Queen Elizabeth Blasted on Social Media for Christmas Day Speech on Austerity in Front of Golden Piano
By: Wes Messamore
The Humble Libertarian
(The Mirror) The Queen's Christmas Day speech has been slammed on social media for being out of touch and disrespectful to families struggling to make ends meet.
But the Queen was branded out of touch by viewers as the 92-year-old monarch delivered her speech beside a lavish golden piano in a luxurious room at Buckingham Palace.
Some commentators pointed out the vast disparity between the Queen's opulence and the real-life situations of her "subjects" as she called for people to come together no be riven by tribalism.
(THL) How do y'all know that's a piano and not a harpsichord?
I'm not usually one to go in for this "eat the rich" kind of talk.
Smacks of socialism. It's full of bitterness and resentment, perhaps vengefulness–– all mostly useless attitudes that won't get the person who harbors them any closer to a better life of their own. However it is hard to pass up noticing something:
Queen Elizabeth II Coronation Portrait, Herbert James Gunn (1952)
It isn't necessarily socialistic to decry a grant of special legal privileges from the government to a single family. It is a little strange that we're still doing this sort of thing in 2018.
Not too strange, since after all, we have been doing it for all of human history, and we have only recently begun to put racism behind us. Might be time to put royal families behind us too.
Badge of The House of Windsor
But it is important to make this distinction to people reading:
The mere fact of a vast disparity in wealth between Queen Elizabeth and her family, and other people and their families is not necessarily unfair. What's unfair is how the disparity came to be.
The British royal family came by their extravagant wealth through exorbitant grants out of the government's treasury, which is full of tax money taken from people's earnings without their consent–– indeed taken from people's earnings by threats to confine them like the government would a violent criminal if they don't pay.
43 million pounds sterling at today's exchange rate is 54 million dollars in just one year carved out of other people's earnings without their consent. They should be able to keep all the money they earned and not be forced to give any to Elizabeth and her family if they don't want to.
This is an appalling way to accumulate money, and in nearly all other instances, we would find it unacceptable for anybody to extort money from anybody else this way, by means of intimidation and threats. Everyone else in the U.K. ––every individual, every business, every charitable organization, has to earn its money from others by peacefully persuading and enticing them to voluntarily yield some of their money as payment for some value in return. Anyone who accumulates a vast amount of wealth according to these rules of conduct, has played by the same rules as everyone else, and has earned all of their money by providing something of greater value in return to every individual or company that has paid them–– according to each individual payor's own judgement.
Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, is the richest man in the world
Larry Page and Sergey Brin created Google
Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook
No, not exactly.
Inheriting a vast sum of wealth from a parent who has earned it fair and square is not a special legal privilege for the heir.
It is their parent who earned that wealth–– playing by the same rules as everyone else–– exercising their own right to spend it how they wish. And if they wish to give it to a church, a charity, a friend, a lover, a spouse, or their children, that is their right, because they earned that money themselves fair and square by peacefully persuading and enticing others to voluntarily yield some of their money as payment for some value in return.
These guys certainly live well and have nice things because of the massive amount of resources they have accumulated by creating so much value for the world, but they don't seem to care about all the trappings and lavishments so much as they care about engineering amazing things that make other people's lives better in some way. Don't envy the British Royal Family, and ask:
Instead model yourself after successful creators, scientists, artists, engineers, business people, and entrepreneurs–– and ask:
The communists–– the Marxists–– noticed, as we all are bound to notice, that the world is full of haves and have nots, but they never elaborated their understanding enough to see the difference between those who earned what they have and those who have essentially stolen it. So they felt alienated from the world and came to hate it. The result was mass murder on a scale never before seen in all of human history, perhaps unequaled even by the exceedingly high levels of violence that the anthropologists have discovered in early man's prehistoric past.
The Romanovs, the Last Imperial Family of Russia, seated (left to right) Marie, Queen Alexandra, Czar Nicholas II, Anastasia, Alexei (front), and standing (left to right), Olga and Tatiana. They were all murdered by the communists during the Bolshevik Revolution.
If we don't want the story to end the same way today, and I believe almost nobody wants that, then we cannot afford for much longer to allow anyone to benefit at anyone else's expense without their consent. That goes for queens and welfare queens. That goes for tax-funded government organizations and tax-funded subsidies for private companies. And we must keep our hands off of other people and off of any wealth they have accumulated through earnings, as though it were a property–– an essential attribute–– of the person who accumulated it through their creative work.
Consider that my Christmas Day speech.
Merry Christmas and A Happy New Year!
The Humble Libertarian
(The Mirror) The Queen's Christmas Day speech has been slammed on social media for being out of touch and disrespectful to families struggling to make ends meet.
But the Queen was branded out of touch by viewers as the 92-year-old monarch delivered her speech beside a lavish golden piano in a luxurious room at Buckingham Palace.
Some commentators pointed out the vast disparity between the Queen's opulence and the real-life situations of her "subjects" as she called for people to come together no be riven by tribalism.
Read more at The Mirror.
(THL) How do y'all know that's a piano and not a harpsichord?
I'm not usually one to go in for this "eat the rich" kind of talk.
Smacks of socialism. It's full of bitterness and resentment, perhaps vengefulness–– all mostly useless attitudes that won't get the person who harbors them any closer to a better life of their own. However it is hard to pass up noticing something:
“Your recent genetic heritage entitles you to special privileges” — Racism
Also: “Your recent genetic heritage entitles you to special privileges” — Royal Families
It isn't necessarily socialistic to decry a grant of special legal privileges from the government to a single family. It is a little strange that we're still doing this sort of thing in 2018.
Not too strange, since after all, we have been doing it for all of human history, and we have only recently begun to put racism behind us. Might be time to put royal families behind us too.
But it is important to make this distinction to people reading:
The mere fact of a vast disparity in wealth between Queen Elizabeth and her family, and other people and their families is not necessarily unfair. What's unfair is how the disparity came to be.
The British royal family came by their extravagant wealth through exorbitant grants out of the government's treasury, which is full of tax money taken from people's earnings without their consent–– indeed taken from people's earnings by threats to confine them like the government would a violent criminal if they don't pay.
43 million pounds sterling at today's exchange rate is 54 million dollars in just one year carved out of other people's earnings without their consent. They should be able to keep all the money they earned and not be forced to give any to Elizabeth and her family if they don't want to.
This is an appalling way to accumulate money, and in nearly all other instances, we would find it unacceptable for anybody to extort money from anybody else this way, by means of intimidation and threats. Everyone else in the U.K. ––every individual, every business, every charitable organization, has to earn its money from others by peacefully persuading and enticing them to voluntarily yield some of their money as payment for some value in return. Anyone who accumulates a vast amount of wealth according to these rules of conduct, has played by the same rules as everyone else, and has earned all of their money by providing something of greater value in return to every individual or company that has paid them–– according to each individual payor's own judgement.
But what about banning inheritance?
Isn't inheritance unfair? Should at least be capped right?
Shouldn't there be an inheritance tax on their children, because their children didn't earn all that money themselves?
If they inherit that money, then wouldn't that be: “Your recent genetic heritage entitles you to special privileges”?
No, not exactly.
Inheriting a vast sum of wealth from a parent who has earned it fair and square is not a special legal privilege for the heir.
It is their parent who earned that wealth–– playing by the same rules as everyone else–– exercising their own right to spend it how they wish. And if they wish to give it to a church, a charity, a friend, a lover, a spouse, or their children, that is their right, because they earned that money themselves fair and square by peacefully persuading and enticing others to voluntarily yield some of their money as payment for some value in return.
These guys certainly live well and have nice things because of the massive amount of resources they have accumulated by creating so much value for the world, but they don't seem to care about all the trappings and lavishments so much as they care about engineering amazing things that make other people's lives better in some way. Don't envy the British Royal Family, and ask:
"Why couldn't I have inherited so much wealth?"
Instead model yourself after successful creators, scientists, artists, engineers, business people, and entrepreneurs–– and ask:
"What could I do to create so much wealth?"
The communists–– the Marxists–– noticed, as we all are bound to notice, that the world is full of haves and have nots, but they never elaborated their understanding enough to see the difference between those who earned what they have and those who have essentially stolen it. So they felt alienated from the world and came to hate it. The result was mass murder on a scale never before seen in all of human history, perhaps unequaled even by the exceedingly high levels of violence that the anthropologists have discovered in early man's prehistoric past.
If we don't want the story to end the same way today, and I believe almost nobody wants that, then we cannot afford for much longer to allow anyone to benefit at anyone else's expense without their consent. That goes for queens and welfare queens. That goes for tax-funded government organizations and tax-funded subsidies for private companies. And we must keep our hands off of other people and off of any wealth they have accumulated through earnings, as though it were a property–– an essential attribute–– of the person who accumulated it through their creative work.
Consider that my Christmas Day speech.
Merry Christmas and A Happy New Year!
