Posted on 10/18/2012 2:48:39 PM PDT by Buck Sparkman
Kevin J. High wants to be the king of the United States. He's not joking. In fact, he's so serious that he's invested several thousand dollars in pursuit of what many surely believe is a quixotic quest. And he's spent two years writing a book, King, detailing what exactly he intends to do once the crown is on top of his head.
For High, at the heart of it all is a feeling that something is wrong with the United States, that America is broke and our ever-squabbling, always fund-raising elected officials in Washington are unable to fix the problem. And that problem is our nation's fiscal irresponsibility.
"My fear is we're not going to do anything, and in four or five years we will be in another Great Depression," he says. "We're toast."
High believes the nation as it is today encourages its citizens to suckle the federal entitlement teat. "The programs of keeping people who barely graduated high school to keeping people where there is no motivation to succeed, by giving housing, by giving welfare, by giving food stamps, giving, giving, giving. There's no motivation to get out of that," he says. "On top of that, our deficit is so significantly out of whack that we can't do it much longer. There is going to be a point in time where our debt is so great that we're literally going to have to forgive debt that we've already lent to ourselves."
And as King of the U.S.A., High plans to fix what ails us. When asked why he's the man for this extraordinary job, the author says, "Because nobody has the balls to do it."
(Excerpt) Read more at charlestoncitypaper.com ...
Not saying the guy doesn’t have some decent ideas but HELL NO! The USA should never have a “King”...only one man has been offered the post and George Washington was wise enough to decline. Way too much power to put in the Hands of a Few men or one man.....
It would give Barry someone new to bow to.
I think Mr. High....is HIGH ON SOMETHING!!!
We already have a king.
Harry Reid’s been king for 6 years.
He would be pretty harsh on any competition. Can this guy afford heavy personal security?
High? Interesting name for a royal dynasty.
We've had an elected "king" since 1928. He's called a president.
The Democrats by attempting to change this country from a democracy to a socialist regime have given the dissidents even other ideas...
If he’s too stupid to compute that kings are not elected, let alone that we don’t have one in the USA, then he would be completely unqualified for the position, even if it did exist.
Hell, I’d take a monarchy over socialism any day of the week, if it came down to that. Monarchies at least have some benefits to them to go along with the downsides, while socialism has none.
There have been lots of elected kings in history.
The Roman, Byzantine and Holy Roman Emperors were elected, at least in theory.
The Anglo-Saxon kings, the kings of Visigothic Spain, Poland and Hungary were elected at various times, as were the first caliphs and the Mongol khans.
Indeed, most European monarchies had periods when their kings were chosen at least partially by election. Absolute hereditary succession by primogeniture is actually fairly recent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy
Pfff.. you call those kings? Glorified civil servants is what those guys were.
Caesar Augustus begs to differ.
Also the Popes, who have been absolute territorial rulers for about 1500 years now.
Though their state is pretty small at the moment.
I quite agree, though possibly not for the same reason.
The purpose of good government is to provide a civil society, one in which the people can live their lives generally unmolested by the government, with security of property and individual rights.
Such a system is not inherently incompatible with absolute monarchy, and it is also not always provided by a democracy where people elect their rulers, as we can see around us every day.
The basic reason the idea of civil society and rule of law have become so entangled with the idea of democracy, when they are not inherently the same, is that civil society and rule of law under an absolute monarch requires an unusually wise, able and good king. Even if he isn’t seduced by the corruption of absolute power, he IS going to die, and the chance that his successor will be as good is pretty much nil.
Democracy is so far the only system of government that has been proven to be able to maintain civil society and rule of law for any significant period of time.
Be careful what you ask for. Remember, Barney Frank is the queen of America.
Yes, a monarchy is only as good as the current monarch, but with dynasties, you at least usually had a monarch who had been prepared for governing from youth, and not a rank amateur stepping into the office. Also, they had the combined wisdom of their families to draw on to advise them, so as not to keep making the same mistakes over and over, like democratic governments sometimes do. They had a longer learning curve as well, so a bad king in year one might be a pretty good king in year fifteen of his reign.
Still, there can’t be any real protection for the liberties of the people against a monarch with sufficient power. You’ll end up relying on the monarch’s conscience, which is just a bad bet to make in general. However, with the socialists, fascists, and other thugs, you know for certain that you can’t rely on them to rule according to a good conscience, so the monarchy is better choice in the end anyway.
Arthur: Elected??!? You don't vote for a king! Woman: Well 'ow'd you become king then? (holy music up) Arthur: The Lady of the Lake-- her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king! Man: (laughingly) Listen: Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some... farcical aquatic ceremony! Arthur: (yelling) BE QUIET! Man: You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!! Arthur: (coming forward and grabbing the man) Shut *UP*! Man: I mean, if I went 'round, saying I was an emperor, just because some moistened bink had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away! Arthur: (throwing the man around) Shut up, will you, SHUT UP! Man: Aha! Now we see the violence inherent in the system! Arthur: SHUT UP! Man: (yelling to all the other workers) Come and see the violence inherent in the system! HELP, HELP, I'M BEING REPRESSED! Arthur: (letting go and walking away) Bloody PEASANT! Man: Oh, what a giveaway! Did'j'hear that, did'j'hear that, eh? That's what I'm all about! Did you see 'im repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?!
Why not Emperor?
Surely he can find SOME way to claim succession to Emperor Norton?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.