Merit doesn't have to mean 'goodness' as such. Machiavelli talks about the Prince either assuming his position through 'prowess' or 'fortune'. The latter means inherited but the former means whatever abilities, virtues etc are necessary to take and keep a state and that can mean ruthlessness, duplicity, skulduggery etc etc, now what one would traditionally see as 'merit' but what are from a realistic POV are 'fit for purpose' characteristics.

Someone like Cicero would say that statecraft was about more traditional 'virtues' such as generosity, empathy, fortitude, truthfulness, bravery etc, but Machiavelli is more realistic, the Prince must be 100% ruthless or someones will be and tip him over.

I think Machiavelli is probably a better guide to the banking world, although no doubt Bankers see themselves full for Cireco type virtue (don't we all though?).

Banking is open to anyone at least though, but then anyone ruthless enough can become a Prince also. Still banking spills less blood.

Bank robbing is open to all too.

 

Lloyd Blankfein - arguably the world's most powerful banker said that his bank did, "God's work".

I think what was unclear to the masses is which God's work was he doing? Shiva?

 

Karl Lagerfeld wrote on the monarchy in metro this week where he was guest editor

"It's totally unnecessary, but it's pleasant. Why not have the monarchy? People can dream about it. It is good for British tourism.

"The queen is like her grandmother - a more smiley version. In terms of what she wears, she's come into herself a little bit more, whatever that is.


So there you have it, summed up by one of her fellow countrymen

 

What's your ancestry, Trout?

 

and unlike the queen he has his feet squarely on the ground



and in touch with the common man

 

Homo Sapien

 

Indeed - it was posted with more than a touch of irony

 

When convenient, yet you're comfortable alluding to another's immediate ancestry. It's a bit like flip-flopping between a 'belief' in a free market and state intervention. I guess Integral Theory's helpful, until it's not; Pragmatist or mercenary? Either way I guess it's rewarding.

 

That's convenient.

 

Believing in something in a manner which is dogmatic to the point of unresourcefullness would seem foolhardy (BLUE).

The latter posts were to make light of the subject from an airport lounge - what do you want to read from them?

Integral or Integrated?

Integrated would be to recognise the facets of any system and weaving them together to create virtue. And remember Integrated is a ME orientation (although superficially that never makes sense to me - but in reality it is very ME - YELLOW).

 

OK. So, going back to my first question: how would you feel if there was a new law that 70% of the people were for, which meant that you had no right to own your Porsche, and perhaps that there was a ceiling on income of around £30k a year - the rest after that being distributed? Would you feel that was just and/or fair, and happily give up any lifestyle you might have currently?

In the scenario your car(s) and house (if it's over a certain size), and any other possessions deemed unnecessary, would be confiscated forcibly.

 

Given the tax bills I have just paid it already feels like everything above £30k has been redistributed forcibly.

Would I be happy - not really, at least not immediately.

Would it make me want a queen to 'save' me - attractive but not really.

I could exercise my democratic right in many ways - accept the new reality, fight the law, establish a new politic movement. These are all crucial freedoms.

For me personally, I have been and hopefully always will be very adaptable. There are many freedoms in not owning a large house and an expensive car

 

Sure but if you take a pragmatic approach you must still have some ethical end in mind?

Flip flopping between state intervention and free market tactics might be tenable if ones end is consistent, for example like John Stuart Mill's 'greatest good for the greatest number'.

Otherwise it might looks like one is just going which ever way suits ones own pockets?

 

With respect, if they can be taken away by the will of a 'mob', for want of a better word, they're hardly crucial freedoms, are they? More like a few choices you have in the practical reality of the situation. There are no innate 'democratic rights', per se, in that idea of democracy.

I get the last point.

 

Natural rights are innate. These are rights which the state cannot grant only take away.

I am talking about rights like free speech, freedom or movement and assembly.

 

To bring your argument into reality - the 'mob' has already taken a very substantial sum of money from me yet I am not railing against democracy as that is the will of the people.

For most people it is July before they start earning money they can call their own...

...where is the revolution?

Your real question is, would I rather be oppressed and poor in a feudal state or a democratic one.

Only the feudal lords would vote for the former, and contrary to Tony's allusions, I am not one of them!

 

The nature of consciousness oscillates between social and personal.

Much of the disonance we are seeing in society today is the result of a powerfully dominant ME consciousness sandwiched between and embedded and 'old fashioned' WE consciousness, and a newly emerging dominant WE, social consciousness. And so the spiral will keep on turning.

 

Some might say thats arguable,as long as you get it right of course.

Les

 

What does reality have to do with it? That's like saying, "well it'll never happen, so there's no point thinking about it or answering any questions related to it".

You're not railing against democracy, and you're happy to go with the will of the people, yet you would like to have some 'democratic rights'. What if they go against the will of the people?

I don't know what the part in bold has to do with it.

And no, that wasn't my question. My question was pretty much as I presented it. I get the feeling you would like to avoid answering it.

 

Exactly. I'm just wondering what rights that people have currently they are willing to sacrifice to the idea of democracy, or 'mob rule'. There are no absolute individual rights to be 'enforced' in that ideology.

That's if you can get past their inconsistencies, of course.

 

Come of it Trout you won't wriggle away so easily.

I'm was asking you to nail your pragmatism to an ethical mast. It's not so unreasonable.

You don't share an ancestor with Blair to you?

 

Well mob rule is a spoiled democracy, they are not necessarily one and the same.

Liberal democracy is supposed to protect natural rights and guard against a tyrany of the majority (mob rule) thorough constitutional protections and democratic institutions, which involves having much of formal power disseminated throughout society and not in the hands of a single person or institution.

If it gets spoiled by politics of emotion and mob rule it is not really a democracy, more a 'mobocracy'.

 

The bail-out money wasn't taken by the mob though Trout but was taken by the state and given to a financial oligarchy.

What's better an oligarchy masquerading as a democracy or a feudal state? At least the feudal lords are honest oppressers.

 

Are you going to acknowledge the concluding part of that story, Trout?

 

Whereas you Republicans are such a peaceable lot

I suspect the French, Russians, Iranians, Cambodeans, Laotians, etc, etc, may well beg to differ

 

I love the Queen, a wonderful head of state. Quite remarkable.

Surely it's got to be better than having some one like, Blurr or Brown, Nixon, Cameron or even Barak Obama as head of state. How could any one fight for them?

Over 370 state engagements in one year?

 

Cameron has Royal ancestry, as does the Mayor of London. These people have a spiritual attachment to This Sceptred Isle that transcends petty considerations and simply cannot be fathomed by the foreign and the profane.

 

What utter tosh.

Some of the most ridiculously royalist people are from India, Australia, Canada and even more bizarrely, the USofA.

I was in the US at the time the 'royal engagement' was announced. Good grief - you would think that Michael Jackson had been resurrected given the wall to wall 247 coverage. Far more excitement and response than in the UK.

 

 

See. Anyway, what's the response to #144, Trouty?