Quote# 128239

Perhaps the problem is the identification of terms. "Freedom" is not something that can be very definitively described. What can be is clearly defined is independence. The modern revolutionary state is all awash in "freedom" and "rights" but very little independence. We might gain new "freedoms" every day and extent "rights" to this group or that group but across the world our independence is slipping away -no actually it is running away at breakneck speed! That was an important difference between feudal monarchies and revolutionary republics that are just dripping with "freedoms". True, your average person in the Middle Ages could not vote, worship the devil or marry someone of the same gender but that person was independent. Back then the government stuck to big issues like wars, upholding religion and regulating trade. Even in far off America just prior to the "War for Independence" I doubt that King George III was concerned with how fast someone rode their horse, how much water their out-house used, if they smoked in public or were eating anything too high in cholesterol.

The Mad Monarchist, madmonarchist.blogspot.co.nz 12 Comments [6/19/2017 1:27:47 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Username:
Comment:



1 | bottom

CrowFood

"Independent" apparently means being essentially a slave...

So a couple things: no, he would not have cared about the horses because only rich folks could afford them. "Average" people were poor. And the fact that we have the government able to establish laws about things that aren't life and death is called progress.

6/19/2017 2:19:31 AM



Usually fundies pine for freedom for themselves. This person apparently laments freedom. Of course he also seems to lament things being better these days.

6/19/2017 2:22:47 AM

Pharaoh Bastethotep

Wrong. Pre-modern life was FAR more reglemented than ours, and not just on today's civil rights issues.

Another neoreactionary who knows absolutely nothing about the society he wants to restore. Seriously, where do these pseudointellectual ignorami get those ideas from?

6/19/2017 2:42:08 AM

Musicalbookworm

Ah, another dolt who slept through history but knows the good ole days were totally better.

6/19/2017 7:03:24 AM

Mayasmom

What are you talking about? Are you arguing for like small, local governments? Or lamenting that communities are intruding on peoples' rights for the good of the community?

George III probably didn't care about that stuff. But the local community does and would pass legislature to address the problem. We already had our own legislature (kind of need it to sue people you know) before the Revolution.

Edit:I read the whole thing and it's pretty funny. The comment section's a hoot aa well.


6/19/2017 7:18:53 AM

Norman

I think that George III gets a bit of a bad overview when one compairs to his successor George IV, at least the former had the excuse that he was slightly mad, while the latter was a dispotic heffalump.
I suspect to an extent the American Revolution helped keep the Monarcy in Britain, as it allowed the anti-monarchist on both sides of the pond to let off some steam, when compared to what happened in France.

6/19/2017 7:48:44 AM

Kanna

"True, your average person in the Middle Ages could not vote, worship the devil or marry someone of the same gender but that person was independent."

If you can't vote, your religion is forbidden, and you cannot be with your lover, how damn independent is that? Sorry, but you can't persuade me that we ought to step back two or three or eight centuries, for any reason whatsoever.

6/19/2017 8:21:13 AM



@Pharaoh


Just a hypothesis mind you



I wonder if, similar to their pining for the 50s, they see middle and dark ages as a time of romance, of knights in shining armour fighting the good fight and how the church ran everything so what they see as immorality in our time was heavily punished back then (I as a Pagan would likely be killed as would the atheists here and others, people were supposed to only have sex in marriage and only for procreation, etc), and never actually read history books so they don't see what the reality is.



Or, scary enough, they did read history and want to be the church in power

6/19/2017 8:28:07 AM

Churchy LaFemme

Your average person in the Middle Ages also couldn't move from his farm unless his lord approved, couldn't change jobs because he'd been apprenticed since age six, worked six days a week, could be killed by a noble who had little fear of punishment, owned two sets of clothes, lived in a house with one room, used the river as a toilet and a source of drinking water, and was lucky to have meat for one meal a week.

6/19/2017 8:37:29 AM

Canadiest

So now we can govern based on what King George III concerned himself about?
You're a loon.

6/20/2017 4:20:29 AM

ChrisBP747

Really? Peasants in feudal systems were independent? HOW? They were absolutely bound by their feudal lord, they couldn't move, they couldn't switch jobs, they more or less belonged to him... how is that independence? Just because you think that your government trying to save you (or at least regulate what you get) from corporations feeding and selling you life-threatening things (like food with extreme fat and sugar and drugs) as well as regulate to a degree how you deal with other people (for example don't drive too fast because it leads to more accidents and deaths) is worse than being more or less slaves, doesn't mean that everyone does... actually I believe you have no idea how a real lack of independence feels like.

6/20/2017 7:02:35 AM

agentCDE

Mad, indeed.

6/20/2017 8:10:00 PM

1 | top: comments page