"No, if a king is so hated or despised by his subjects that he can't keep them in order unless he reduces them to beggary by violence, extortion, and confiscation, he'd far better abdicate. Such methods of staying in power may preserve the title, but they destroy the majesty of a king... Certainly a man who enjoys a life of luxury while everyone else is moaning and groaning round him can harly be called a king -- he's more of a jailer.
"Int short, it's a pretty poor doctor who can't cure one disease without giving you another, and a king who can't suppress crime without lowering standards of living should admit that he just doesn't know how to govern free men. He should start by suppressing one of his own vices -- either his pride of his laziness... He should adapt his expenditure to his income. He should prevent crime by sound administration..."
This passage is from page 40 of Penguin Classics' Utopia by Thomas More. And here, I believe he is right. Kings (presidents too) are elected and put in power in order to take care of the people. Putting the country in billions of dollars of additional debt/"expenditures", and forcing a provision upon the people (such as health care) which will cause them to fall into a lower class due to the cost, is irresponsible, and as More said, he'd far better abdicate. At least the people would know then that he has a conscious of some sort, and possibly some wisdom in knowing when to quit.
President Nixon did. Though there are not many kings before him that have, nor after. Perhaps their pride has gotten the best of them as More suggests? A pity that they must continue to try to prove themselves, and yet continue to ruin the country who put them in power... Perhaps those in power should read more books like this one. ;)
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Monday, May 13, 2013
Disney 'Princessifies' "Brave"'s Merida
What happens when a spirited girl becomes an official Disney princess? In the case of Merida from Pixar's "Brave," she transforms from a round-faced, round-eyed heroine with copious amounts of frizzy red hair to an almond-eyed, teeny-waisted hottie with smooth, wavy tresses, a twinkly dress and plenty of décolletage. She also trades her bow and arrow for a belt from Elvis' Vegas years.
This is the beginning of an article from MSN.com (http://social.entertainment.msn.com/blogs/pop-spy-blog.aspx?feat=c399562a-5d3d-4462-a07e-eeeb4b1ff945&ocid=fbmsn). I laughed when I saw what Disney had done to Merida, their newest princess. Apparently, a number of other people did too, but these others went even farther and demanded that Disney retract their version of the princess, because it "ruined" the role model Pixar had created. I would agree with those who pleaded against Disney, and believe it is sad that our culture is so consumed with the picture-perfect characters. They are so quick to displace the slightly-blemished, headstrong but simple, heroes and heroines with ridiculous unrealistic models of "beauty".
The parents complained that this was sending the wrong message to their children and I would agree. However, the article finishes by saying that Disney did indeed accept the complaints and reinstated Pixar's Merida. I'm glad to hear that Disney isn't so caught up in itself that it discounts the pleas of the parents who want a reasonable role model. It's good to know that someone still cares.
Monday, April 22, 2013
Machiavelli's The Prince
I found it pleasantly surprising that Niccolo Machiavelli addressed the point of gun control, even though he published his book in the early 1500s. ;) The following passage (with a few of my own additions in brackets) is taken from Chapter XX:
Now, no new prince [or other kind of ruler, such as a president] has ever at any time disarmed his subjects; rather, when he has found them unarmed he has always given them arms. This is because by arming your subjects you arm yourself; those who were suspect become loyal, and those who were loyal not only remain so but are changed from being merely your subjects to being your partisans [or supporters] ... But as soon as you disarm your subjects you start to offend them [if they have any intelligence whatsoever], showing whether through cowardice or suspicion that you mistrust them; and on either score hatred is aroused against you.
Then, since you [the prince] cannot stay unarmed, you are forced to have recourse to mercenary troops... And even if these mercenaries were reliable, they could not be sufficiently so to protect you against powerful enemies and against subjects you distrust.
... So, all things considered... I censure anyone who, putting his trust in fortresses [or military], does not mind if he is hated by the people.
In other words, any and all rulers and countries are more powerful and have longer terms of success, if they build trust with their subjects, and give them arms. If a country full of armed loyal subjects, is attacked, the subjects will defend it to the end. However, when a country is full of citizens who rely on the government to protect them and are helpless to defend themselves, they will do everything to protect and save themselves, including siding with the enemy.
Psychology will agree that when someone is attacked, their body enters a state of "Fight or Flight". Those are the two main options, and if the government deprives the country (full of people) of their ability to defend themselves, then flight becomes the only option. And what enemy would turn down an opportunity to attack a kingdom full of peasants, whom he knows will do nothing but run if he invades?
Thus, a ruler who disarms his subjects, or makes it unconstitutionally difficult to attain/use them, neither trusts his people, nor has the best in mind for the country. What kind of people would elect a man who they know would willingly disarm them? History is full of examples of people that once disarmed and placed under the "protection" of their government and its hired mercenaries failed. Machiavelli even names a number of these incidents. The founders of the US Constitution knew this. Any historian will also tell you that history repeats itself. Even if Machiavelli wasn't actually talking about gun-control, I see no difference in the rules. Anyone who attempts to disarm his own subjects does not have his country's best interests in mind, and is destined to be overcome by another enemy.
Now, no new prince [or other kind of ruler, such as a president] has ever at any time disarmed his subjects; rather, when he has found them unarmed he has always given them arms. This is because by arming your subjects you arm yourself; those who were suspect become loyal, and those who were loyal not only remain so but are changed from being merely your subjects to being your partisans [or supporters] ... But as soon as you disarm your subjects you start to offend them [if they have any intelligence whatsoever], showing whether through cowardice or suspicion that you mistrust them; and on either score hatred is aroused against you.
Then, since you [the prince] cannot stay unarmed, you are forced to have recourse to mercenary troops... And even if these mercenaries were reliable, they could not be sufficiently so to protect you against powerful enemies and against subjects you distrust.
... So, all things considered... I censure anyone who, putting his trust in fortresses [or military], does not mind if he is hated by the people.
In other words, any and all rulers and countries are more powerful and have longer terms of success, if they build trust with their subjects, and give them arms. If a country full of armed loyal subjects, is attacked, the subjects will defend it to the end. However, when a country is full of citizens who rely on the government to protect them and are helpless to defend themselves, they will do everything to protect and save themselves, including siding with the enemy.
Psychology will agree that when someone is attacked, their body enters a state of "Fight or Flight". Those are the two main options, and if the government deprives the country (full of people) of their ability to defend themselves, then flight becomes the only option. And what enemy would turn down an opportunity to attack a kingdom full of peasants, whom he knows will do nothing but run if he invades?
Thus, a ruler who disarms his subjects, or makes it unconstitutionally difficult to attain/use them, neither trusts his people, nor has the best in mind for the country. What kind of people would elect a man who they know would willingly disarm them? History is full of examples of people that once disarmed and placed under the "protection" of their government and its hired mercenaries failed. Machiavelli even names a number of these incidents. The founders of the US Constitution knew this. Any historian will also tell you that history repeats itself. Even if Machiavelli wasn't actually talking about gun-control, I see no difference in the rules. Anyone who attempts to disarm his own subjects does not have his country's best interests in mind, and is destined to be overcome by another enemy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
