Well, Okay Then

Here is Mr. Wright, in response to me saying it is immoral for a king to kill somebody who does not doff their cap to them:

“If the King kills me for not doing it, he is doing something evil”

This hereby invalidates your whole argument. I hate to say it, but a king who kills those who do not bow to him was what the original statement was about, and the only thing it was about.

That was the only kind of king ever under discussion, a tyrant: the oxbow in the discussion of King Arthur was to say that the only danger there was that there was no legal restraint on his becoming a king of like type.

I already answered to this in another place, in reference to the king of Liechtenstein: A king who merely imposed a light fine for my not doffing my cap places me in no danger whatsoever, nor does my defiance of him mean anything. My comment was not “A man who is not rude to a figurehead monarch who poses no threat to his life or liberty is a slave” My comment was “A man who does not defy a monarch who threatens his liberty under penalty of death is a slave.”

What in the world did you think I was talking about all this time? Who do you think it was that was going to kill me if I did not doff my cap and bow in the original statement?

THAT is a very good question: What the Hell were we discussing?

I made it very abundantly clear, the entire time, that my position on monarchy was merely that if I lived under one it was right for me to show proper respect to the sovereign. I don’t think I could have been more clear.

I’m not sure if this helps clear things up or obscures them more.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Well, Okay Then

  1. Zippy says:

    This is the part where the classical liberal pretends, as his narrative unravels, that he didn’t take his own ‘liberty or death, anyone who thinks a monarch sometimes holds real morally binding authority is a slave who deserves to be a slave’ posturing seriously.

  2. Zippy says:

    How about throwing him in the clink for the night for refusing to doff his cap? What if he refuses arrest for that and becomes violent? Is the sovereign right to meet his rebellion and violence with authoritative enforcement?

    • For my part, the answer is yes. But death for not taking part in a symbolic act of allegiance? I can’t see how it can be justified unless said person is actually advocating treason.

      • Zippy says:

        Malcolm:
        The whole “death for not doffing your hat” is a straw man. I’ve read enough of Wright’s stuff to know that he is not stupid enough to have thought that that was what the discussion was about. He reframed to that once his position became untenable.

  3. Andrew says:

    I’m going to agree with Zippy (I think). The King’s office must hold some sort of authority. If you refuse to indicate that his office is higher than yours (regardless of what you think of the person), then you are performing an act of rebellion against the state.

    Now, there’s a difference between “I do not show respect to the King because I do not respect the state” and “I do not show respect to you because you bring dishonour to your office”. The first assumes the office itself is illegitimate (or you are a simply a rebel). The second assumes the office-holder is answerable to a higher power.

  4. GJ says:

    First, Wright waved the spectre of the monarchy Bogeyman around, insisting that ‘monarchy’ always means ‘really really really absolute monarchy’: that all the other kings are kings “in name only” or No True Kings. But now as things unravel, he implicitly admits that other kinds of [non-tyrant] kings exist (“that was the only kind of king ever under discussion, a tyrant”).

    Frankly, in what way has Wright not acted like a SJW in this sorry debacle?

    • Zippy says:

      Underneath every classical liberal lies an SJW, ready to spring forth at the mere mention of monarchy or the suggestion that firearm possession is not an absolute right.

      • GJ says:

        Wright has spoken so eloquently, many many times about the unreasoning and unreasonable liberal/progressive, who in other matters may be sane but regarding their liberalism lost in darkness, trapped in lies.

        It has become manifestly clear that he and many others are just equally so as regards their own classical liberalism.

      • I’m still sympathetic to Wright. As early as sometime earlier this year I might have been on his side, and I’m not with Zippy all the way.

        But I’m far enough out of the liberal muck to realize that classical liberalism is just another liberalism, and I don’t buy it.

      • Zippy, you are such an ass…

        the suggestion that firearm possession is not an absolute right.

        Ok, yes please, let’s go over all the times a person’s ability to defend themselves & their family wasn’t a right. Was it… during ye olde South when Blacks were being lynched? What about the story of the Hession Rifle and the accompanying effort by the USA to ship guns to England so it could fight off the Nazis? Or how about my neighbor that was attacked by a bull? Per you all these people should have just sucked it up and accepted their deaths?

        Please do tell all the times the weak have what the strong are preparing to inflict on them because “firearm possession is not an absolute right.”

      • Nate: I know you and Zippy have had issues in the past. Consider this a warning, though: Don’t curse at other commenters. Otherwise, your question is allowed.

      • Zippy says:

        I guess we’ve established that free speech also is not an absolute right. 😉

  5. Chad says:

    Explain why taking your life, if you refuse to show due service, is unjust. If you damage the social cohesion of a whole society, undermining God’s desired leader, how can you repair or repay that? How can the King repair or repay that? What good does a mortal man have that equals the common goods of a whole nation?

  6. Pingback: On doffing your hat to the king and concrete shoes | Zippy Catholic

  7. You and I are arguing about nothing. I said I would oppose tyrants with my life. You said that was wrongheaded. You said that you would show respect to a chief executive. Whereupon I again said I would oppose tyrants with my life. There is almost no overlap whatsoever in what we were talking about.

    • Hello Mr. Wright. Believe it or not, I am glad you are here. I still think you are a good man, for what that is worth.

      You did not say you would oppose tyrants with your life – something I, of course, agree with, as should all good men. You said you would die before you doffed your hat to the king. Then you said that you would not doff your hat to even a non-tyrant king, one who would not kill you for not doffing your hat.

      This seems to be a much more specific point than “I would oppose a tyrant with my life.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s