- Sep 18, 2006
I am disappointed to see that so many people hold in their minds the concept that we Whigs are in anyway radical, or related to the Radical party. We are, in fact, the proposers of a compromise between the extremist views of both the Radicals and the Tories. We choose not to elect a king for this reason:
If we elect a king to rule over us, and his rule is hereditary in nature, than we are also choosing who will rule over our children, as well as our children's children, and all of our posterity for eternity. What a great injustice that is! Although the man that we elect to the throne might be a benign and enlightened despot, who is to say that his children will be?
On the flip side, eliminating all of our factories is most certainly not the best way to run an economy! I do not see the country of Burma prospering! Is it not the best to have both the rich and the poor, and not simply the poor? But, of course, the rich must earn their money, and not gain it simply by being part of a noble bloodline that they are not worthy to have!
And, to thoroughly discredit the cited quote, I shall combat it with a quote of my own " We always have been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be, detested in France. "
I do believe your arguments were dealth with by Cromwell, and are a remnant of a bygone era. The Tory's do not promise the return of a tyrannical monarch, but the rule of the land by Parliament. History has shown us, however, that those nations which remove their monarchy for a republic, do inevitably enter a decline in power (as has happened here in Britain!). Parliament and monarch together, parliament first in matters of internal policy, monarch first in matters of state...this is the way forward in this brave new century!