leftypol's day of the sun edition
<if we dont have inbred monarchs ruling over us people will resort to cannibalism
498 posts and 740 image replies omitted.Frederick II:>In a State such as this it is necessary for the sovereign to conduct his business himself, because he will, if he is wise, pursue only the public interest, which is his own, while a Minister’s view is always slanted on matters that affect his own interests, so that instead of promoting deserving persons he will fill the places with his own creatures, and will try to strengthen his own position by the number of persons whom he makes dependent on his fortunes; whereas the sovereign will support the nobility, confine the clergy within due limits, not allow the Princes of the blood to indulge in intrigues and cabals, and will reward merit without those considerations of interest which Ministers secretly entertain in all their doings.
>His method of dealing with business is preferable to the conciliar system practiced elsewhere, because it is not from big assemblages that wise advice comes, for Ministers are mutually divided by intrigues, private hatreds and passions intrude into the affairs of State, the system of debating questions by dispute is often too lively, casting shadows instead of bringing light, and, finally, secrecy, which is the soul of business, is never well kept by so many people.
<Alexander Hamilton / An absolute monarchy would be more tolerable than the authority of British Parliament over America>I'll go farther, & assert, that the authority of the British Parliament over America, would, in all probability, be a more intolerable & excessive species of despotism than an absolute monarchy. The power of an absolute prince is not temporary, but perpetual.
>He is under no temptation to purchase the favour of one part of his dominions, at the expence of another; but, it is his interest to treat them all, upon the same footing.
>Very different is the case with regard to the Parliament: The Lords and Commons both, have a private and separate interest to pursue.To be found in Hamilton's Farmer Refuted in response to Samuel Seasbury:
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-01-02-0057Post too long. Click here to view the full text. Louis XIV also makes it clear what the stamp of monarchical preeminence is all about.
In the song Publions en tous lieux:
>Barely can we suffice
>With all our voices
Or Hobbes Leviathan:
<Non est potestas Super Terram quae Comparetur ei. Iob. 41 . 24" (There is no power on earth to be compared to him. Job 41 . 24)
Hopefully, anons will understand this: a sovereign monarch with majesty isn't as, Hobbes would say,
>King, they thought, was but a title of the highest honour, which gentleman, knight, baron, earl, duke, were but steps to ascend to
Or reason like John Cook, that a king is no more than the Duke of Venice, a partner or in relation to an assembly like a part, and must take his turn in being governed, like statesmen… which again, is another blot against that notion of monarchical preeminence: a preeminent king doesn't take his turn in being governed, that is, swapped in and out like a cog that way; which is what the effect of "replacement" is trying to say, even the sheer at degrades the monarchy (no matter how good the intentions are).
I'll never get tired of telling you to kill yourself