How are aristocratic privileges "fair"/"just"?

Page 1 of 2 [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

thinkinginpictures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 850

14 Oct 2020, 2:17 pm

In the UK someone can have a seat in the House of Lords, only because they inherited the title of being born an aristocrat. Not because they deserve the title. They also get special privileges and rights.

How is this fair/just?

If it is not fair or just, and you want to keep things as they are, you are deliberately doing something unfair and causing injustice.

If you are deliberately causing injustice for no reason, you are evil.

If you are evil, you are not worthy to be called a human being.



Last edited by thinkinginpictures on 14 Oct 2020, 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,523
Location: Poland

14 Oct 2020, 2:21 pm

Is the House of Lords anything more than a decorative tradition nowadays?
I don't think keeping it is evil enough to dehumanize people.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.
***** ***


thinkinginpictures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 850

14 Oct 2020, 2:22 pm

magz wrote:
Is the House of Lords anything more than a decorative tradition nowadays?
I don't think keeping it is evil enough to dehumanize people.


They can veto any law. Also, you forget all the other special entitlements and other privileges, granted only because of their birth right.

In essense, monarchy is evil.

They claim they are better humans because they are aristocrats. I say, they are lesser humans.



thinkinginpictures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 850

14 Oct 2020, 2:25 pm

Robespierre was right. I wish whatever happened during the French Revolution 1789 would happen on the entire planet.

Aristocrats deserve no human rights. They exploit the poor and the common people!



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,523
Location: Poland

14 Oct 2020, 2:44 pm

thinkinginpictures wrote:
Robespierre was right. I wish whatever happened during the French Revolution 1789 would happen on the entire planet.

Really? Including the chaos, terror and bloodbath? Including the "revolution devouring her own children"?


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.
***** ***


KT67
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,846

14 Oct 2020, 3:00 pm

They're not fair and just.

People are idiots that fall for it, that's all.



thinkinginpictures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 850

14 Oct 2020, 3:07 pm

magz wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
Robespierre was right. I wish whatever happened during the French Revolution 1789 would happen on the entire planet.

Really? Including the chaos, terror and bloodbath? Including the "revolution devouring her own children"?


Both yes and no.

I wish more justice. That's all.

But justice is also that innocent people are not being persecuted.

The aristocrats asked for the bloodbath in 1789. They could have done a lot to avoid the chaos and regime of terror.

They chose not to. They chose to be selfish and let the people starve.



Last edited by thinkinginpictures on 14 Oct 2020, 3:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,344
Location: Pacific Northwest

14 Oct 2020, 3:10 pm

Reminds me of a funny story my mom told about us being in London. We were visiting Kensington palace and my mom stopped a lady who worked there asking about these apartments she saw there and asked if they are also open for tours and the lady says people live in them. I asked how much does rent go for (I was wanting to know the cost of living in London) and the woman was pretty rude to me. Her tone and acting like I was stupid. She was like "are you deaf, they pay nothing they are royal." She also said families of the royal live in those homes and I said "wait a minute, you mean if you have family that is royal, you get free housing" and she goes "yeah duh" and she also explained taxes are so high there because they pay for their utilities and I say, "wait a minute, you mean they pay no bills and everyone pay for their water and power and sewage and trash and everything and those families don't have to" and she said "of course, they're royal." I say "wow, that is like paying for the welfare." :lol:

The look on her face was priceless and my mom pulled me away from her.

There is royal privilege all right.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses.


thinkinginpictures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 850

14 Oct 2020, 3:16 pm

League_Girl wrote:
Reminds me of a funny story my mom told about us being in London. We were visiting Kensington palace and my mom stopped a lady who worked there asking about these apartments she saw there and asked if they are also open for tours and the lady says people live in them. I asked how much does rent go for (I was wanting to know the cost of living in London) and the woman was pretty rude to me. Her tone and acting like I was stupid. She was like "are you deaf, they pay nothing they are royal." She also said families of the royal live in those homes and I said "wait a minute, you mean if you have family that is royal, you get free housing" and she goes "yeah duh" and she also explained taxes are so high there because they pay for their utilities and I say, "wait a minute, you mean they pay no bills and everyone pay for their water and power and sewage and trash and everything and those families don't have to" and she said "of course, they're royal." I say "wow, that is like paying for the welfare." :lol:

The look on her face was priceless and my mom pulled me away from her.

There is royal privilege all right.


The difference between aristocratic/royal entitlements and welfare is that welfare is based upon rights in case of unemployment, disease, disabilities etc. You don't need to be unemployed, sick or disabled to get royal/aristocratic entitlements, all you "need" is to be born in the right family.

That's the difference and that's what makes royal privileges injustice.



madbutnotmad
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Nov 2016
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,218
Location: Jersey UK

14 Oct 2020, 3:48 pm

Personally i do not have anything against any of the members of the Royal Family / aristocrats, if they as people are kind, respectful and helpful to humanity. I personally do not buy into the monarchy, an inherited class of rulers.

The problem is the monarchy comes from many hundreds if not thousands of years of history, and inherited power / status / wealth are all linked to how some people / families developed and were able to accumulate wealth / power using various means.

This complex infrastructure however is man made and recognised by a society that simply accepts.
The problem with trying to change such sociopolitical structure in society is that these people / families really are extremely wealthy, but also, many of the capitalist players (which i note includes many of our "favourite" celebrities)
all love being "in" with the royals, and thus will give resistance if any one tries to change such traditional "institutions.

I know more about this particular area than most, i live in a UK offshore tax haven that the rich and famous including royals, hide their cash from the tax man or exploit the islands residential tax laws that favour wealthy individuals.

The island that i live on economy is basically centred around merchant banking, and those who are not bankers, make a living off running businesses that sell services and goods to the banks and their manpower.

Tax havens are like pirate's chests of gold, hidden away from the tax man.
While tax haven's being questionable in nature, the wealthy people who stash their cash in such places, as well as those who cream the banks by running supporting businesses, argue that the low or no tax for wealthy people and business owners is fair because they create employment for us lower class people to be employed in.

Personally i think that their business strategy is an unscrupulous manipulation of the truth.
I personally think a fairer tax strategy is for governments of the free world to introduce a compulsory profit sharing law on x percent of all net profits, as this would prevent unscrupulous business owners exploiting people by paying their staff low wages and then taking all the profits.

If such a strategy was introduced, this would force the business owners to share x amount of their net profits with all their work force, increasing low wage earners incomes, which in turn increases capital generated for the government through income tax (instead of being hidden by the wealthy business owners clever accountant).

If a business is struggling, then no profit is made, and none is there fore shared with the work force.
If loads of profit is made, as in the example of Jeff Bozzo's of Amazon.com, then every one gets a boost in income!
and every one is happy.

If people are given such an incentive to work, then people work hard and are happy to do so.
If you make people work hard without decent wages, it becomes nothing more than glorified slavery.

going back to the aristocrats.
One thing that i don't like about the aristocratic classes, is that for the past few hundred years, some have indulged in black occultism combined with mass hypocrisy, and this is possibly the reason why crappy people in power in various countries do nasty things on what they hold as magically significant days/dates.

If interested read up about the Hell Fire Club and people like Aleister Crowley, Madame Blavatsky, Guido Von List.
People who had an influence on all sorts of world events, from the background.

All that magic, just sadistic and childish bullying really. Power in numbers so to speak (not numerology but how many people involved, i.e. wealthy power monger gang bullying).



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 33
Posts: 1,546
Location: England

14 Oct 2020, 4:22 pm

I think this thread needs, as all threads do, a bit of George Orwell - who at least saw some value in the monarch, if not aristocrats in general.

http://hurryupharry.org/2010/11/18/orwe ... -monarchy/

The function of the King in promoting stability and acting as a sort of keystone in a non-democratic society is, of course, obvious. But he also has, or can have, the function of acting as an escape-valve for dangerous emotions. A French journalist said to me once that the monarchy was one of the things that have saved Britain from Fascism. What he meant was that modern people can’t, apparently, get along without drums, flags and loyalty parades, and that it is better that they should tie their leader-worship onto some figure who has no real power. In a dictatorship the power and the glory belong to the same person. In England the real power belongs to unprepossessing men in bowler hats: the creature who rides in a gilded coach behind soldiers in steel breast-plates is really a waxwork. It is at any rate possible that while this division of function exists a Hitler or a Stalin cannot come to power. On the whole the European countries which have most successfully avoided Fascism have been constitutional monarchies. The conditions seemingly are that the Royal Family shall be long-established and taken for granted, shall understand its own position and shall not produce strong characters with political ambitions. These have been fulfilled in Britain, the Low Countries and Scandinavia, but not in, say, Spain or Rumania. If you point these facts out to the average left-winger he gets very angry, but only because he has not examined the nature of his own feelings towards Stalin. I do not defend the institution of monarchy in an absolute sense, but I think that in an age like our own it may have an inoculating effect, and certainly it does far less harm than the existence of our so-called aristocracy. I have often advocated that a Labour government, i.e. one that meant business, would abolish titles while retaining the Royal Family.


_________________
Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don’t know because we don’t want to know. It is our will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our intelligence. Those who detect no meaning in the world generally do so because, for one reason or another, it suits their books that the world should be meaningless.


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,053
Location: temperate zone

14 Oct 2020, 10:59 pm

Well...the House of Lords, like the Monarchy, is a holdover from ancient times. And (as I, a Yank) understand it, today the HOL doesnt have much power anyway. Its a figurehead institution (like the monarchy). So on one hand its existence doesnt do much harm, but on the other hand its existence doesnt serve much purpose either. So I dont know why Brits still have it. But I am surprised that you Brits all only just now noticed how useless it is! :lol:



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,523
Location: Poland

15 Oct 2020, 2:30 am

naturalplastic wrote:
Well...the House of Lords, like the Monarchy, is a holdover from ancient times. And (as I, a Yank) understand it, today the HOL doesnt have much power anyway. Its a figurehead institution (like the monarchy). So on one hand its existence doesnt do much harm, but on the other hand its existence doesnt serve much purpose either. So I dont know why Brits still have it. But I am surprised that you Brits all only just now noticed how useless it is! :lol:

For the same reason some now-atheist societes maintain their ancient cathedrals, I guess.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.
***** ***


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,323
Location: I'm on the streets like curbs

15 Oct 2020, 2:32 am

Erm, they're not. :?



thinkinginpictures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 850

15 Oct 2020, 5:22 am

Mikah wrote:
I think this thread needs, as all threads do, a bit of George Orwell - who at least saw some value in the monarch, if not aristocrats in general.

http://hurryupharry.org/2010/11/18/orwe ... -monarchy/

The function of the King in promoting stability and acting as a sort of keystone in a non-democratic society is, of course, obvious. But he also has, or can have, the function of acting as an escape-valve for dangerous emotions. A French journalist said to me once that the monarchy was one of the things that have saved Britain from Fascism. What he meant was that modern people can’t, apparently, get along without drums, flags and loyalty parades, and that it is better that they should tie their leader-worship onto some figure who has no real power. In a dictatorship the power and the glory belong to the same person. In England the real power belongs to unprepossessing men in bowler hats: the creature who rides in a gilded coach behind soldiers in steel breast-plates is really a waxwork. It is at any rate possible that while this division of function exists a Hitler or a Stalin cannot come to power. On the whole the European countries which have most successfully avoided Fascism have been constitutional monarchies. The conditions seemingly are that the Royal Family shall be long-established and taken for granted, shall understand its own position and shall not produce strong characters with political ambitions. These have been fulfilled in Britain, the Low Countries and Scandinavia, but not in, say, Spain or Rumania. If you point these facts out to the average left-winger he gets very angry, but only because he has not examined the nature of his own feelings towards Stalin. I do not defend the institution of monarchy in an absolute sense, but I think that in an age like our own it may have an inoculating effect, and certainly it does far less harm than the existence of our so-called aristocracy. I have often advocated that a Labour government, i.e. one that meant business, would abolish titles while retaining the Royal Family.


Hitler won favor with the German aristocracy. So don't talk about aristocracy preventing the rise of nazis.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,570

15 Oct 2020, 5:27 am

I've worked with Englishmen before and while I admire their cultured, refined pleasantness, I do notice they are conditioned from a young age to view people in terms of class. it's a pity but if you have to work for an English boss they can be awfully obnoxious. They take privilege for granted.