Some comments on the blog reminded me of this speech. Arguably it is the best argument against democracy and in favour of enlightened tyranny. But remember what Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (November 11, 1947). King Charles said, from the scaffold:
“All the world knows that I never did begin a war with the two Houses of Parliament. ….for I do believe that ill instruments between them and me has been the chief cause of all this bloodshed. I have forgiven all the world, and even those in particular that have been the chief causers of my death……For the people; And truly I desire their liberty and freedom as much as anybody whomsoever, but I must tell you, that their liberty and freedom consists in having of government; those laws by which their life and their goods may be most their own. It is not for having share in government that is pertaining to them; A subject and a sovereign are clean different things, and therefore until you do put the people in that liberty as I say, certainly they will never enjoy themselves. Sir, it was for this that I am come here. If I would have given way to an arbitrary way, for to have all laws changed according to the power of the Sword, I needed not to have come here, and therefore I tell you….that I am the martyr of the people. I have a good cause and a gracious God on my side.”
3 comments:
So, understanding that I am not the best at translating ye olde English, what I think Charles I was saying was that liberty was in a government enforcing laws that protected the people and not necessarily the people sharing in that government. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I agree that it is the laws that matter in the end but the problem is I didn't have a say in the laws and I don't like many of them.
I believe I would be an excellent and fair, benevolent even, dictator but I suspect many people would disagree.
Is there a law in this country, politicians haven't thumbed their noses at?
Gordon Campbell's theft and corrupt sale of the BCR trial, was a total farce. Tried in a corrupt court, presided over, by a corrupt judge, of whom ignored brain dead witnesses and all.
Can anyone explain, what kind of law Harper is using? I can explain, however, it's not printable.
Rat, you have it. His point was freedom and the right to govern are not the same thing...
Post a Comment