Let what go, John? Are you a royalist? Do you consider support for blood elites to be the rational position of all reasonable people, even when it goes against their own interests? My original reply to Michael was clearly tongue-in-cheek, but if I had instead suggested abdication and the declaration of the republic would you still consider this worthy of contempt (a bit rich coming from an American, I might add!)? Do you support the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few? Would you consider, say, a ban on offshore banking and a 99% inheritence tax on all holdings over $1m to be inherently unfair? Do you recognise that capitalism failed in 2008 (thanks to a liquidity shortfall in the United States) and that every person here, every regular person on the planet, is now being asked to foot the bill whilst the elites continue to slurp caviar - when, in fact, the honest thing to do would have been to fully nationalise the banks (or let them fail!)?John Cope wrote:just let it go (my advice)
Not voluntarily, no, and therein lies the moral conundrum. How many lives could be saved and bettered with those assets and how far would it be acceptable to go to seize them? I propose this in a theoretical sense, of course, accepting with a heavy heart that the elites are so entrenched, and the media-fried masses so sheeplike, that any such change or action is unlikely to occur within our lifetimes.willoneill wrote:the Royal Family redistributing their wealth, well, that's not going to happen.
This is, in a fundemental way, relevant to The King's Speech, btw, as Freedland timidly points out in his article, because (the reason I will never watch it - or The Queen or Mrs. Brown or...) it is a part of the propaganda, a part of the machinery that maintains the status quo, albeit an insignificant cog in the wider picture.