4 ms·
"Nothing much really changed per se after Democracy. " Yes, something very important changes, which is a rejection of the fundamental premise that some people
by HyperSane 4y ago
"Nothing much really changed per se after Democracy. "
Yes, something very important changes, which is a rejection of the fundamental premise that some people are inherently superior and deserve to rule because of it. I wonder if the fact that the UK is still so strongly class segregated is a cause or effect of still having a monarchy?
"what are you fighting for"
Not tolerating a bunch of elitist, parasitic pricks who think they have the right to rule because they are better than everyone else.
- kamaal 4y ago>>rejection of the fundamental premise that some people are inherently superior and deserve to rule because of it. >>Not tolerating a bunch of elitist, parasitic pricks who think they have the right to rule because they are better than everyone else. Democracy just offers you a choice to pick among a range of elitist pricks. Note in monarchy too, the prime minister is more or less a person of merit. The monarchy just maintains a veto, that's all the difference there is. The remainder of the structure is just the same both in democracy and monarchy.
- HyperSane 4y ago"Democracy just offers you a choice to pick among a range of elitist pricks." At least none claim be be of "Royal Blood" and their children don't automatically become ruler. A monarchy legitimized class based thinking in a very fundamental way, which I think is very bad for society. "The monarchy just maintains a veto" Please, monarchies are just nepotism on steroids. They had to make up the concept of "Royal blood" or "THe divine right of kings" to justify why one person should have so much power and be so unaccountable. There justification for being in power is "I'm inherently better than you, and all my descendants will always be better than yours forever"