Replies

> No problem. I'm just a free person.

I would like a definition of that, personally I wouldn't call having to continue to pay the government for land I already own being "free", personally I often feel like I can't blow my nose without running into some sort of federal regulation telling me how to live my life. Being free is a complicated term.

When I'm speaking of "freedom" here, I mean "free" as in "free speech", not as in "free beer".

That being said, you are right, many of our freedoms here in the United States have been curtailed. I also think of property tax as a usurpation of my property rights. The problem is that, through a certain amount of laziness and corruption as well as a series of concessions to people who would rather be comfortable slaves (or welfare recipients) than free, we have allowed this country to veer away from the ideals of our founders. Instead, we should have been, and still should strive to come ever closer to their vision.

No, I think the problem was your refusal to recognize someone's legitimate status.

It's not a refusal to recognize their legitimate claim to the title. I refuse to accept the title's legitimacy. Mr. Reza Pahlavi's ancestor, 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.

Okay, so in other words the rest of the world should respect our traditions, but we should respect none of theirs, got it.

Where those traditions are absolutely antithetical to our traditions, yes. We founded this country to leave those traditions behind us. Here, in the United States, a slave in another country is just a man (though we had to fight the worst war in our history to finally learn that). A prince in another country is just a man. That is a principle this country was founded on. Just as we have lost our way on property rights (like you mention), we have lost our way on basic human dignity and equality (though some would call our decline "courtesy").

That is simply absurd, if you think everyone with a title actually earned it you must have the all-seeing eye of God in your head.

It is true that some people with titles in the U.S. didn't earn them legitimately. I can think of a few liberal arts college "professors" who fall into that category. However, I think it is abundantly clear that the titles they pretend to are intended to be earned, and royal titles are not earned whatsoever (except possibly for the royalty in the nutball Society for Anachronism). The only other exception are those "royals" for whom the title "usurper" also applies (such as Reza Khan). They could be said to have "earned" their title, but that hardly carries legitimacy with it.

Actually, OTHER world leaders are expected to address him as "His Excellency", which they do, just as the President addresses the Queen of England as "Her Majesty" out of simple respect for other people's institutions.

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".

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.

Legally, the U.S. recognizes no hereditary titles whatsoever, there's no law anywhere that says people must be polite and courteous, yet centuries of experience has taught us things go better when we are.

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. An just because things "go better", as you say, or are easier, doesn't make them right.

Then explain to me why America is nothing at all like what Jefferson talked about?

I already did, earlier in this post. And Jefferson, himself, lived a life quite different than his writings. He was a slaveholder. But that does not make whis words any less legitimate or true. They would hold the same truth and value if they were written by "Anonymous".

Yet you would deny him the individual liberty to use the title of his own ancestors, you're right up there with the Democrats trying to choke off someone's rightful inheritance.

I never said he couldn't use the title or call himself Crown Prince. He has every right to call himself anything he wants. He can call himself "Grand High Poobah" for all I care. But he has no right to ask or tell me, or any other free person, to call him that, any more than I have the right or authority to tell you to call me "Her Royal Majesty, the Dowager Princess of Mars".

I must say the "Amerika Uber Alles" line is a new on me though. (Why we're so unpopular I'll never know...)

You really misunderstand. My attitude is not "Amerika Uber Alles", and the Nazi implication is childish and uncalled for. If you read and understod correctly, you would see that my position is "America Under Nobody". More specifically, "Americans Under Nobody". At best, our elected officials serve us. At worst, the lead us. They never, ever, rule us.

If the rest of the world has a problem with us wanting them to be free as well, then more fool them. Though they probably should be pitied.

Who was suggesting we were? I'm not obliged to treat anyone with respect, yet a little bit can be a big help.

But you mistake respect for obsequious toadying.

I respect Mr. Reza Pahlavi for his diplomatic and literary efforts to bring freedom to Iran. But I cannot also help suspecting a motive behind this is his desire for political position for himself. However, it is true that his ancestor, Reza Khan, did sieze power to bring about democratic reforms, and only took the title of Shah at the insistence of the clerics (they desired a continuance of the monarchy as a crutch for their own failing legitimacy). Reza Khan knew he couldn't succeed in Iran without the support of the muslim clergy, which is basically the same problem we have today (though the clergy today have a lot more power and are a lot more insane). But all that means is that he was a more or less good man and good for Iran. It does not make the title of "King", or "Shah" hold any water here.

> I tend to view American followers of the british royal family as falling into one of three groups: the gossips, the academics, and the slaves.

That's just funny, "Oh, I is sorry Massah Lizzy, please don't beat be none..."

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.

"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.