"At this early point,we have already 'lost' kappert,who does not believe in 'good and bad',only in fantastical and indiscriminate 'peace' ".

Kappert criticizes Western leaders for failing to respond to 'letters' sent by 'men of peace' to 'men of war',yet he singularly refuses to respond to my 'letter of peace', asking him to accept a "compromise/Agreement' with me on the question of "Just War".

All "We" are saying is "give peace/compromise a chance".

Talk to me,kappert,talk to me.  

Against my' better judgment', let's try to expand the mind of Monarchist.

Our starting point is the moral equality of all human beings, i.e. in principle all human beings have equal value.  That doesn't mean that all human beings are equally behaving morally, i.e. in accord with human nature, for they do have 'free will' (i.e they can behave both good or bad)**.    But, we must start from the presumption that they are 'equal' as human beings (in the sense of valued in the eyes of God, or the purpose-giver to life).  If there is disagreement about this starting point, then further discussion is pointless, for we would then be in the world of the jungle where 'might makes right', and words become then simply self-serving and not to be taken seriously. 

People are morally equal in value, but they are NOT equal in talents, nor equal in their ability to behave 'morally' and for the common good (i.e. for themselves and others).  Hence, it is natural that societies form 'elites', i.e. individuals who 'lead' and who make the group 'advance' in a variety of ways (science, culture, economy, etc..).   Society certainly benefits from recognising such 'leadership', because it provides an incentive for generations of new young people to try to 'achieve' in one field or another of human endeavor.  Therefore, it makes sense for society to create 'functions' or 'positions' through which such leadership can be exercised.  Hence, society creates harbor masters, mayors, judges, teachers, government leaders, pilots, etc...         

The crucial point is that these positions of leadership must be (A) EARNED by the individuals concerned, and freely (B) RECOGNISED by others.  It cannot be that one can be born into such an 'elite' position of leadership of one kind or another.  We cannot have a system of (European) aristocracy, nor of an (Indian) caste system, where the status of individuals gets automatically assigned at birth (based on ancestry).   We want to fly in planes with pilots who have EARNED the right to fly planes and whose claim to that right is widely and freely RECOGNISED by society at large.  The same should apply to many other positions of 'leadership', including political leadership.    

While it makes sense for society to recognise 'leaders' in many walks of life, in order to promote effort and to foster the development of 'talents', it would not be wise to create a sense of permanent 'entitlement' to anyone.    There are numerous examples of 'leaders' who turn out to be utter fools in other domains of human endeavor than their 'specialty' (e.g., Hollywood celebrities and plumbers commenting on 'monetary policy', Werner Von Braun 'working' for Hitler, etc...).  There are also many 'great people', who in later stages of life go completely 'bonkers' etc...(Atlanticist please refrain from giving concrete examples!)  Thus, it makes sense for society to create incentives so anyone can become TEMPORARILY a 'leader' in one way or another, and society must find ways to make it easy to remove 'bad' leaders.  However, creating any kind of permanent sense of entitlement to anyone will always lead to decadence and to destruction. While ANY system of human organisation will be subject to mistakes and failures, a system that does not recognise the need for individuals to EARN leadership that is freely RECOGNISED by others is bound to fail terribly.

** At this early point, we have already 'lost' Kappert, who does not believe in 'good or bad', only in fantastical and indiscriminate 'peace'.

I don't disagree with your view that arisocracy has served an important and at times a positive role in the affairs of human history.I simply question the view that we can,or even should,be considering returning to the status quo ante.Anyway,thank you for your time,and the courteous manner in which you have responded to my previous 'missives'.

Thank you.

In other words,NOTHING would change your mind on this issue,right? Then don't you think it was somewhat disingenuous of you to suggest something could?

If I understand you correctly your argument is that monarchy and aristocracy are preferable to liberal democracy and state that "Individual examples of freaks won't change my opinion".That's fair enough."Freaks" don't change my opinions about issues either.So,tell me what WOULD change your opinion on this issue then let's take the debate from there shall we?

@Monarchist:

Thomas Jefferson was not perfect. He was not God. But he was certainly better informed and more wise than you.

The Danger of an Hereditary Aristocracy

"The further the departure from direct and constant control by the citizens, the less has the government of the ingredient of republicanism; evidently none where the authorities are hereditary... or self-chosen... and little, where for life, in proportion as the life continues in being after the act of election." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:20

"The hereditary branches of modern governments are the patrons of privilege and prerogative, and not of the natural rights of the people, whose oppressors they generally are." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1784. ME 4:218, Papers 7:106

"Hereditary bodies... always on the watch for their own aggrandizement, profit of every opportunity of advancing the privileges of their order, and encroaching on the rights of the people." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:483

"There is no King, who, with sufficient force, is not always ready to make himself absolute." --Thomas Jefferson to George Wythe, 1786. ME 5:398

"An hereditary aristocracy... will change the form of our governments from the best to the worst in the world. To know the mass of evil which flows from this fatal source, a person must be in France; he must see the finest soil, the finest climate, the most compact State, the most benevolent character of people, and every earthly advantage combined, insufficient to prevent this scourge from rendering existence a curse to twenty-four out of twenty-five parts of the inhabitants of this country." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1786. ME 6:3

"I was much an enemy of monarchies before I came to Europe. I am ten thousand times more so since I have seen what they are. There is scarcely an evil known in these countries which may not be traced to their king as its source, nor a good which is not derived from the small fibres of republicanism existing among them." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1788. ME 6:454

"Courts love the people always, as wolves do the sheep." --Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, 1789. ME 7:264

"The small and imperfect mixture of representative government in England, impeded as it is by other branches aristocratical and hereditary, shows yet the power of the representative principle towards improving the condition of man." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

"I do not flatter myself with the immortality of our governments; but I shall think little also of their longevity, unless this germ of destruction [i.e., the aristocratical spirit] be taken out." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1786. ME 6:3

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

"Governments, wherein the will of every one has a just influence... has its evils,... the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem. [I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.] Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs."

- Thomas Jefferson

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

"Aristocrats have a class while  nomenclature consist from thieves."

What a joke.  So aristocrats NEVER stole???  Henry VIII stole Church property and destroyed monasteries!  He looted from the Church - and you have the gall to make a stupid comment like that?

You need to learn some history.

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

Aristocracy pushed our civilization forward, nomenclature otherwise. Aristocrats have a class while  nomenclature consist from thieves. 

Of course, those "Marxist loons" have everything to do with "aristocracy".  After all, what is the difference between an "aristocracy" and a "nomenclatura"?  They are both groups who claim to be the leaders of the 'great unwashed'.  And what is this claim based upon?  On the consent of the 'unwashed'?  It is not.  It is based on nothing but self-serving myth.

Those Marxist loons have nothing to do with aristocracy. They are bastards of democracy.

It is a sham, there is no democracy in the EU. It is now an unqualified EUSSR Aristocratic dictatorship.

Welcome back Feudal Lords!!!