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.