I found this impossible to pass up:
"No problem. I'm just a free person."
I would like a definition of that, personally I wouldn't call having to continue to pay the government for land I already own being "free", personally I often feel like I can't blow my nose without running into some sort of federal regulation telling me how to live my life. Being free is a complicated term.
"Unless that is, you think my lacking of a compulsion to bend at the knee to a fancy title is a problem."
No, I think the problem was your refusal to recognize someone's legitimate status. If anyone suggested Americans should kneel to anyone I must have missed it.
"Exactly. We don't. Other "traditions" allow for all sorts of injustices. In some cultures, slavery is a time honored "tradition". If one of those slaves comes to the U.S., should we "honor" their title and make sure they have their freedoms curtailed? It's the same thing as honoring the title of prince, except coming from the other direction."
Okay, so in other words the rest of the world should respect our traditions, but we should respect none of theirs, got it.
"We only honor titles that have been earned, such as Doctor, Master of Science, or Captain. Titles aquired through accident of birth have no meaning here."
That is simply absurd, if you think everyone with a title actually earned it you must have the all-seeing eye of God in your head.
"We bow to no one. Our commander in chief is called Mr. President."
Actually, OTHER world leaders are expected to address him as "His Excellency", which they do, just as the President addresses the Queen of England as "Her Majesty" out of simple respect for other people's institutions.
"While Mr. Reza Pahlavi is here, as a guest of this country, he will follow our traditions and remain Mr. Reza Pahlavi, because, here in the United States, the title of Private First Class holds more weight and meaning then "Crown Prince Anything".
Legally, the U.S. recognizes no hereditary titles whatsoever, there's no law anywhere that says people must be polite and courteous, yet centuries of experience has taught us things go better when we are.
(snip)
"You neither understand his words, nor comprehend the rights he described. Tell me (I am assuming you are in the U.S.), do you enjoy those rights and freedoms his writings described and we fought two bloody wars to protect?"
Then explain to me why America is nothing at all like what Jefferson talked about?
"I disagree. Be that as it may be, though, Mr. Reza Pahlavi is not "out there" in the "whole world". He is here, in the United States. And our traditions of individual equality and liberty do still apply here (despite the best efforts of the democrats)."
Yet you would deny him the individual liberty to use the title of his own ancestors, you're right up there with the Democrats trying to choke off someone's rightful inheritance. I must say the "Amerika Uber Alles" line is a new on me though. (Why we're so unpopular I'll never know...)
(snip same world conquest content)
"If Iranians want to practice the folly of respecting royalty and inherited titles, that is their business. We, as free people, are obliged to no such subservience."
Who was suggesting we were? I'm not obliged to treat anyone with respect, yet a little bit can be a big help.
"I tend to view American followers of the british royal family as falling into one of three groups: the gossips, the academics, and the slaves."
That's just funny, "Oh, I is sorry Massah Lizzy, please don't beat be none..."
> No problem. I'm just a free person.
I would like a definition of that, personally I wouldn't call having to continue to pay the government for land I already own being "free", personally I often feel like I can't blow my nose without running into some sort of federal regulation telling me how to live my life. Being free is a complicated term.
When I'm speaking of "freedom" here, I mean "free" as in "free speech", not as in "free beer".
That being said, you are right, many of our freedoms here in the United States have been curtailed. I also think of property tax as a usurpation of my property rights. The problem is that, through a certain amount of laziness and corruption as well as a series of concessions to people who would rather be comfortable slaves (or welfare recipients) than free, we have allowed this country to veer away from the ideals of our founders. Instead, we should have been, and still should strive to come ever closer to their vision.
No, I think the problem was your refusal to recognize someone's legitimate status.
It's not a refusal to recognize their legitimate claim to the title. I refuse to accept the title's legitimacy. Mr. Reza Pahlavi's ancestor, Reza Khan, was just minister of war under the last Ghajar king before staging a coup and declaring himself Shah in the 20's. And so it is with all "royal" lines if you go far back enough. They are all descended from either a bully who siezed power (regardless of their motives or how they later used that power) or were puppets emplaced by another bully. They are not special. They are not legitimate. They are no different than you or I.
Okay, so in other words the rest of the world should respect our traditions, but we should respect none of theirs, got it.
Where those traditions are absolutely antithetical to our traditions, yes. We founded this country to leave those traditions behind us. Here, in the United States, a slave in another country is just a man (though we had to fight the worst war in our history to finally learn that). A prince in another country is just a man. That is a principle this country was founded on. Just as we have lost our way on property rights (like you mention), we have lost our way on basic human dignity and equality (though some would call our decline "courtesy").
That is simply absurd, if you think everyone with a title actually earned it you must have the all-seeing eye of God in your head.
It is true that some people with titles in the U.S. didn't earn them legitimately. I can think of a few liberal arts college "professors" who fall into that category. However, I think it is abundantly clear that the titles they pretend to are intended to be earned, and royal titles are not earned whatsoever (except possibly for the royalty in the nutball Society for Anachronism). The only other exception are those "royals" for whom the title "usurper" also applies (such as Reza Khan). They could be said to have "earned" their title, but that hardly carries legitimacy with it.
Actually, OTHER world leaders are expected to address him as "His Excellency", which they do, just as the President addresses the Queen of England as "Her Majesty" out of simple respect for other people's institutions.
And when the President does, if he has any understanding of the gravity and history of his position, he should do so with the understanding that "Her Majesty" carries less weight of meaning than "Eagle Scout".
Additonally, there is a credible thesis which concludes the "legitimate" heir to the throne of England is actually a middle aged man in Australia. And he voted for a Republic in the last referendum. So much for the so called legitimacy of royalty.
Legally, the U.S. recognizes no hereditary titles whatsoever, there's no law anywhere that says people must be polite and courteous, yet centuries of experience has taught us things go better when we are.
And centuries of experience have also taught us that clinging to archaic and illegitimate concepts like "royalty" have caused bloodier and more pointless wars than anything else. An just because things "go better", as you say, or are easier, doesn't make them right.
Then explain to me why America is nothing at all like what Jefferson talked about?
I already did, earlier in this post. And Jefferson, himself, lived a life quite different than his writings. He was a slaveholder. But that does not make whis words any less legitimate or true. They would hold the same truth and value if they were written by "Anonymous".
Yet you would deny him the individual liberty to use the title of his own ancestors, you're right up there with the Democrats trying to choke off someone's rightful inheritance.
I never said he couldn't use the title or call himself Crown Prince. He has every right to call himself anything he wants. He can call himself "Grand High Poobah" for all I care. But he has no right to ask or tell me, or any other free person, to call him that, any more than I have the right or authority to tell you to call me "Her Royal Majesty, the Dowager Princess of Mars".
I must say the "Amerika Uber Alles" line is a new on me though. (Why we're so unpopular I'll never know...)
You really misunderstand. My attitude is not "Amerika Uber Alles", and the Nazi implication is childish and uncalled for. If you read and understod correctly, you would see that my position is "America Under Nobody". More specifically, "Americans Under Nobody". At best, our elected officials serve us. At worst, the lead us. They never, ever, rule us.
If the rest of the world has a problem with us wanting them to be free as well, then more fool them. Though they probably should be pitied.
Who was suggesting we were? I'm not obliged to treat anyone with respect, yet a little bit can be a big help.
But you mistake respect for obsequious toadying.
I respect Mr. Reza Pahlavi for his diplomatic and literary efforts to bring freedom to Iran. But I cannot also help suspecting a motive behind this is his desire for political position for himself. However, it is true that his ancestor, Reza Khan, did sieze power to bring about democratic reforms, and only took the title of Shah at the insistence of the clerics (they desired a continuance of the monarchy as a crutch for their own failing legitimacy). Reza Khan knew he couldn't succeed in Iran without the support of the muslim clergy, which is basically the same problem we have today (though the clergy today have a lot more power and are a lot more insane). But all that means is that he was a more or less good man and good for Iran. It does not make the title of "King", or "Shah" hold any water here.
> I tend to view American followers of the british royal family as falling into one of three groups: the gossips, the academics, and the slaves.
That's just funny, "Oh, I is sorry Massah Lizzy, please don't beat be none..."
It's not funny. It's sad. Subject, peasant, slave. It's all the same thing, just a matter of degree. And the worst kind of slave is the one with chains in his head instead of on his arms.