"When I'm speaking of "freedom" here, I mean "free" as in "free speech", not as in "free beer".
-Yet your respect for free speech does not even include letting someone be called what they wish?
"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."
-And how different is this from a revolution that puts a republican government in power by force of arms? By your definition even our government is illegitimate. And I think everyone is special.
"Where those traditions are absolutely antithetical to our traditions, yes. We founded this country to leave those traditions behind us."
-Glad to have that little bit of jingoism verified, and if we left of all of "those traditions" behind us, perhaps you can explain why we still use things like the English language, common law and the idea that everyone has certain rights that cannot be taken away (hint: Jefferson didn't just make these up on his own)
"we have lost our way on basic human dignity and equality"
I have found that no one shows more bias and prejudice than those who continually harp about the need for "equality" in our country.
"It is true that some people with titles in the U.S. didn't earn them legitimately."
Glad you agree with me.
"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".
Oh, so once again you are able to peer into the souls of others to determine their "true" worth; thank you so much for the enlightenment O Divine One.
"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."
-I've never heard of such a guy, when Elizabeth II was crowned her champion asked if anyone challenged her and none stepped forward. But, if that's your test, more than just one flake, in this country there was about half the population that viewed our own President Bush as illegitimate. So much for the so called legitimacy of democracy huh?
"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."
Oh God yes, you are so right, I'm sorry. When Germany turned out the Kaiser and had a democracy where they could elect Hitler (who also hated princes) things were so much more peaceful. When Russia killed the Tsar and established the Soviet Union things got so much better, almost as good as when China abolished their monarchy and got Chairman Mao or when Spain ditched King Alfonso for a communist republic. All of these events led to so much peace for the world I can't believe I missed it.
"I never said he couldn't use the title or call himself Crown Prince. He has every right to call himself anything he wants."
-Actually you just said exactly that just above.
"You really misunderstand. My attitude is not "Amerika Uber Alles", and the Nazi implication is childish and uncalled for."
I understand perfectly, you said yourself above that you expect others to respect our ways while we do not have to respect their's, you yourself said that our way was superior to every other in the world, clearly the rest of the world does not agree, so how are we to carry out your vision except with "blood and iron". And, you should read a history book, "Deutschland Uber Alles" was around long before anyone ever heard of a Nazi.
"But you mistake respect for obsequious toadying."
No, you mistake obsequious toadying with using a traditional form of address.
"I respect Mr. Reza Pahlavi for his diplomatic and literary efforts to bring freedom to Iran."
I guess all of your insults against him and his family threw me off, my mistake.
"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."
And you're not funny either, you're mentality is downright frightening and just the sort of global ideology that has led to more wars and massacres than all of the kings of history combined.
Again, you just don't Get It. Telling someone they must call you "Prince" is not free speech. You are trying to enforce certain speech upon them.
And how different is this from a revolution that puts a republican government in power by force of arms? By your definition even our government is illegitimate. And I think everyone is special.
The revolution that puts a republican government in power is not force of arms to create a government, but force of arms to end a tyrrany. That is why it is a revolution instead of just another in a long line of wars for succession. If a republican government follows and government overthrow, by definition it holds its power from a mandate from the people. If it holds its power by any other means, it can hardly be called a Free Republic, no can it?
In a war of succession (which many so-called "revolutions" actually were) the new tyrant holds power through the continued threat of force of arms (at best), or through the willing subservience of people who are not trong enough to be free (at worst).
Our own republic was not formed by a force of arms. If you know your history you'll know that it was several years between winning the Revolution, and creating the Constitution.
And you should use "unique" where you use "special".
Glad to have that little bit of jingoism verified, and if we left of all of "those traditions" behind us, perhaps you can explain why we still use things like the English language, common law and the idea that everyone has certain rights that cannot be taken away
Please do not manke specious arguements. They are not worthy of this forum.
You can deny the illegitimate concept of "the divine right of kings" and yet still retain your language and concept of law. And the traditions of common law and individual rights you so boldly mention came about in England through successive revolutions against the monarchy, starting at Magna Carta, extending through the Protectorate of Cromwell, and the removal of James II from the throne. Here in the U.S. we took those foundations to their logical and ultimate conclusion, the abolition of the concept of royalty.
Jefferson (as well as Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and many many others) are the Americans who wrote on why we did this. They came out and said the foundation of common law and individual rights is the inalienable fact of the inherent equality of all mankind (something the english never managed to complete). I quote them because of their immediate applicability. I could also quote Rousseau, or many others, but they are not Americans, and not among the founders of this nation.
I have found that no one shows more bias and prejudice than those who continually harp about the need for "equality" in our country.
And you are trying to apply a generalization of your personal (and unverifiable) experiences to a specific arguement here? That hold no water. Bring evidence to back up your claim.
> It is true that some people with titles in the U.S. didn't earn them legitimately."
Glad you agree with me.
On one single point, which is not relevant to this discussion, but merely a sidenote attempt of yours to distract from the main issue. On everything else, you are wrong. So very very wrong.
> 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".
Oh, so once again you are able to peer into the souls of others to determine their "true" worth; thank you so much for the enlightenment O Divine One.
Again, instead of coming up with a legitimate arguement, you spew out a hyperbolic straw man, just so you can refute it, coupled with a personal attack. Do they teach forensics in schools anymore?
Who said anything about "peering into someone's soul"? Only you. I merely mentioned the importance of the president remembering the history and meaning of his position. It's part of his job, just like the mechanic needs to know the importance of bleeding my brake lines after repairing my brakes. You do not need to peer into someone's soul to know what their position obliges them to do. And again, you ttry to turn the arguement. My point is that the only measure of a person's worth is the actions they take and the decisions they make, and not the accident of their birth. You do not need to do any "soul peering" for that.
> 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."
I've never heard of such a guy, when Elizabeth II was crowned her champion asked if anyone challenged her and none stepped forward.
This may come as a shock, but there are many things out there that you are unaware of. If you are unaware of this thesis, it's a simple matter for you to look it up instead of just proclaiming (then basing an argument upon upon) your ignorance. More to the point, if the "true heir" voted to abolish the monarchy, he's not about to give a damn about who sits on the throne.
But, if that's your test, more than just one flake, in this country there was about half the population that viewed our own President Bush as illegitimate. So much for the so called legitimacy of democracy huh?
Spoken like a true believer democrat. You simply do not understand the nature of democracy. Have you heard of the word "majority"? The vast majority of democrats who voted for Kerry do not deny the legitimacy of the Bush presidency. They bemoan their loss, but do not deny its legitimacy. They recognize that Bush won, but here's the key tho the whole thing: they can now try again in 2008 to put their own candidate in poewr (which ain't gonna happen if they pick Hillary). In a monarchy, you need to wait for succession or revolution for change, yet you personally, have no vote over the result at all. The true test of a democracy is not the ability to vote for the winner, but the ability to vote for the loser.
Oh God yes, you are so right, I'm sorry. When Germany turned out the Kaiser and had a democracy where they could elect Hitler (who also hated princes) things were so much more peaceful. When Russia killed the Tsar and established the Soviet Union things got so much better, almost as good as when China abolished their monarchy and got Chairman Mao or when Spain ditched King Alfonso for a communist republic. All of these events led to so much peace for the world I can't believe I missed it.
Again with the specious straw men! Do you know any other debating techniques?
First off, Germany under Hitler could hardly be called a democracy, despite elections. The same goes for the Communists, whether in Russia, China, or Spain. In a tyrrany, it matters little whether the tyrant is called "king", "fuhrer", "chairman", or "party secretery". King is just the traditional english language word for tyrant. And no matter what you claim, they can hardly be called nations of free people.
Secondly, none of the cases you mention involve a direct overthrow of a monarchy. They all have an extended period of revolution where a nascent democracy failed to take root and was supplanted by a tyrrany. In each case, the larval democracy failed because it didn't base itself first upon a fundamental basis of the recognition of human equality and individual rights. Democracy is a tool and symptom of freedom, not the other way around.
Thirdly, you only look at recent history and cherry pick the cases you think most favorable to your case. What about the 100 years war fought for the ambitions of monarchs? What about the Wars of the Roses? Before the recent examples you depict, you would be hard pressed to find examples of wars that are not caused by the ambitions of monarchs or other rulers.
> I never said he couldn't use the title or call himself Crown Prince. He has every right to call himself anything he wants.
Actually you just said exactly that just above.
Are you reading before writing? Again you mistake the difference between calling yourself something, insisting others call you something. By "using" the title, I mean he has every right to put it on his business cards, or his letterhead, and introduce himself as such. Just as I have every right to put "Queen of the Outer Marshes" on my own business cards. But he does not have the right to insist that I call him anything other the Mr. Reza Pahlavi.
> You really misunderstand. My attitude is not "Amerika Uber Alles", and the Nazi implication is childish and uncalled for.
I understand perfectly, you said yourself above that you expect others to respect our ways while we do not have to respect their's,
Again, you confuse "respect" with obsequious toadying. I begin to doubt you understand the concepts of freedom and liberty. You seem to think of liberty and freedom as "traditions". They are not. They are a state of being. Freedom means just that: the freedom to not have to call any one your superior. When I refuse to call a man a king, I am exercising my rights as a free person, I am not imposing those rights upon them. When a "monarch" tells me I am supposed to call them "king", they are denying my freedom. I am not telling anyone else they cannot call the man a king, but I am not letting them tell me I have to.
you yourself said that our way was superior to every other in the world,
Which it is. If you don't agree, why are you here?
clearly the rest of the world does not agree,
Not true. A few tyrranies do not constitute "the rest of the world". And tyrranies can hardly be said to be legitimate speakers for their people. What about the many billions of individual people around the world who desire to come to the United States and be free themselves?
so how are we to carry out your vision except with "blood and iron".
Again, you do not understand the nature of freedom. We don't have to do anything. We need only wait. If other people want freedom enough, they will overthrow their governments and gain it for themselves. We can help them, but we can't do it for them.
The monarchies and tyrranies of the world are being swept away. Unfortunately, sometimes they are replaced with different tyrranies, but history has shown that those too collapse into themselves. How can you explain how the rest of the world has over the last two centuries moved ever closer to the ideals of liberty we ourselves try to achieve.
And, you should read a history book, "Deutschland Uber Alles" was around long before anyone ever heard of a Nazi.
Again with the personal attacks. The Nazi reference was intended, and you know it. You were just following Godwins's Law, and not being particularly circumspect about it at that. Your current attempt to worm your way out of it is not helping you.
> But you mistake respect for obsequious toadying.
No, you mistake obsequious toadying with using a traditional form of address.
Again with the Not Getting It. When Mr. Reza Pahlavi claims the title of "Shah", he is using a traditional form of address. When anyone else calls him "Shah", it is obsequious toadying.
> I respect Mr. Reza Pahlavi for his diplomatic and literary efforts to bring freedom to Iran.
I guess all of your insults against him and his family threw me off, my mistake.
Yet again with the Not Getting It. When I refuse to call Mr. Reza Pahlavi "Shah", I an not insulting him any more than I am insulting George Bush when I call him Mr. George Bush. I am merely stating a fact. And mentioning the facts of his family history is also not an insult. Look it up if you want. It is also just a statement of fact. Is it an insult to call Jefferson a slaveholder? It is the plain truth. Is it an insult to call Reza Khan a usurper? It's also just the plain truth. Anyone who sees that as an insult is just demonstrating that their world view is disassociated with reality.
> 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.
And you're not funny either, you're mentality is downright frightening
Just as the tyrant is frightened by the free person, so is the comfortable slave who maintains the tyrant's position.
and just the sort of global ideology that has led to more wars and massacres than all of the kings of history combined.
Once again with a final Not Getting It. You again seem to think that the cherry picking of recent history is the sum total of all history. You also confuse ideologies. Communism and Fascism can hardly be said to have freedom as their agenda, despite what they, and you, might claim. Just because they replaced a monarchy, does not mean they are automatically fighting for liberty. The communist and fascist revolutions were just anothey form of tyranny replacing an older one. And the only difference is a matter of the title of the new tyrant. Whether you call it a emperor, king, pharoh,lord protector, fuhrer, party secretery, or chairman, it's just another war of succession. And none of the titles or positions are legitimate. The American Revolution was different. We removed a king, and replaced him with nobody.