Recent content by William Stratford

So basically "describe", but don't analyse too deeply?

If you think that this does not involve politics....and it is not by any means a sole factor in the slip in standards. Sorry, no, I cannot see how you can discuss this in any detail without it including politics (and its fair enough to say "no politics" but after 290 pages?!)

I see a lot of politics being discussed all the way through when it comes to discussing the causes of the slip in standards. I would appreciate an 'official' response as to what qualifies and what does not, because without this its just a minefield...

In the interests of not falling foul of this, which I have no desire to do, could you please explain how we can discuss the causes of a "general decline in standards" without it being politics? :confused:

Democracy is linked to the market in that they both are set against inheritance and tradition; with people instead procuring now, whether it be goods or practices, rather than receiving something old. If people inherit values, customs, principles, etc, there is no place for democracy (as no one...

Yes. Is that a problem? Of course, the absence of empircal evidence is not exactly problematic, as for several thousand years we have seen people try to unify Europe (Rome, Napoleon, everyone's favourite germanic internet cliché) and the empirical evidence is not so pleasant....but people still...

I'm not idealising it, no system will ever be perfect, but what I recognise is that is has a greater capacity for good things (stability, coherence, cohesion, and slow organic change) and a greater capacity for reducing bad things (demagoguery, ambition and the arbitrary rule of appetite/whim)...

Indeed, we've never had a true constitutional aristocracy. Aristocracy guarantees corruption when not bound by a constitution, but when bound by one it creates gentlemen where service is not a reward to be sought but a responsibility that is both inescapable AND bound against arbitrary power...

For aristocracy in itself, I would agree. But a constitutional aristocracy is a very different beast. A head of state would not be part of a constitutional aristocracy, as that would make the aristocracy into a form of govt that would need ambition once more (to "have the king's ear"), and it...

That is where part of the mistake in the opposing argument rests. It is not a matter of an hereditary aristocracy having a great sense of duty and responsibility (I suspect that they have no greater or lesser sense of duty and responsibility than many typical families) but rather that an elected...

"Have added to, in order to clarify a point" is not the same as "continually add to it & change it's content". It is getting impossible to discuss things here without being misrepresented. :(

There is, yes, however if you question the hereditary principle that will also degrade the role of parents (because if the public input belongs in setting the standards for the community, it can very easily be extended into the family as well). Its not about ability (in the meritocratic sense)...

No one has suggested that "our ruler [should be] based purely on birthright". What is it with people misrepresenting what is put on here? The rule should be based upon Law/Constitution (which is the principle that the US was built upon) whilst what amounts to the guardians of that should not be...

Except that it isnt "rule of the few" (Oligarchy) but "rule of the law/constitution". That would be strange, considering that America was created to be a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy.

Although there is no 'perfect' approach, a Constitutional Republic is superior to a democracy, and a Constitutional Aristocracy is superior to a Constitutional Republic, as both offer the stability of a constitution being favoured over voter whim but with the Constitutional Aristocracy offering...