ConorBohannon:Lima36 wrote:

"it's nice to know that there are other conservatives that also enjoy Esperanto."

I suspect there are quite a few of us around though the ones I know tend to keep a low profile in certain venues

UK.

Personally I find the queen sickening esp to the concept of modern society. However the majority of people here (~65%) support monarchy. My wishes don't trump everyone else's.

You could call the UK system a hodge-podge of scotch-tape and carefully stacked cards. There's a lot of mess and it's all based on old laws and traditions.

I don't support any government. If you observe the general trend of today, you'll see with sites like Wikileaks and the subversion of being able to operate outside the law (cryptography, online currency) then it's not too far fetched to take it to the logical conclusion; in the future we will self rule. A libertarian/anarchist future. I'm not sure whether I'm for or against that, but I am convinced that's where we're heading. I accept it in the same way I accept Esperanto with all it's faults because that's the way it is.

Freedom is nice. And markets are lively. However capitalism is evil. Democracy is a transient step. People like to think we've arrived at the end point for political systems. That democracy is perfect. That's wrong: we've chipped away at our marble block and there's a rough form. It's a long journey until we have a beautiful statue. However others argue it's fine as is and would rather stay at home (and all throughout history too).

Cliffs:
- People becoming more independent.
- Extend thought to ultimate independence.
- Diminishment of government is logical conclusion.
- Anarchist/Libertarian self governing future.

Q. What if the government tried to shut down the internet?
A. We just make a new one

Q. What if the government tries to censor/limit people on the net?
A. Impossible. Easy to workaround restrictions- they can never keep up.

mob rule.

erinja:[A]s for the 'aristocracy' of countries that are no longer monarchies, I feel it is their duty to stop claiming their titles and live as regular people (I'm looking at you, former royal family of Italy).

Vittorio Emanuele di Savoia has publicly renounced all of his claims on the throne, the crown jewels, confiscated properties etc, in 2002. Emanuele Filiberto (his son) has been holding a day job since he was able to (with a few peeks in show business, which is about as non-royal as you can get). They both publicly swore to respect the constitution of the Republic.
There is a *lot* I do not like about the former monarchs (VE especially), but I think your comments are missing the mark.

Being 'royal' comes with certain obligations to your country, and once you are no longer in charge of that country, and you stop living a life that is 100% devoted to the service of your country, it is your duty to stop calling yourself by some fancy pants title and get a real job.

I think you are oversimplifying. Your titles, titular or otherwise, whether related to glittering articles or clothing or not, come from your house and your dynasty (not to mention knighthoods, etc), and they can be presumably backed up with the appropriate documents, genealogies, succession line analysis and all that other nifty stuff that monarchists are experts of (I am not). If a certain country does not recognize them as *binding* for itself, as Italy does, that's completely acceptable, but it doesn't take them away. Tomorrow Italy could become a monarchy again (or just a part of it, or even a completely unrelated remote subprovince of another country on the other side of the globe), and the people might call up the House of Savoy to act as kings. They would of course retain all of their titles, possibly acquiring new ones, and they would become binding again.

Nevertheless, VE is now the head of the House of Savoy (the succession is contested, IIRC) and I do not think it is inappropriate for him to keep all of his titles and honours. The fact that I, you, or a large chunk of the Italian people couldn't care less about them doesn't exactly mean much.

The Italian former royal family could be considered a special case, since they had to flee the country, leave most of their possessions behind and live in exile for over 50 years; I can imagine that this could very well bring complications, especially when it comes to "getting a day job" and "living as regular people". It could be that you were thinking about other cases, which might better fit your comments.

So far, with very few exceptions, the various Presidents of the Italian Republic have succeeded in upholding their duty as a representative of the people, leaving behind (or at least very effectively concealing) any and all former political affiliations. Some of them have been truly loved by the people (Pertini stands above everyone else, and Ciampi in more recent times). I think this is due to the fact that, although not completely toothless, the title of President does not hold a lot of power, and the President itself is not elected directly by the people (the Parliament takes care of that, and a vast majority is needed, at least for the first few attempts). When you do not have to take potentially divisive political decisions it is much easier to gain widespread appreciation. Because of this, and the bad blood that still runs between a large part of the people and the former royal family for their actions during the fascist regime, I think monarchy will not be restored very soon, if ever.

Genjix:
Freedom is nice. And markets are lively. However capitalism is evil. Democracy is a transient step. People like to think we've arrived at the end point for political systems. That democracy is perfect. That's wrong: we've chipped away at our marble block and there's a rough form. It's a long journey until we have a beautiful statue. However others argue it's fine as is and would rather stay at home (and all throughout history too).

Cliffs:
- People becoming more independent.
- Extend thought to ultimate independence.
- Diminishment of government is logical conclusion.
- Anarchist/Libertarian self governing future.

Q. What if the government tried to shut down the internet?
A. We just make a new one

Q. What if the government tries to censor/limit people on the net?
A. Impossible. Easy to workaround restrictions- they can never keep up.

mob rule.

To some extent I agree but I feel like what you've written is oversimplifying the situation. Capitalism is NOT evil by nature. For example, if you want a libertarian/anarchist future, capitalism will exist. In fact, as long as people serve their own interests over the interests of the nation, there will be capitalism.

In fact, the best solution is one of perfect balance - true socialism with libertarian values balanced against capitalism with some sort of structure (hopefully though this structure is something that is not institutionalised and more created by people living in harmony and understanding, but that's another story). Capitalism is necessary to an extent. If we become too "socialist", we to some extent become part of a larger organism (society) rather than being an individual. If we become too capitalist, either a catastrophe through greed may occur, or we become so bent on "success" that we forsake all other things that make us human unless they enhance our ability to bring the bacon home, which is equally as dangerous (both essentially lead to a "dead" humanity).

erinja:Being 'royal' comes with certain obligations to your country, and once you are no longer in charge of that country, and you stop living a life that is 100% devoted to the service of your country, it is your duty to stop calling yourself by some fancy pants title and get a real job.

Looking at it from their perspective, it's their money, and as long as they're living as good people with life-filled souls (can anyone find a better term for that? The person being alive mentally and physically for example), I see no problem with them having such possessions. If they are however stealing/destroying/endangering anything of mine or myself, then things change. In otherwords, they take care of their possessions and use them well, I have no problems, but if they abuse their possessions to make others lives miserable, then they do need to have a reality check.
Of course, "abuse" there is somewhat ambiguous, but I won't count things like not donating their money to every charity, since there's a fine line between being a nice giving person and becoming a shell of a person who lives to give. Well, that being a gross simplification.

With regard to the Italian royal family, in fact, I wasn't thinking of the ones who were exiled; I was thinking of the royals from pre-unification kingdoms, like the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.

Every now and then I hear about an event from this family; the birth of "His Royal Highness Prince Antoine of Bourbon-Two Sicilies, son of Prince François of Bourbon-Two Sicilies", et cetera. And I'm mystified because these people are carrying on titles that no longer have any meaning. Duke of Calabria? Count of Caserta? This "royal family"'s kingdom hasn't existed since 1860. It's time to move on.

I picked Italy as an example because it still has multiple "royal families" around, from the various kingdoms of pre-unification Italy. But of course this is not an issue limited to Italy at all. All over Europe there are royal families of countries that have had democratic governments for ages. If someone is no longer in charge of anything at all, why should they be calling themselves "His royal highness"? I could call myself Her Royal Highness the Countess of Esperantia and people would think me insane.

Keeping track of titles can be a fun exercise in interesting alternative history ("Oh look, this is the guy who would be the king of Korea if the Joseon Dynasty hadn't fallen"). But people who actually go so far as to lay claim to titles for monarchies that are dead, or to dispute among themselves who is the legitimate heir to a 'royal' family that hasn't been in charge of anything at all for more than a hundred years - this is a little crazy.

erinja:With regard to the Italian royal family, in fact, I wasn't thinking of the ones who were exiled; I was thinking of the royals from pre-unification kingdoms, like the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.

That's the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies and not Italy. You perhaps wouldn't include the former kings of Scotland or Wales under the umbrella name "royal british family".

And I'm mystified because these people are carrying on titles that no longer have any meaning.

They earned their titles and they have their own documents to back them up. They are mostly meant to certify their dynasty and lineage, and therefore they are probably meaningful within their family or to other monarchs only. I agree that for someone on the outside, they sometimes make for very funny juxtapositions of nouns and localities, but I do not consider it frivulous nor crazy; in the end, it's just a very complicated family name, and I am sure you have your reasons to be very attached (or even proud?) of your own family name, what it meant in the past, and what it means to you now.

If someone is no longer in charge of anything at all, why should they be calling themselves "His royal highness"?

Because in the past they have earned or acquired that title, and quite possibly the event that would have stripped the title away, according to its rules, hasn't happened yet. Again, look at it as a family name, if you want.

I could call myself Her Royal Highness the Countess of Esperantia and people would think me insane.

Without proper lineage documents, I believe that would be the case.

But people who actually go so far as to lay claim to titles for monarchies that are dead, or to dispute among themselves who is the legitimate heir to a 'royal' family that hasn't been in charge of anything at all for more than a hundred years - this is a little crazy.

Think of it as a dispute whether someone is a close member of the family or not (with lots of intermarriages, I believe such disputes could happen). It will make more sense. It will also possibly mean next to nothing for someone outside of that family, which can be acceptable. But I wouldn't go so far to call it crazy.

Again, I state that I have no sympathy towards monarchies and I am pretty happy not to live in one.

These people didn't really "earn" their titles, any more than I "earned" my US citizenship. I was born with it. I got it because my parents were living here when I was born, just as the people with these titles "earned" the titles simply by being born to their parents.

To me it has a lot to do with claiming something due to lineage. It reminds me of how Americans say "I'm Russian" or "I'm Italian" based on the fact that their great grandparents came from Russia or Italy. You could say "My heritage is Russian" or "My family came from Russia originally", or "I am ethnically Russian". But I'm certainly not Russian just because my family came from there; and someone isn't "noble" just because 500 years ago, their ancestor did something good and someone gave them a title that isn't even valid anymore. It has to do with being proud of yourself because of something that someone else achieved. Putting yourself on a pedestal, as if you were better than anyone else, because someone in your family (not even you) did something good for a powerful person a long time ago.

Of course these people can call themselves whatever, and I can understand being proud of your family heritage. But to me these titles are meaningless as soon as there's no longer any power or responsibility attached to them. It's one thing to say "I'm descended from the former kings of Long Defunct Kingdom and I think that's really cool". It's another thing to say "I'm the princess of Long Defunct Kingdom; and stop calling me Erin, I should be addressed as Her Royal Highness the Crown Princess Erin"

erinja:These people didn't really "earn" their titles, any more than I "earned" my US citizenship.

It's pretty much the same. Your citizenship has grounds, and their titles have grounds too. Your citizenship is internationally acknowledged, so it bears some importance. Likewise, their titles have been acknowledged and possibly still are by other monarchs (whether in power or not), even if in their own countries they are now not legally recognized. I do not see a problem here.

To me it has a lot to do with claiming something due to lineage.

It has all to do about it. But at the same time it has also become something akin to a family name and this is how, I think, it is treated. Something that attests your descent, or your membership in a family, or more properly, in a house.

It reminds me of how Americans say "I'm Russian" or "I'm Italian" based

A long-standing pet peeve of mine. Whenever I hear someone saying "I'm half Italian, half Irish", I immediately wonder how their passport must be like.

and someone isn't "noble" just because 500 years ago, their ancestor did something good and someone gave them a title that isn't even valid anymore.

There are those who give validity to such titles, and if you have it and you are attached to it, then you'll quite probably hang to it, because it will say something to you about your family, as much as one can be attached to their own family name or to the deeds (heroic or otherwise) of your own ancestors.

It has to do with being proud of yourself because of something that someone else achieved.

Nothing new here. How many people are proud of their country, even though all they did was just happen to be born there?

Putting yourself on a pedestal, as if you were better than anyone else, because someone in your family (not even you) did something good for a powerful person a long time ago.

I'm not sure if "better" is the right term, definitely "different".

But to me these titles are meaningless as soon as there's no longer any power or responsibility attached to them.

Your point was quite clear from the start. My point is that if you look at these titles as very convoluted family names, you might see how this could make more sense, both in terms of how the "common people" might react to these (seriously, how many people would still feel warmly about the british royal family, and their descendents, if the UK became a republic?), and to other monarchs, who for their own reasons prefer to stick around their own kin. (no pun intended)

It's one thing to say "I'm descended from the former kings of Long Defunct Kingdom and I think that's really cool". It's another thing to say "I'm the princess of Long Defunct Kingdom; and stop calling me Erin, I should be addressed as Her Royal Highness the Crown Princess Erin"

I admit I haven't been around former monarchs enough to confirm or deny what their stance is on how they insist to be called. The little experience I have is about interviews to members of the Savoy family, and they seemed okay with being called by their names.

I might agree, that insisted, prolonged claims about a position of power that you feel you should hold, or that you feel you are still holding, but that in reality you aren't, or you are not likely ever going to hold, is very close to delusional behaviour. But this, I believe, does not directly relate to one's titles, or to one's heritage or descent, it's a matter of behaviour, which can happen in non-nobles too. Case in point.

Genjix:
mob rule.

Yikes
One of the most important functions of a government (IMHO) is to protect the rights of the few which is in direct opposition to the idea of mob rule which is "join the mob or else..."

I am no lover of big government, but I am certainly not ready to resort to anarchy.

That being said...what does all this have to do with Esperanto?

I didn't say markets would disappear, I said capitalism is evil. Markets are vibrant exciting placed. Capitalism is exploitation.

I can't be arsed to explain to you fractional banking and quantitive easing. But basically currencies are artificially inflated over time. Rather than accumulating capital, it encourages people to immediately spend unwisely (because money is losing value over time) on silly purchases. That's why the consumer culture exists.

The effect on business is bad. Since it's hard to accumulate capital (because it devalues over time), you need to borrow from banks making you an indebtured serf. All the while banks just pring more money.

This is contrarian to free market philosophy and leads to distortion in the markets.

Now you agreed that people are going towards a more independent direction. Well it's not far fetched to imagine non-articially-inflating future currencies made by people. Just note the huge spread of online currencies.

---------

To the guy above. I'm not saying what is good or bad. Just what I think the nature tendency will be. Usually the future only gets better and people find solutions to problems inventively when given the freedom, so I tend towards better.

You work with what you're given. And that's the future we will have- increasing independence outside of controlling influences.

Anarchy is not the sudden breakdown of society. It's the lack of a central government. You still have direct democracy which more reflects our natural processes. Anyone who sees the bureaucratic procedures & ways of deciding things on Wikipedia will see it more naturally reflects the way we work. Imagine just doing that in real life. Those who say it can't work on large scales, speak bs- research scientists, free software (Linux, Wikipedia, others)... All large projects with their own creative processes.