Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 38 of 40     «   Prev   35   36   37   38   39   40   Next
Jeannette

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 7
Reply with quote  #556 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KYMonarchist
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeannette

...precisely why non-Arizonans are not qualified to touch this issue.


What on earth are you talking about?
 
Precisely. You don't know what I'm talking about because you're not an Arizonan. You can't just pretend to be familiar with an issue and "lord over" (as Ponocrates put it) those it concerns as if you know better, it isn't your issue and you are not familiar with it.
 
As for your response to Ponocrates... You are mindlessly parroting and backing things from a Democratic and Republican government that is entirely at odds with Monarchism, so while you can argue that lording over is Monarchistic, the laws you are defending are not.
If a Monarch did as the American government does in regard to Arizona, it would be off with the Monarch's head. The reason the American government can afford to behave this way is one of the very points I often turn to when people ask "why Monarchism?" A Monarch is a lot more vulnerable than a Republic or large bunch of Democrats. A Monarch cannot afford to make such reckless decisions. Monarchs are vulnerable. V-U-L-N-E-R-A-B-L-E. They are not in their position by magic. They are not protected by magic. If they screw up too much, they lose their inheritance. So, while you can afford to just spew out whatever you feel like, and only because we are given the freedom of speech, a Monarch must actually do their homework on the subject, or ask an advisor. (The same is also true for politicians. If this had risk of ticking off more of the population than just Arizona they'd have handled it differently.)
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,517
Reply with quote  #557 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KYM
So yes, the federal government does lord it over the states, this is right, proper, and just, and since when does a monarchist oppose the concept of lording it over another, what on earth do you think a monarch does?


Don't be ridiculous.   Monarchs, or via their supporters, develop arguments for why monarchy is best; they demonstrate why their rule is good and so forth.   They care about how they are regarded.    They care to look after the interests of the people they rule and know they can't demand whatever they want, which wouldn't seem fair or reasonable to the people they rule whether they are at the bottom or at the top of the hierarchy - even if there was a law, which stated the monarch could do otherwise.   Monarchs that simply resort to domination and force behave more like tyrants, which is what a tyrant does by definition.    Monarchs avoid this as much as possible.

In regard to federalism, there is too much reliance on pulling rank  - "my law trumps your law" without articulating that the federal view on the matter is best.   If a state thought the federal policy damaged its interests to such a degree and with such arrogance, and were given the flippant claim that my law trumps your law, it possibly would be enough to convince people of that state to get out of that arrangement.   The legitimacy of the Feds is limited by the states and how that relationship is defined is in flux.

Also, I wouldn't compare the Fed to a monarch, whom we celebrate on this list.   The Fed - the politicians and bureaucratic apparatus who compose it - has the warmth and personal connection of an institution like the EU.   The only way the Fed is tolerable is when it's very constrained and limited and stops interfering in almost every aspect of life.  

__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France

Personal Motto: "Deō regī patriaeque fidelis."
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,272
Reply with quote  #558 
Quote:
In regard to federalism, there is too much reliance on pulling rank  - "my law trumps your law" without articulating that the federal view on the matter is best.   If a state thought the federal policy damaged its interests to such a degree and with such arrogance, and were given the flippant claim that my law trumps your law, it possibly would be enough to convince people of that state to get out of that arrangement.


Look personal views and beliefs asside, the United States of America is not a confederation, but a federation. This makes it a tighter Union than something looser like say Switzerland.  The Federal Government has been delegated powers by the Constitution among which is oversight over Immigration and national borders.  Arizona and all other states are subject to the U.S. Constitution.  Whether the Federal law in question is "best" or "good" or not is immaterial.  As long as the U.S. Constitution is in force, State laws cannot override Federal Laws when it comes to immigration.  There is no "opt out clause" in the Constitution. 

If you want to go down the "legitimacy" route, those people entering Arizona and other Western states from the large neighboring country to the south could claim that they are "legitimately" returning to their own "legitimate" national territory forcibly occupied by a foriegn invader. 

Quote:
The only way the Fed is tolerable is when it's very constrained and limited and stops interfering in almost every aspect of life.  



If you honestly think that the U.S. Federal government interferes in every aspect of life, you need to experience interference in daily life as some of the world's other people have experienced it.  Of the places I've lived in and visited, the United States has the least intrusive government bar none, and I've been to many places.

There are risks in deciding to pick which and what laws apply to you.  It ends up that some may prefer that none of the laws apply to them, and that my friends is what is called anarchy. 

__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,517
Reply with quote  #559 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethiomonarchist
Look personal views and beliefs asside, the United States of America is not a confederation, but a federation. This makes it a tighter Union than something looser like say Switzerland.  The Federal Government has been delegated powers by the Constitution among which is oversight over Immigration and national borders.  Arizona and all other states are subject to the U.S. Constitution.  Whether the Federal law in question is "best" or "good" or not is immaterial.  As long as the U.S. Constitution is in force, State laws cannot override Federal Laws when it comes to immigration.  There is no "opt out clause" in the Constitution.


The issue isn't about who has been granted authority, but whether it is right or just by nature and not merely by convention.   Someone who has been granted authority can legally "lord it over," but that does not always make it right.    When it is not right, the "lording over" is tyrannical despite what the the law says.  Laws can be unjust or the people who have legal authority can behave or interpret the law unjustly.   So obedience or non-obedience to an unjust authority becomes a matter of prudence: whether the infraction has reached a certain threshold to make it worthwhile to leave the association and possibly risk war.   Someone who makes that decision, however, may be wrong, not in relation to the law, but to natural right.   In that case the governing authority would be right to put him down. 

[Note: I am not referring to the modern natural rights articulated by Locke and the Founding Fathers when they justified their rebellion, which justifies the government if it respects a few explicit rights, but rather I'm referring to natural right as examined by Plato and Aristotle, and even by most philosophers before Hobbes.]  

It seems to me that when you say:

"Whether the Federal law in question is "best" or "good" or not is immaterial."

...you are making the case as a lawyer: "my law trumps your law" and not according to justice.   If justice is not the consideration, then you are only left with "lording it over."  There is not much persuasion to obey except the threat of force.  The law by itself does not look beyond itself.  

A sovereign state under the Fed - and all fifty states are sovereign - could decide that continued obedience to the federal law is neither just nor in its interests.   Then there would be a need for a prudent decision.  The Fed, of course, was also forged in wars when it was the outcome of the decision to break away from Great Britain or to change it's relationship with the states in the Civil War.  The nature of the Fed is and will continue to be in flux.  

Quote:
If you want to go down the "legitimacy" route, those people entering Arizona and other Western states from the large neighboring country to the south could claim that they are "legitimately" returning to their own "legitimate" national territory forcibly occupied by a foriegn invader. 


I'm not denying that they could make that claim, but there are not many places in the world that have not been occupiers at some point in their past.   The most just claim is not always going to be "it was mine first."

Quote:
If you honestly think that the U.S. Federal government interferes in every aspect of life, you need to experience interference in daily life as some of the world's other people have experienced it.  Of the places I've lived in and visited, the United States has the least intrusive government bar none, and I've been to many places.  


The Feds I feel have become more intrusive and have usurped more power from the states and localities.   Obviously I don't like that trend.   It doesn't matter to me if it's less intrusive than other countries, but that it is more intrusive than it was twenty years ago and seems to be getting worse.   Of course, I only hope that we could have a more self-restrained and humble leadership in D.C. that could reverse this trend, but they seem to be in short supply.   I think that once you get to Washington, whether as a politician or a bureaucrat, your personal interests change and you want to see bigger government.   It's hard for people to cede power; you are usually only curtailed by forces not under your control.

Quote:
There are risks in deciding to pick which and what laws apply to you.  It ends up that some may prefer that none of the laws apply to them, and that my friends is what is called anarchy. 


You evaluate the laws.  When the government has failed to enforce the laws, or implements them unjustly, or the laws themselves are bad, then the legitimacy of the regime is put at risk.   Anarchy would be the likely scenario if every individual was in it for himself.   However, I thought we were talking about the decision of an existing government or people to secede from that union.        

__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France

Personal Motto: "Deō regī patriaeque fidelis."
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #560 
Trouble is, this federal government seeks to enjoin states from enforcing laws which do not conflict with the federal law simply because the area is one which is also of interest to the federal government.

There is no 'irrevocability' clause in the Constitution.
Jefferson supported 'nullification'.
Eventually governments that do not have the respect of the people turn to force or fall (sometimes both).



__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,517
Reply with quote  #561 
I think it was a mistake in the 19th century when they changed through a constitutional amendment the way senators were elected: i.e., that they would be elected by the population at large in the state rather than by the state legislature, which was more likely composed of people who had deeper roots in the state and a more abiding interest in it.   I think that if we preserved the older way that the Senate was composed, it could have kept the Leviathan that we now have in check.   In the case of Arizona, which I suppose launched this discussion, the current head of state has written it off because it is electorally insignificant to him.   That's the system we have and I don't necessarily blame him for it.    A true head of state, as we see in monarchies, would have no reason to completely alienate a state for reelection purposes and do something against their long-term interests.             

__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France

Personal Motto: "Deō regī patriaeque fidelis."
Jafar999

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 9
Reply with quote  #562 
It may sound like some pipedream but I would like to see America under a Monarch yes. I get the feeling (perhaps I am wrong) that as years go on, Americans, little by little, are seeing what a failure democracy truly is and how incompetent this system is. If I can quote Mussolini:

"Democracy is beautiful in theory; in practice it is a fallacy."-Benito Mussolini.
 
I also think another quote from him could apply to the republics:
 
"The Liberal State is a mask behind which there is no face; it is a scaffolding behind which there is no building."-Benito Mussolini.
 
It may seem like a dream but so long as we are active, so long as we try to distribute our ideals as much as possible, perhaps we could make this a reality. Do pardon me if I sound like an over-zealous n00b too and also if me quoting Mussolini is offensive in some way.

__________________
"The more sand has escaped from the hourglass of our life, the clearer we should see through it."-Niccolò Machiavelli.
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,517
Reply with quote  #563 
Because a monarchy (traditional and hereditary) seems unlikely in the US, I go with the best alternative in the republic that we have: a very limited Fed and a decentralization of power to the states and local communities.   A non-monarchical powerful centralized government with a large military, police, and intelligence-gathering apparatus, entitlements, high taxation, bureaucracies that micro-manage every aspect of life, the homogenization of regional cultural variety, and the arrogant imbeciles whom we usually elect to run this Leviathan, for me at least, is far from ideal.  

So I favor returning to something very limited with a president more like Calvin Coolidge.   If that's impossible, then I would prefer some constitutional amendments to fix the problem.   For example, allowing states to veto federal laws as applied in their state.

__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France

Personal Motto: "Deō regī patriaeque fidelis."
reapfreak

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5
Reply with quote  #564 
The most I can do is discuss the facts and actively fight against the opposition. I think fighting against democracy is hard enough, fighting for something is a whole different stage of the battle. We need to stop the Republic before we can dismantle it, sadly stopping it is already a challenge. Of course I'm more of a "anarcho-monarchist," so a good deal of my more specific political goals probably differ from others here.  
__________________
"And let it be noted that there is no more delicate matter to take in hand, nor more dangerous to conduct, nor more doubtful in its success, than to set up as a leader in the introduction of changes. For he who innovates will have for his enemies all those who are well off under the existing order of things, and only lukewarm supporters in those who might be better off under the new. This lukewarm temper arises partly from the fear of adversaries who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who will never admit the merit of anything new, until they have seen it proved by the event."
Ivan_IV

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 74
Reply with quote  #565 

I am new to this whole thing but I do hope and would like to become active in this movement and either a) establish a Monarchy within America or b) re-colonize the American terrorities and regain obeidance to the crown of the United Kingdom.


__________________
Reactionary Extraordinaire.

"God has seen your tears and heard your prayers."-Grigori Rasputin.
jovan66102

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,576
Reply with quote  #566 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivan_IV

I am new to this whole thing but I do hope and would like to become active in this movement and... re-colonize the American terrorities and regain obeidance to the crown of the United Kingdom.



Of course, you would recieve no end of resistance from people like me (a loyal subject of Her Majesty the Queen of Canada) who would argue that the Commonwealth Crown has no right to any territory not ceded to the United States by the Treaty of Paris, 1783.

__________________
'Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.' C.S. Lewis God save Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.! Vive le Très haut, très puissant et très excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Très-chrétien!
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #567 
Restoration of Her Majesty as Queen in right of a distinct Realm in each of the former states or portions thereof might not involve the same hostility - but it will meet great resistance from others - and more than a little hostility.

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
Ivan_IV

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 74
Reply with quote  #568 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jovan66102
Of course, you would recieve no end of resistance from people like me (a loyal subject of Her Majesty the Queen of Canada) who would argue that the Commonwealth Crown has no right to any territory not ceded to the United States by the Treaty of Paris, 1783.

Duly noted, but Queen of Canada? Pardon my ignorance but I thought Canada was also loyal to the crown of the United Kingdom, along with Australia and others of Her terroritories.

__________________
Reactionary Extraordinaire.

"God has seen your tears and heard your prayers."-Grigori Rasputin.
jovan66102

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,576
Reply with quote  #569 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivan_IV

Quote:
Originally Posted by jovan66102
Of course, you would recieve no end of resistance from people like me (a loyal subject of Her Majesty the Queen of Canada) who would argue that the Commonwealth Crown has no right to any territory not ceded to the United States by the Treaty of Paris, 1783.

Duly noted, but Queen of Canada? Pardon my ignorance but I thought Canada was also loyal to the crown of the United Kingdom, along with Australia and others of Her terroritories.


As our dear friend Peter pointed out awhile back, Her Majesty is Queen of Canada, what she does in her spare time does not concern Canadians. We owe no allegiance to the Crown of the United Kingdom. We owe allegiance to the Crown of Canada embodied in Her Majesty, Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada. In fact, I can think of nothing the republicans in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the other Commonwealth Realms like better than to hear that we owe allegiance to the 'Crown of the United Kingdom'!

__________________
'Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.' C.S. Lewis God save Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.! Vive le Très haut, très puissant et très excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Très-chrétien!
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #570 
The 'arrangement' is:
Personal Union, not Political Union.

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.