is just a side show to the real law of aristocracy that goes on in the background (e.g. in US Clintons, Bushs, Kennedys, Rockefellers etc) but it is this law of dynastic power play that really keeps the peace (and which enables democracy to exist at all).
Sixth: the road sweeper may look at the gold carriage that passes and dream of being in there himself. But if he went then someone else would need to take his place sweeping the street. So for each person with aspirations of richness they condemn someone else to poverty. This lack of care for others is exactly what they criticise others for. Exceedingly importantly this is not the way out of poverty!
Seventh: If we wish (and I do) to create a better society we need be extremely clear what it is we wish to change. Republicanisms simply keeps the old social structure and puts new aspirational people in place. These are the worst kind of people having spent their life fighting for the top. They tend to be paranoid (see all the dictators and revolutionary leaders in history) and have only their own social mobility at heart. Much better have someone born into the job who doesn't have to fight for it and think daily about themselves. Fundamental point about aristocracy. We have a press edited by would be kings so unpopular points. But only idiots believe the press.
Eighth: yes a more powerful army taking the palace is exactly how politics works. See Saddam's palace, Gaddaffi, Assad etc. Welcome to the game of chess. True politics is subtle far beyond the understanding of people to whome it's irrelevant. The Kshatriya (as the Indians call them) are the cast who do power (battles, politics) and they are taught from day 1 how to be dutiful, make friends n alliances, hide their feelings, follow etiquette, instinctively show deference to superiors etc etc. This is true (proven in experiments) for top chimp dynasties as much as humans. My mother is aristocratic and I've heard all about it, yawn! The reason why the Queen doesn't have terrorists after her is she understands politics unlike these republican rednecks who've managed to rise to the top in the US but who know nothing really about politics.
June 6 at 11:33am · Like

Alva Gosson Hi Jeremy I think the days the Queen had any say in actual policy are long gone. One false move at the moment and the Monarchy is disbanded. She just reads prewritten scripts and conducts her royal duties very very carefully. She's playing a very long game in politics at the moment something the 4-year-termers couldn't even comprehend.
June 6 at 11:41am · Like

Jeremy Edwards What a pity she can't even say "off with his head!" any more. That long game is aomed at - survival?
June 6 at 11:50am · Like

Alva Gosson Interesting point. Does a doctor who saves his life so he can help others being selfless or selfish?
June 6 at 11:56am · Like

Jeremy Edwards Self-interest, both, a tautology ...
June 6 at 12:11pm · Like

Alva Gosson actually I realise while an interesting question not directly relevant.. the doctor makes people well, the Monarch simply occupies an archetypal position of power: "the top". There are many things (discussed above) which apply to power politics which simply don't occur to ordinary folks. The Queen has no aspiration for her position "the top". (I take aspiration to be the greatest sin.) It is given to her by History or God depending how you wish to look at it. She then accepts it as a matter of Duty like it or not. It is this aspect that we ordinary folks can only understand with regard to issues like accepting that we are short, unintelligent, or bad a music. If we have an aptitude accepting and using this talent, like it or not, would be another example. She has to pass no special test, prove no particular aptitude simply "be" a person in a particular lineage; existentially; a place holder. However should she be wholly inappropriate the powers behind the throne would certainly conspire to change things. One of the idiotic things about post-Lutherian society is the idea of choice. I have spent most of my life trying to figure out why I should "chose" one thing rather than another. It seems that the badly thought out philosophy means do what you like and don't do what you don't like... try telling your boss, on a whim, that you don't like to come into work today. Or I want something but I don't want to pay. We have to do things we don't like every day. In which case if we can't chose based on "don't like" what base is there for choice? It's a nonsense. (Causation and Destiny is much better ideas.) The Queen doesn't have this nonsense to contend with: her life is mapped out from day 1. Now part of her duty is to preserve the Monarchy not because she wishes to be Monarch ... it was made for her and given to her she didn't decide to work her way up and take it, she has no choice... it is because the purpose of Monarch is to provide a credible focus for power so that otherwise warring dynasties can agree to peace. That is why the position was created in the first place. The idea of Rule of Law has largely taken over as the "credible focus for power" from Monarch. How they interact is History. By contrast the Republican movement seems to have no reasonable foundation at all beyond the jealousy and greed of aspirational people who wish to be "the top" themselves. I'd say to the Republicans, go on have the revolution and spend the rest of your days watching your back from other aspirational people. Who am I to stop them I suppose.
June 6 at 12:54pm · Like

Alva Gosson ‎(could be one reason why the US has so many more assassinations)
June 6 at 1:03pm · Like

Alva Gosson ‎.. actually this is encroaching on stuff that really interests me so I'll continue for my own interest... We like to think we are born with a clean slate, but actually almost everything is "given" to us already... our health, our parents, the house we grow up in, the family we grow up in, the body we grow, the look we have, the sex we have, the mental faculties we have, the aptitudes we have, the personality we have, the interests we have... these are utterly overwhelmingly given to us... (if we were to self-determine these things on what basis would we chose other than with dice throws?). We can with great effort start to change the direction these things flow once we have awareness but a 6 month old baby doesn't have any choice; they are set adrift in a fast flowing river that carries them toward their destiny. Given that so much is given to us how can we claim it for ourselves? I had a public school education through absolutely no fault/choice of my own, yet lots of children would like to "chose" this they can't. It's my destiny, but why is something that requires a much deeper understanding of reality than is currently presented by any of the quite frankly trivial and wholly inadequate modern philosophies... and people somehow think they understand anything about life and worse that they can chose based on this childish understanding... sorry it's just all propaganda to silence the critical minds of the masses.
June 6 at 6:32pm · Like

Conspiracy Theories

Finally sick of these. However this does not mean that I stop being 110% skeptical of everything I hear it means that I remain clear about what a fact is: something that can be verified. If we can't personally verify something then we must accept someone elses witness of that verification which means we must trust them. Obviously few people speak without vested interests so we need examine what they stand to gain from us believing them. We also need to examine why they are interested in us knowing; are they really trying to help us? Only once we are clear that they don't want us to believe them for their own personal gain, and because they believe it themselves and because they wish to help us, only then do we add it to the list of possible things.

Problem with conspiracy theories CT is that they only achieve doubt about the motives of authority. Every single CT is based upon some idea of a cover up to protect the selfish motives of the powerful. Of course this happens all the time no mystery. But what about the selfish motives of CT holders? By rejecting the authority and forming a collective of believers they form a power base of their own. They are committing the same fraud they accuse the powerful of committing. CT holders must be aware that there are tigers in every refuge: they can't run to the safety of any dogma.

So no I doubt the authority of conspiracies exactly as I doubt the authority of any official orthodoxy. All dogmas can only become universal by progressively ignoring more and more facts until they apply to everything by applying to nothing.

Which simply clears the field for a much more even, unbiased, unparanoid and subtler approach to truth.

So my own motives? Can I trust myself ... That is a work in progress...