Ian B on the Functions of Government

Here in the Olde World, we didn’t create governments to do anything. In the case of Britain, the government is Mrs Queen, and she owns the country, which is why we are classed as subjects. Basically we’re all tenants, here by tradition on her land. We’re allowed to vote a bit for her council of advisers, who live in a palace in West minister, and we’re so grateful for that we also agree to buy them second and third homes, and pay for their duck houses and other necessary fripperies.

The interesting thing is, at one point we had a revolution and threw Mrs Queen out- it was actually Mr King then, and we cut his head off. But the replacement- a deranged religious maniac with a wart called Mr Cromwell- was so ghastly, we gave the country back to the Kings and Queens after he died. We sent most of the Cromwellians to America, which is why it is full of deranged religious maniacs to this day. In America they now call themselves “Liberals” and are so religious that they have abolished God.

But anyway, we never created our government to do anything. It’s the Queen, you see.

7 responses to “Ian B on the Functions of Government

  1. That’s actually a quite perspicacious analysis.

    But in fact if we’d been spry and on the ball as liberal minimal-statists, we’d have been prescient about forthcoming threats. And thus we’d have immediately shot all the Fabians dead in 1884, plus their mistresses and each other’s daughters and wives who they were of course already shagging under “free love”, and done a proper cover-up of the whole messy but fairly private business.

    Nobody would then have noticed or cared about what we’d just done: since the Media weren’t very powerful or penetrating, and also since it wasn’t above a couple of hundred individuals who were all nasty lefty incestuous Marxist scumbag shysters, and then we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in now.

    Who knows? Perhaps even Lenin the philosopher-turned-murderer, and Stalin the bank-robbing terrorist who ought to have got the rope first, might not have been so attractive to certain statist persons in Central Europe that spirited one of them into Russia to help boot the poor place down into the cesspit, as a gamble to destroy the rest of us in the West. There wouldn’t have been that, er, kind of “intellectual justification” for their nefarious activities later. And moreover, a justification coming from purportedly members of the “intellectual ruling class” of their prime strategic enemy country and civilisation, which they had to and wanted to destroy.

    It nearly worked, but in 1918 we seemed to be “the last man standing”. Trouble is, the buggers “got in” everywhere else.

    I blame the socialists, me, I and the Chimps do, us.

  2. An old mistake Ian – but still an mistake.

    As far back as 877 AD it was declared (as an “old right”) that even a King of France could NOT take the land (the fief) of one family and give it to another.

    Actually “Feudal” law (under which, in theory, land is not privately owned) offers better (not worse) protection for private ownership of land than Roman Imperial law (under which, in theory, land was privately owned).

    As for the English case – how did Henry the first gain support against his older brothers?

    Partly it was propaganda touches – such as stressing that he was born in England (they were not – also it meant he had been too young to have taken part in such crimes as William the Bastard’s mass killings in the north of England) and marrying a direct descendant of the Alfred the Great (a common Norman tactic – “I did not steal this land – look I am married to the daughter of the previous owner” a dodge of course, but better than nothing) , but it was more than that.

    The Charter of 1100 (overshadowed now by the Great Charter of 1215) was also important – but what was it about?

    It was about respecting the laws – but what did that mean?

    It meant NOT treating free men as if they were serfs (yes serfs could still be treated as serfs).

    Not just no ban weapons and so on – but no more land stealing either.

    No Roman Emperor would have undergone such a ritual (sworn by what?) or issued such a Charter.

    Certainly there were various efforts at land grabs by the Crown – but they were hotly opposed over the centuries, Because “Feudal” law gives ways to oppose them (and a state or mind that holds that law is NOT just whatever the King says it is)

    As for the political role of the monarchy………

    I wish it was real – part of the checks and balances (a bit like Liechtenstein).

    However, the modern monarchy has been taught (by a tradition that dates from Walter Bagehot’s “The English Constitution” – and then were a long line of books that were even worse) that they are not supposed to be political.

    Queen Victoria would not have recognised Bagehot’s portrait of the monarchy (it was actually propaganda – propaganda about how the monarchy should generally be just a “dignified”, read non-existent, institution – just about “advising and warning” in exceptional situations and even then only under the guidance of enlightened liberal opinion).

    I repeat that Queen Victoria would have regarded this Bagehot stuff as tosh – but, sadly, Queen Elizabeth believes it.

    “Why does not the Queen stand against the Progressive elite?” – partly (perhaps) because her own political opinions go that way a bit, but mostly because Elizabeth R. has been taught (since the lady was a small child)that it is wrong for her to stand against elite Progressive opinion (even if the lady thinks they are wrong, although, of course, it is Bagehot approved for a monarch to stand against “reactionary” opinions – even if they personally hold “reactionary” opinions themselves).

    We do not have a limited constitutional monarchy in the United Kingdom (if only we did – as part of the checks and balances) – we have a monarchy which is politically non-existent.

  3. David Davis-

    I’m not so sure that bumping off the Fabians would have made a lot of difference. To be a bit simplistic, I think Britain in the 19th century was at a fork in the road; we had two socio-political systems on offer. One was the liberalism developed in the previous century, the other was centralist statism. Unfortunately the Industrial Revolution encouraged a mindset of the “nation as a factory”, which led too many persons of influence to desire a government acting like factory managers, and the result was that we took the Statism road, and we have travelled further and further down it ever since.

    I am not a Conservative because I do not believe that it is possible for societies to reverse direction. We took that fork a long time ago, and we cannot go back. What we can aim to do is try to create another fork that will get us off this road and heading somewhere else.

    I find it very disheartening to think of what Britain in the 20th century might have been if the Liberal philosophers had won the argument, and the Radicals who became the Left had all somehow failed in their endeavours. The happiness, peace and wealth that Britons might have enjoyed…

    But what happened, happened. Britain is a bus full of people with an idiot at the wheel who has driven it into a swamp. We’re too far in to just go into reverse gear. We may need to drive further through the swamp to get out the other side. But it’s that getting out that we have to focus on now.

  4. Ian,
    I’m afraid you’re right but I wish it wasn’t so. To get to the late afternoon of my otherwise interesting – if sometimes rather too exciting in better-to-be-avoided-ways – life, to now have two young sons rather late in the day, and to think of them having to stay on the bus while it tries to negotiate the rest of the swamp, fills me with depression.

    The problem also is that the fella at the wheel is no idiot but a determined, evil and wicked political activist who has strategic objectives which are especially and deliberately unconnected with the survival of the least-bad-culture/civilisation ever to have walked this earth. His objectives encompass this culture’s death on purpose. That’s why he took the wheel of the bus on purpose, while our backs were turned and we were all getting on with other stuff. Stuff like setting up hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of libraries in Northern cities and towns, educating African natives, civilising IndoPakistan (or trying to), discovering electrons, sending the Navy out to kill slavers in the Arabian Seas, and so forth.

    Condemning all the children of the “British Masses” on purpose to a form of “diseducation” is also part of the main strategy. That’s why history is “gone” already, geography is corrupted to the point of uselessness, Who the fuck wants to know about “Mary Seacole” or “living conditions of young working girls in Quarry Bank Mill”? And why can’t they at least sort of know, even roughly, where to stick a pin in a map, when rpesented with ten (only ten!) names of capital cities? Or what an isobar is? The point of all this diseducation is to return millions and millions of people, some of whom could gang up and boot the bus-driver out into the swamp at least, to retribute him for his trouble, to a state in which they cannot – in the immortal words of old Chris Tame – “MAKE A DIFFERENCE”.

  5. I know David, it’s depressing. But things can change quickly, sometimes. Nobody in 1985 thought the USSR would be finished by the end of the decade. Nobody in 1913 could have imagined the massive changes that would occur in England and the world in the rest of the century.

    I take heart in my expectation that the 21st century is going to be very surprising. Society is a dynamical system, and small ripples can suddenly tip it into an entirely different domain.

    And we are playing our part. We are spreading ideas. And the pressures are building on our ruling class. They are rapidly losing the capacity to pretend that they are radicals and on the side of the little guy; the left is every day more obviously an oppressive, selfish oligarchy. More and more people cannot make ends meet as the economy becomes ever more unbalanced in the favour of the few. Scepticism regarding the financial system is no longer the preserve of a few obsessives talking about the gold standard; it is becoming widespread. People know they are being fleeced. With the internet, the explanations for why are easily accessible; you don’t need to go to a special bookshop to buy an arcane text any more; just follow an internet link.

    Who knows, the end of the swamp may be closer than we think.

  6. And for what it’s worth, I personally think that the derailment of the Syria war was an historically seismic event.

  7. Interesting notion Ian: that the effing bastards wanted a war and then they didn’t get one. I guess we have to thank our nasty repellent MPs for that one, since if Cameron could not come along as the rubbing-dog, Obama didn’t think he could turn out. Or perhaps his own MPs thought that, I can’t remember now, it seems so long ago: a week is a long time in poltitics….

    On second thoughts, I like the typo “rubbing-dog: I’ll leave it for other people’s use.