Isn’t that terrific. Liz and Phil. I remember the coronation. I was in high school, and we had a day off from school (that was the highlight) to celebrate and do our own version
of the ceremony. It was outside and we had a helluva wind that day. Wigs were blown off, robes were blown up over heads and we all had to lean into the prairie wind to stay on the raised platform that had been erected for the ceremony. One of the guys had to say “viva la Regina Elizibetha”. About the only people that heard him were the one that were down wind. A couple of local hunters had been chosen to do the 21 gun salute. They used 12 gauge pump shotguns which could get off 5 shots with the plug removed. If they paced themselves properly, when one emptied his gun he could reload while the second one was blowing his five holes in the air. That worked fine until about half way through when one of the guns jammed. Seemed like it took forever to get to 21, but they did it. The whole thing was quite entertaining, and I probably would have fogotten all about it if it hadn’t been for the big wind and the jammed shotgun.
A lot of time has elapsed since then, but there has always been one constant. In that union it has always been Liz that had the balls. Good thing she is monarch.
a
Re:
‘it has always been Liz that had the balls’
Don’t be so sure…
From what I’ve read, Philip rules the household, mercilessly.
It’s his job to be second in public, but in private, well…maybe he doesn’t lord it over with the Queen, but with everyone else, whew! Apparently…
The Cow and the Bigot. Perfect spokespersons for this site!
Sorry Gary, we don’t want your wife and you as spokespersons for this site. Try Red Tory.
“God save our gracious Queen/ Long live our noble Queen”!
Elizabeth II has been a constant embodiment of dedication, courtesy, intelligence, wisdom, faithfulness, and modesty in a crumbling civilization which barely gives a nod to such attributes anymore. (In fact, it seems that ignorant unfortunates like the boorish Gary wouldn’t be able to discern such virtues if they tripped over them. Gary’s loss. Too bad.)
Philip has been a worthy consort: a manly man of many talents, who knows his own mind and has lived a full and productive life, while supporting his wife in her very challenging vocation. I like his rough edges: he’s certainly earned the right to exercise them!
The following quote is from Handel’s glorious “Zadok the Priest” (which I’ve had the pleasure to perform), the text referring to King Solomon from The King James Bible, Old Testament (Gary, that’s the Holy Book of Jews and Christians), sung at every English coronation since 1727 (Gary, that’s called tradition).
“And all the people rejoic’d, and said:
God save the [Queen], long live the [Queen], may the [Queen] live for ever! [poetic license and allusion, Gary]
Amen Alleluia!”
Congratulations from the Colony!!! I won’t be crass like Gary but I am hoping that during my lifetime Canada will find it appropriate to sever the cord with the monarchy. A good step in that direction would be to get rid of the Senate. Hopefully that will happen sooner rather than later.
Actually, this Royal family, although admittedly not Liz and Phil, has been a real gong show. Upitty people just behaving badly. You couldn’t write a believable soap with the stuff that has gone on with the Windsors.
Long live the Queen!
When they married, I was a toddler, but my mom loved the Royal Family, so I know who they all are–and even served the Duchess of Kent when I was working at Harrods, back in the early ’70s! (Does that count as one degree of separation?)
The Monarchy, under the Queen’s father and mother, King George VI and Elizabeth, the Queen Mohter, and during her tenure as Queen, has been transformed from royalty’s being mere figureheads to hardworking, significant contributors to their realm.
For anyone who is still under the misapprehension that the Queen is a woman of leisure, leeching off the British public, I always like to site an article I read in The New Yorker years ago, an interview with Harold Wilson, the then Labour Prime Minister.
Knowing that he had to spend an hour a week with the Queen, as per British protocol, to go over information in the “Red Boxes,” really annoyed him. He thought it would be “a bloody waste” of his time.
Shortly after these meetings began, he realized that he looked forward to them. The Queen was extremely serious and knowledgeable about world and Parliamentary affairs and extremely generous in sharing what she knew with him–which would not be the case if he was hoping to get information from the last, in Opposition, Prime Minister.
The Queen worked with the left-leaning Labour PM, Harold Wilson, in a non-partisan and professional way, and his admiration for her grew and grew.
It’s too easy to caricature the Royals as lazy layabouts, living high off the hog while their subjects “eat cake” (rather than caviar, I supppose), but it’s a cheap, mean caricature which has very little to do with the present-day reality.
If most of us had to keep up the agenda of activities they rigorously follow, as they support the many charities each of them are involved in and bolster British business, arts, and culture, most of us would be knackered by mid-day.
Don’t knock Liz and Phil. They’ve been a role model of faithful, loyal, married devotion through thick and thin. By now, they could easily have left public life and handed the reins (and reign) over to Charles who, himself, for all of his eccentricities and idiosyncracies, is no slouch. But they haven’t.
Long live the Queen and her Prince Consort!
Can’t say I get all misty-eyed over the good fortunes of the world’s wealthiest couple…fortune and status by genetic right…must be nice….all I know is I didn’t vote them the head of Canadian government.
ARTHUR: Old woman!
DENNIS: Man!
ARTHUR: Old Man, sorry. What knight live in that castle over there?
ARTHUR: How do you do, good lady. I am Arthur, King of the Britons.
Who’s castle is that?
WOMAN: King of the who?
ARTHUR: The Britons.
WOMAN: Who are the Britons?
ARTHUR: Well, we all are. we’re all Britons and I am your king.
WOMAN: I didn’t know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous
collective.
DENNIS: You’re fooling yourself. We’re living in a dictatorship.
A self-perpetuating autocracy
ARTHUR: Please, please good people. I am in haste. Who lives
in that castle?
WOMAN: No one live there.
ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?
WOMAN: We don’t have a lord.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I told you. We’re an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take
it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh — who does he think he is?
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn’t vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don’t vote for kings.
WOMAN: Well, ‘ow did you become king then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake,
[angels sing]
her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur
from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I,
Arthur, was to carry Excalibur.
That is why I am your king!
DENNIS: Listen — strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power
derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical
aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well you can’t expect to wield supreme executive power
just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin’ I was an empereror just
because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they’d
put me away!
ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!
DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
HELP! HELP! I’m being repressed!
ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!
DENNIS: Oh, what a give away. Did you here that, did you here that,
eh? That’s what I’m on about — did you see him repressing me,
you saw it didn’t you?
Good post,’been around the block, agreed.
“Must be nice”
in other words – “I’ll have a little envy with my toast.”
Nurturing your inner socialist this morning, eh Bill?
all I know is I didn’t vote them the head of Canadian government.
Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at November 25, 2007 9:23 AM
So what’s your point. Most canadians didn’t vote for Trudeau, Cretin or Martin, did you? but still got stuck with them doing far more damage to Canada than the Queen and Phillip. By the way where is your proof that they are the worlds’ wealthiest couple. She is the head of the Church of England not the Catholic church.
Oh and Gary even Parizeau has more manners than you when it come to heads of state.
“Nurturing your inner socialist this morning, eh Bill?”
No need to be insulting…just flexing my “inner” libertarian populism and using it to poke fun at smug nobility groupies. 😉
Help help I’m bein’ repressed! ;-D
“By the way where is your proof that they are the worlds’ wealthiest couple.” http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/royals/queenelizabeth.html
“Elizabeth is one of the wealthiest women in the world, with a net worth of $818 million in 2004, according to Forbes magazine. This is the result of a nest egg put aside for her by her father during his reign as king. Other estimates put her personal fortune at more than $4 billion, or as much as $16 billion if the Royal Collection — which includes the crown jewels – is included. ”
WLMR: “just flexing my ‘inner’ libertarian populism and using it to poke fun at smug nobility groupies. ;-)”
‘Happy to see the smiley face, WLMR. I’ve never thought of myself as a “smug nobility groupy.” Hmmm.
I just believe in giving credit where credit’s due. Could HM Queen Elizabeth help being born into privilege? What’s she supposed to do: throw it all over? Or use her privileged position to the best of her ability to benefit her country?
I’m tired of the politics of envy. They’ve done far more damage in the world than the handful of extremely rich sovereigns living in palaces and castles. It’s what’s in a wo/man’s heart that matters: Is it envy and mean-spiritedness or love, generosity, and sacrifice?
I’ll take the latter, thanks very much, no matter how big the person’s bank account. 🙂
Nice picture, Happy Anniversity. Now after they are gone can we please get rid of the institution and become a republic?
While I don’t mind QE, Why is it that we still retain this monarchy? It’s bad enough we have the socialists who keep telling us some people are worth more than others with their elitism and sense of entitlement.
wlmr – you were the one who was being insulting with your ‘ must be nice, smug nobility groups and your silly tale of heredity’.
Minor point – the Crown Jewels aren’t the personal property of the Queen.
What you are ignoring is the necessary (and I mean the word) infrastructure of societies. All, except the most basic hunting/gathering societies must have hierarchies of wealth and power.
This structure of inequality is functionally necessary. Only the ‘smug socialist groups’ with their naive utopian ideal of ‘everyone is the same’ reject this;they prefer the equality of the hunting/gathering social structure.
Problem. A H/G structure is utterly dependent on the natural availability of plants/animals in the envt; they don’t ‘grow their own’. So, they can only support small populations.
To Make Things Happen, a basic law of kinetics requires inequality of force. In a society that translates to inequalities of wealth and power. Some MUST have more money, not to buy diamonds and cigars, but to invest in long term infrastructures.
A robust society must have peoople who work on different time scales, different power scales. Some people who are wealthy, who invest in long term systems. It must have some people who are not wealthy, who work at odd jobs for short periods. And it must have the majority of its population as middle class, who range from working from pay cheque to pay cheque and those who can invest. Inequality is necessary, WLMR.
Now – ALL societies must also have long term Symbols or Models of Belief and Behaviour. All. A monarchy expresses this model; the benefit of a monarchy is that it is hereditary. If it weren’t, you’d have bloody fights among the population for the role (eg Soviet Union, various dictator states).
This model must represent wealth (translates to long time period), because a modern society MUST have wealth so that it can invest in long term future infrastructures. Think about other countries – the USA President can start out as poor but by the time he becomes president, he must show that he can attain wealth.
Wealth means= can last for a long period of time. That’s why wealth is important.
Think about our own society. We, in Canada, haven’t developed a robust enough economy such that we, ourselves, invest in our long term economic infrastructure. We’ve relied on the USA for that; Harper is trying to move us out of that.
So, our PMs must be wealthy but must not show it. Chretien was a master at that; pretending that he was ‘da liddle guy from Shawinigan’ when in reality, he was a corporate master.
Societies are complex; they don’t operate by the personal envy of individuals.
“I’m tired of the politics of envy”
Oh please save that tired misdirect for some philistine socialist,…the only thing I envy is the royal’s ability to avoid taxes from 1953-1993 wish we all had that tax deferment.
Don’t want to be around when Canada ceases to be a Monarchy.
All the Lefties who are gung-ho to become a Republic had better do a bit of homework on what that will mean. If their main worry now is being taken over by the Republic to the South their worst nightmare would come true in short order.
Australia may be toying with ditching the Monarchy but maybe a stint with Labour government will have them changing their minds on that score too.
…my in-laws are having their 60th anniversary in May next year.
Ironically they are one the few remaining monarchests living in Montreal, Ouest that is.
oh sigh….Yes, of course, everyone who is not a monarchist and wants republican styled or reformed democracy is a “socialist”…..(deep sigh of disappointment and foreboding):(
Ya know lock step partisanism and dogmatic reaction really do not serve the cause of moving the new right large tent forward….the new collective right has to at least have the sense to know what is best for it to grow and prosper ( such as a free republic)…an who your friends are (libertarians, populists, democratic reformers) ….or it will become another dead political movement.
The knee jerk reactions I witness to litmus test issues doesn’t bode well for a right coalition holding up to its own internal dogmatic friction.
” To Make Things Happen, a basic law of kinetics requires inequality of force. In a society that translates to inequalities of wealth and power.”
“This structure of inequality is functionally necessary.”
Nonsense ET. You are looking at the outcome of events and suggesting some kind of law dictates them and the outcome was necessary. Not so (for humans anyway). It’s all about opportunity and the ability to recognize it and seize it. As far as I can see, there is nothing necessary or some kind of a kinetic law that applies to the “pet rock”.
Inequality is not a necessity – it just happens to be a sign of a society where there are opportunities and people to seize them.
Politics of envy: I totally agree with batb, also ET and Liz, re the monarchy.
Redux, I appreciate your posts: not this one though. The Queen works harder than most of us and has for most of her 80 plus years–AND, with immense dignity and fortitude, she’s STILL working! How many women of her age are putting in the hours of public service she does, day in and day out?
The tax issue? Without the Royal Family, England’s tourist industry would have been much diminished: I’ll bet the RF easily attracts vastly more British tourist bucks a year than the annual tax breaks it ever got.
The Law of Unintended Consequences: the end of the Monarchy—and the further dumbing down of Canada’s authentic heritage—which costs Canadians very little, $-wise, but gives back a great deal in tradition and dignity, would saddle us with the likes of Trudeau, (Mulroney), Chretien, and Martin as our dog-eat-dog, political “Head of State”. Yuck!
I’m with the Beatles: give me Her Majesty any day:
“Her Majesty’s a pretty nice girl,
but she doesn’t have a lot to say.
Her Majesty’s a pretty nice girl
but she changes [sic!] from day to day;
I wanna tell her that I love her a lot,
but I gotta get a belly full of wine.
Her Majesty’s a pretty nice girl.
Some day I’m gonna make her mine,
Oh, yah, some day I’m gonna make her mine.”
Amen. Alleluia!
Happy Anniversary and all to Liz and Phil. Now go away and watch Britain being run down the drain. We do not need a monarchy.
Reading Liz’s post, I thought of the pathetic state of Britain and wonder how having a monarchy has saved them from anything. Certainly not the far left, the nanny state, the usurping of the Church of England’s influence, the invasion of insane Immams, etc. etc. All the dedication of Elizabeth and Philip has come to nought. As with her own family she must wonder, where did it all go wrong?
Doesn’t matter that she’s a billionaire, Without a kingdom, being royal is meaningless.
And, as much as we want to romanticize, their example of stability has meant absolutely nothing to those born after WWII. Not even to their own families, for that matter.
I salute them. Sixty years in the garish limelight is no mean milestone. They’ve played difficult roles very well and I wish them another ten happy years together.
Lookout, great little tune. I wonder how many people who own Abbey Road album have no idea this song is tagged on end.
Oh Gary, gotta love our freedom of speech where a bigot gets to call other people bigots; I will support the rights of everyone, including hateful a**holes like you, to state their opinions freely, just don’t cry when it blows back to you.
‘Disagree with ural: hierarchy is evident everywhere in nature. The Utopians have tried to distort human nature: they have usurped reality and tried to replace it with the false doctrine–dogma, actually–of “equality”.
The result? Irresponsible, neanderthal mannered kids–of all ages–running the show: right into the ground.
You can’t fool nature. All attempts to do so, most of which have included the brutal imposition of “equality” by one misguided political regime or another–here, in Canada, by the Liberals–have been disastrous.
So, I still say, “God save the [above politics] Queen!”
Ural – I repeat my point. Inequality is a necessity. What does ‘inequality’ mean?
First, it acknowledges the natural inequalities. We do not all have the same physical capacities. We differ; some of us can be firemen; some of us, physically, cannot. Furthermore, some of us require protection (children, elders) by those of us who are physically fit.
The other natural inequality is intellectual capacity. Some of us are mathematicians, some are linguistics, some are very limited in any skill, and most of us are in between these two levels.
Another inequality is ‘capacity to make things happen’. I repeat – in a society that operates by change rather than ‘no growth’, that society MUST operate in what is called a ‘far-from-equilibrium’ balance. It can’t operate with everything ‘in balance’. A bowl of jello is balanced. Any system that has the capacity to change MUST be ‘unbalanced’. Some of its parts must have more energy/capacity to do things than others.
Some parts of a society must be ‘very wealthy’ in knowledge (the research and devt part of a society). That takes a lot of time and energy.
Some parts of a society must be ‘very wealthy’ in money, which is the symbol of WORK. The society must be able to purchase WORK infrastructures for the long term future. Not just purchase of today’s bread, but purchase of the capacity to make bread. That means: land, seeds, irrigation, processing, workers, shipping, delivering.
Some parts of a society must employ short term low paid workers.
Some parts must employ longer term workers who develop long term skills.
The most vibrant and robust modern societies must have the capacity to change, to progress, to develop new technologies. That requires New Thoughts (from the small research class); that requires Money to Invest in long term infrastructures to develop these new technologies (that’s from the Wealthy investors).
The only societies that have no inequalities, are the most primitive, the Hunting and Gathering. They have no capacity to change their technology. No long term ‘thoughts’, no long term wealth to develop future life.
Inequality is a basic necessity of any living organism.
Don’t be utopian.
Yes, I do say God save the QUEEN but have to agree with gellen that the monarchy hasn’t saved Britain from a terrible fate. (Its utopian, PC politics have pretty well scuppered it.)
From one side of my mouth, I do think that the symbolic aspect of the monarchy can still fulfill a useful function: it can raise people’s sights to something above the mundane and selfish. However, on the other hand (mixing my metaphors), when a critical mass of people are entirely oblivious to the monarchy’s symbolic role–and, in Elizabeth’s case, actual giving–of sacrificial service to God and country . . . then what?
However, as the truth of the matter–certain goods of the monarchy–isn’t changed by its imperfect “incarnation”, I still believe the monarchy’s worth preserving.
“All […] who are gung-ho to become a Republic had better do a bit of homework on what that will mean.”
Two models for Republican governmnet within the British Commonwealth: 1.) Powerful, directly elected President; 2.) Weak hybrid of the Westminster system [aka the Politicians’ Republic].
1.) Direct-ballot Presidents in the Commonwealth — those who are also commanders-in-chief — mostly exist in Africa: South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, Sierra Leone.
Only since the mid-1990s have they been successful in overcoming tribalism, autocracy, corruption, and in some cases civil war.
2.) Politicians’ Republic: where the Westminster legislature chooses one of their own (usually an ex-PM of the ruling party) to fill the vacated post of Governor General / toothless figurehead. The model used by India, Pakistan (between President-Generals), Israel (hello Moshe Katsav and Simon Peres), Sri Lanka…
The model rejected by Australia in 1999.
Ireland directly elects their toothless figurehead president, the real power is wielded by the Taioseach (Prime Minister).
—————————————
Now, when John Manley mused aloud about republicanism, I had good reason – what with a Gliberal majority – to believe that Canada would end up with a Politicians’ Republic. And you all know what that would mean —
President Shawinigan Slugger!!!
I think the Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip were a lovely looking couple in their youth; unfortunately, their children, except, for maybe Andrew, received any of their good looks.
The Queen is a lovely lady and has been a loyal servant of the crown.
I am always of mixed mind when discussing the Monarchy. Her roll of Queen of Canada is in reality nothing more than a part of history and our heritage. As in the rest of the commonwealth, the Royals have not decreed anyone’s head to come off or be banished to the Tower of London in a long time. Neither does Canada foot the bill for her paycheck. So I don’t understand the push to become a republic and turf out the queen.
So much of our way of life has roots from Great Britain, from law and government, to name a few, so why try to deny out past? For better or worse, it is our heritage (our meaning Canada)so why waste any more time trying to change the past. Getting rid of the monarchy will not put a single more loonie in anyone’s pocket or change out position on the world stage.
I take it a few people here have little sense of history and tradition; perhaps because they do not identify with British lineage or heritage and would feel better about themselves if Canada was a melting pot of mediocrity.
ET: The only societies that have no inequalities, are the most primitive, the Hunting and Gathering. They have no capacity to change their technology. No long term ‘thoughts’, no long term wealth to develop future life.
True, complex societies will never achieve absolute equality. Inequalities are in that sense inevitable.
But the extent of those inequalities is variable between nations. Distributive and redistributive policies can be enacted (or not) to reduce (or not) such inequities. Further, such policies need not come at the expense of social innovation or economic prosperity.
A society of absolute equality is indeed utopian, but a society that actively seeks to balance prosperity and equity is not. Indeed, such societies exist today, and having successfully integrated capitalist free market economies with social democratic welfare systems, they are among the most affluent and stable democracies in the world. Whether we learn from them or deride them is a choice that we make.
selmer – of course there can’t be extreme inequities. That would disable the system in its ‘borderline state’ of ‘far-from-equilibrium.
If the system had several levels that were extremely unequal to each other, that would be moving out of the complex adaptive system (CAS) that I am describing and into eg, tribalism.
That’s where one tribe would hold all powers and wealth, and the others would not, and might include one tribe/caste that was ‘untouchable’.
My point is that in a robust society, which operates as a CAS, there MUST be inequalities of wealth and power. Just as there are physical and cognitive inequalities. The ratios in each level must be distinct but you’d have to have the majority in the middle.
The average Bell Curve best describes the ratios of typologies. If you’ve got too steep a curve, that means you’ve got too many in the middle. Too low, and you’ve got too many in the extremes. Canada is too steep; it relies on foreign wealth and intellect.
Well said, Selmer. Quite frankly, I find ET’s apoligia both stunningly irrelevant and utterly ridiculous.
Selmer says, “A society of absolute equality is indeed [a] utopian [idea], but a society that actively seeks to balance [meaning what] prosperity and equity is not. Indeed, such societies exist today, and having successfully integrated capitalist free market economies with social democratic welfare systems, they are among the most affluent and stable [comparatively, but not in relation to the past] democracies in the world”.
Selmer, you conveniently omit any examples, but if you’re talking places like Europe, (England, included) and Canada, who says they’ve “successfully integrated capitalist free market economies with social democratic welfare”? Indeed, as our traditions and freedoms become more compromised by the minute in this country, I believe your thesis is mere jargon.
Speaking of the politics of envy, I am envious of lookout (9:03 am post) at having had the opportunity to sing the wonderful Handelian coronation anthem. A great tradition linked to an even older tradition; a unifying theme of our civilization going back 3000 years.
@WL Mackenzie Redux:
I suppose you’re amused to see people categorize any republican as ‘socialist’. There’s an easy way to euchre that out at the outset, should a Republic of Canada come to pass. Just plead to the Sovereign to add a section to any agreement for Canada to become a republic which states that what used to be “Crown land,” not held by fee-simple tenancy or treaty, is now unowned. This measure would make it a lot more difficult to socialize anything.
Granted that this measure would not explicitly bring a limited-government republic, but the cue would be plainly obvious. If the Sovereign renders the Crown title to Crown lands void, then homesteading would be implicitly encouraged. So would be the right to hold property, as gained through the sweat of one’s brow.
A greater push towards limited government could be had through appealing to the characterisitc Windsor sense of humour. Something like: the “laws of the land” of Canada attained their force through they being an elaboration of the droit de chasse. They acquire their legitimacy through the tenant-fee-simple system, in which we have permanently leased what land we have from the Sovereign. Once the Sovereign is gone, this reason for legitimacy vanishes too.
Of course, the Queen still guarantees a certain kind of order in Canada. Those who wish for a republic, of any sort, should consider this point carefully: how are riots quelled?
Nice cheap shot Joanne.
Because heaven forbid a rational human being could BOTH maintain a deep understanding and appreciation of this country’s history and traditions AND yet still find the inequality and sense of entitlement associated with Royal Rule (even its ceremonial remnants) fundamentally repugnant.
Would the fact that I am a 5th generation Canadian with both British and French ancestry make my beliefs more valid to you? Would you still impugn my sense of patriotism, my knowledge of this country’s history, my appreciation of its traditions, with your musing (ie. “perhaps because they do not identify with British lineage or heritage and would feel better about themselves if Canada was a melting pot of mediocrity.”)?
ET, you seem to be confusing the natural and the man made. Utopian? – hardly.
I argue that unequal outcomes happen in societies – and it has nothing to do with necessity … that’s all. Does our society really need another Trudeau? after all outcomes can be positive or negative.
In short, we can only pick (sometimes in our own minds only) the brand of inequality we prefer.
ET: The average Bell Curve best describes the ratios of typologies. If you’ve got too steep a curve, that means you’ve got too many in the middle. Too low, and you’ve got too many in the extremes.
But steepness of curve is only one aspect of inequality, and in comparative analyses with populations held constant, then it is an artefact of two other, more important, dimensions. The first is breadth of its base–the distance between the extreme low and extreme high poles. The second is normalcy, or skewedness.
So, a country with a steep income curve that is highly left-skewed and long-tailed (i.e, wide breadth) indicates that most citizens are very poor, and a tiny handful of elites are super-rich. The distance between the poorest and the richest is very far, i.e., a highly unequal society.
In another country with similar population size, but with an income curve that is normal (i.e., bell-shaped) and extremely short-tailed, the vast majority would in comfortably in the middle, with only a few slightly poorer and slightly richer sub-groups. The distance between the poorest and the richest is short, i.e., a less unequal society. Note, the curve in this more (but not perfectly) equal society is as steep as the above highly unequal society.
Given the choice, which society would you rather work towards? Canada is too steep; it relies on foreign wealth and intellect.
Of more concern should be the fact that Canada’s income/wealth curves are extremely skewed and extremely wide.
I don’t think Joanne intended it to be a ‘cheap’ shot. She meant it. Very simply – it’s what they call ‘inbreeding’. The Windsors derive from a very shallow gene pool. Which doesn’t detract from Elizabeth in any way. In fact, she is the best of the litter – and she’d know what a compliment that is and appreciate it, I’m sure.
Ahh … wealth and the bell curve. Marx loves you … proving a point by hammering in a screw with a pair of pliers.
lookout: Selmer, you conveniently omit any examples, but if you’re talking places like Europe, (England, included) and Canada, who says they’ve “successfully integrated capitalist free market economies with social democratic welfare”?
The United Kingdom is even more unequal than Canada in terms of income and wealth distribution.
No, I am thinking here of countries like Norway and Sweden, which have managed to accommodate within their societies (a) a representative democratic form of governance, (b) capitalist free market economic opportunities, and (c) social democratic/universalist public welfare supports.
Who says they’ve “successfully integrated” these dimensions? Many observers. For example, a 2006 Conference Board of Canada report ranked these two countries tied for #1 in terms of innovative capacity (the US was #3). Norway’s economy was ranked #1; Sweden was tied with the US at #3. In terms of education and skills, Norway and Sweden were #2 and #3 respectively, behind Finland. Also, Norway had the second highest GDP per capita in 2006 (International Monetary Fund) and the highest Human Development Index score over the past 5 years (UNDP). Depending on the method of analysis, its economic productivity (GDP/hr) is either highest in the world (GK$) or second highest (EKS$; behind Luxembourg) (University of Groningen/Conference Board)
Sorry. gellen, you can’t blame the Monarchy for the state Britain is in today. It would be more down to faulty immigration and elected governments for several decades. The Queen, as head of State respects the people’s choice.
How come the Duke appears to be dressed up finer than the queen?
Link doesn’t work.
This one does.
Isn’t that terrific. Liz and Phil. I remember the coronation. I was in high school, and we had a day off from school (that was the highlight) to celebrate and do our own version
of the ceremony. It was outside and we had a helluva wind that day. Wigs were blown off, robes were blown up over heads and we all had to lean into the prairie wind to stay on the raised platform that had been erected for the ceremony. One of the guys had to say “viva la Regina Elizibetha”. About the only people that heard him were the one that were down wind. A couple of local hunters had been chosen to do the 21 gun salute. They used 12 gauge pump shotguns which could get off 5 shots with the plug removed. If they paced themselves properly, when one emptied his gun he could reload while the second one was blowing his five holes in the air. That worked fine until about half way through when one of the guns jammed. Seemed like it took forever to get to 21, but they did it. The whole thing was quite entertaining, and I probably would have fogotten all about it if it hadn’t been for the big wind and the jammed shotgun.
A lot of time has elapsed since then, but there has always been one constant. In that union it has always been Liz that had the balls. Good thing she is monarch.
a
Re:
‘it has always been Liz that had the balls’
Don’t be so sure…
From what I’ve read, Philip rules the household, mercilessly.
It’s his job to be second in public, but in private, well…maybe he doesn’t lord it over with the Queen, but with everyone else, whew! Apparently…
The Cow and the Bigot. Perfect spokespersons for this site!
Sorry Gary, we don’t want your wife and you as spokespersons for this site. Try Red Tory.
“God save our gracious Queen/ Long live our noble Queen”!
Elizabeth II has been a constant embodiment of dedication, courtesy, intelligence, wisdom, faithfulness, and modesty in a crumbling civilization which barely gives a nod to such attributes anymore. (In fact, it seems that ignorant unfortunates like the boorish Gary wouldn’t be able to discern such virtues if they tripped over them. Gary’s loss. Too bad.)
Philip has been a worthy consort: a manly man of many talents, who knows his own mind and has lived a full and productive life, while supporting his wife in her very challenging vocation. I like his rough edges: he’s certainly earned the right to exercise them!
The following quote is from Handel’s glorious “Zadok the Priest” (which I’ve had the pleasure to perform), the text referring to King Solomon from The King James Bible, Old Testament (Gary, that’s the Holy Book of Jews and Christians), sung at every English coronation since 1727 (Gary, that’s called tradition).
“And all the people rejoic’d, and said:
God save the [Queen], long live the [Queen], may the [Queen] live for ever! [poetic license and allusion, Gary]
Amen Alleluia!”
Congratulations from the Colony!!! I won’t be crass like Gary but I am hoping that during my lifetime Canada will find it appropriate to sever the cord with the monarchy. A good step in that direction would be to get rid of the Senate. Hopefully that will happen sooner rather than later.
Actually, this Royal family, although admittedly not Liz and Phil, has been a real gong show. Upitty people just behaving badly. You couldn’t write a believable soap with the stuff that has gone on with the Windsors.
Long live the Queen!
When they married, I was a toddler, but my mom loved the Royal Family, so I know who they all are–and even served the Duchess of Kent when I was working at Harrods, back in the early ’70s! (Does that count as one degree of separation?)
The Monarchy, under the Queen’s father and mother, King George VI and Elizabeth, the Queen Mohter, and during her tenure as Queen, has been transformed from royalty’s being mere figureheads to hardworking, significant contributors to their realm.
For anyone who is still under the misapprehension that the Queen is a woman of leisure, leeching off the British public, I always like to site an article I read in The New Yorker years ago, an interview with Harold Wilson, the then Labour Prime Minister.
Knowing that he had to spend an hour a week with the Queen, as per British protocol, to go over information in the “Red Boxes,” really annoyed him. He thought it would be “a bloody waste” of his time.
Shortly after these meetings began, he realized that he looked forward to them. The Queen was extremely serious and knowledgeable about world and Parliamentary affairs and extremely generous in sharing what she knew with him–which would not be the case if he was hoping to get information from the last, in Opposition, Prime Minister.
The Queen worked with the left-leaning Labour PM, Harold Wilson, in a non-partisan and professional way, and his admiration for her grew and grew.
It’s too easy to caricature the Royals as lazy layabouts, living high off the hog while their subjects “eat cake” (rather than caviar, I supppose), but it’s a cheap, mean caricature which has very little to do with the present-day reality.
If most of us had to keep up the agenda of activities they rigorously follow, as they support the many charities each of them are involved in and bolster British business, arts, and culture, most of us would be knackered by mid-day.
Don’t knock Liz and Phil. They’ve been a role model of faithful, loyal, married devotion through thick and thin. By now, they could easily have left public life and handed the reins (and reign) over to Charles who, himself, for all of his eccentricities and idiosyncracies, is no slouch. But they haven’t.
Long live the Queen and her Prince Consort!
Can’t say I get all misty-eyed over the good fortunes of the world’s wealthiest couple…fortune and status by genetic right…must be nice….all I know is I didn’t vote them the head of Canadian government.
ARTHUR: Old woman!
DENNIS: Man!
ARTHUR: Old Man, sorry. What knight live in that castle over there?
ARTHUR: How do you do, good lady. I am Arthur, King of the Britons.
Who’s castle is that?
WOMAN: King of the who?
ARTHUR: The Britons.
WOMAN: Who are the Britons?
ARTHUR: Well, we all are. we’re all Britons and I am your king.
WOMAN: I didn’t know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous
collective.
DENNIS: You’re fooling yourself. We’re living in a dictatorship.
A self-perpetuating autocracy
ARTHUR: Please, please good people. I am in haste. Who lives
in that castle?
WOMAN: No one live there.
ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?
WOMAN: We don’t have a lord.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I told you. We’re an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take
it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh — who does he think he is?
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn’t vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don’t vote for kings.
WOMAN: Well, ‘ow did you become king then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake,
[angels sing]
her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur
from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I,
Arthur, was to carry Excalibur.
That is why I am your king!
DENNIS: Listen — strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power
derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical
aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well you can’t expect to wield supreme executive power
just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin’ I was an empereror just
because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they’d
put me away!
ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!
DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
HELP! HELP! I’m being repressed!
ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!
DENNIS: Oh, what a give away. Did you here that, did you here that,
eh? That’s what I’m on about — did you see him repressing me,
you saw it didn’t you?
Good post,’been around the block, agreed.
“Must be nice”
in other words – “I’ll have a little envy with my toast.”
Nurturing your inner socialist this morning, eh Bill?
all I know is I didn’t vote them the head of Canadian government.
Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at November 25, 2007 9:23 AM
So what’s your point. Most canadians didn’t vote for Trudeau, Cretin or Martin, did you? but still got stuck with them doing far more damage to Canada than the Queen and Phillip. By the way where is your proof that they are the worlds’ wealthiest couple. She is the head of the Church of England not the Catholic church.
Oh and Gary even Parizeau has more manners than you when it come to heads of state.
“Nurturing your inner socialist this morning, eh Bill?”
No need to be insulting…just flexing my “inner” libertarian populism and using it to poke fun at smug nobility groupies. 😉
Help help I’m bein’ repressed! ;-D
“By the way where is your proof that they are the worlds’ wealthiest couple.”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/royals/queenelizabeth.html
“Elizabeth is one of the wealthiest women in the world, with a net worth of $818 million in 2004, according to Forbes magazine. This is the result of a nest egg put aside for her by her father during his reign as king. Other estimates put her personal fortune at more than $4 billion, or as much as $16 billion if the Royal Collection — which includes the crown jewels – is included. ”
WLMR: “just flexing my ‘inner’ libertarian populism and using it to poke fun at smug nobility groupies. ;-)”
‘Happy to see the smiley face, WLMR. I’ve never thought of myself as a “smug nobility groupy.” Hmmm.
I just believe in giving credit where credit’s due. Could HM Queen Elizabeth help being born into privilege? What’s she supposed to do: throw it all over? Or use her privileged position to the best of her ability to benefit her country?
I’m tired of the politics of envy. They’ve done far more damage in the world than the handful of extremely rich sovereigns living in palaces and castles. It’s what’s in a wo/man’s heart that matters: Is it envy and mean-spiritedness or love, generosity, and sacrifice?
I’ll take the latter, thanks very much, no matter how big the person’s bank account. 🙂
Nice picture, Happy Anniversity. Now after they are gone can we please get rid of the institution and become a republic?
While I don’t mind QE, Why is it that we still retain this monarchy? It’s bad enough we have the socialists who keep telling us some people are worth more than others with their elitism and sense of entitlement.
wlmr – you were the one who was being insulting with your ‘ must be nice, smug nobility groups and your silly tale of heredity’.
Minor point – the Crown Jewels aren’t the personal property of the Queen.
What you are ignoring is the necessary (and I mean the word) infrastructure of societies. All, except the most basic hunting/gathering societies must have hierarchies of wealth and power.
This structure of inequality is functionally necessary. Only the ‘smug socialist groups’ with their naive utopian ideal of ‘everyone is the same’ reject this;they prefer the equality of the hunting/gathering social structure.
Problem. A H/G structure is utterly dependent on the natural availability of plants/animals in the envt; they don’t ‘grow their own’. So, they can only support small populations.
To Make Things Happen, a basic law of kinetics requires inequality of force. In a society that translates to inequalities of wealth and power. Some MUST have more money, not to buy diamonds and cigars, but to invest in long term infrastructures.
A robust society must have peoople who work on different time scales, different power scales. Some people who are wealthy, who invest in long term systems. It must have some people who are not wealthy, who work at odd jobs for short periods. And it must have the majority of its population as middle class, who range from working from pay cheque to pay cheque and those who can invest. Inequality is necessary, WLMR.
Now – ALL societies must also have long term Symbols or Models of Belief and Behaviour. All. A monarchy expresses this model; the benefit of a monarchy is that it is hereditary. If it weren’t, you’d have bloody fights among the population for the role (eg Soviet Union, various dictator states).
This model must represent wealth (translates to long time period), because a modern society MUST have wealth so that it can invest in long term future infrastructures. Think about other countries – the USA President can start out as poor but by the time he becomes president, he must show that he can attain wealth.
Wealth means= can last for a long period of time. That’s why wealth is important.
Think about our own society. We, in Canada, haven’t developed a robust enough economy such that we, ourselves, invest in our long term economic infrastructure. We’ve relied on the USA for that; Harper is trying to move us out of that.
So, our PMs must be wealthy but must not show it. Chretien was a master at that; pretending that he was ‘da liddle guy from Shawinigan’ when in reality, he was a corporate master.
Societies are complex; they don’t operate by the personal envy of individuals.
“I’m tired of the politics of envy”
Oh please save that tired misdirect for some philistine socialist,…the only thing I envy is the royal’s ability to avoid taxes from 1953-1993 wish we all had that tax deferment.
Don’t want to be around when Canada ceases to be a Monarchy.
All the Lefties who are gung-ho to become a Republic had better do a bit of homework on what that will mean. If their main worry now is being taken over by the Republic to the South their worst nightmare would come true in short order.
Australia may be toying with ditching the Monarchy but maybe a stint with Labour government will have them changing their minds on that score too.
…my in-laws are having their 60th anniversary in May next year.
Ironically they are one the few remaining monarchests living in Montreal, Ouest that is.
oh sigh….Yes, of course, everyone who is not a monarchist and wants republican styled or reformed democracy is a “socialist”…..(deep sigh of disappointment and foreboding):(
Ya know lock step partisanism and dogmatic reaction really do not serve the cause of moving the new right large tent forward….the new collective right has to at least have the sense to know what is best for it to grow and prosper ( such as a free republic)…an who your friends are (libertarians, populists, democratic reformers) ….or it will become another dead political movement.
The knee jerk reactions I witness to litmus test issues doesn’t bode well for a right coalition holding up to its own internal dogmatic friction.
” To Make Things Happen, a basic law of kinetics requires inequality of force. In a society that translates to inequalities of wealth and power.”
“This structure of inequality is functionally necessary.”
Nonsense ET. You are looking at the outcome of events and suggesting some kind of law dictates them and the outcome was necessary. Not so (for humans anyway). It’s all about opportunity and the ability to recognize it and seize it. As far as I can see, there is nothing necessary or some kind of a kinetic law that applies to the “pet rock”.
Inequality is not a necessity – it just happens to be a sign of a society where there are opportunities and people to seize them.
Politics of envy: I totally agree with batb, also ET and Liz, re the monarchy.
Redux, I appreciate your posts: not this one though. The Queen works harder than most of us and has for most of her 80 plus years–AND, with immense dignity and fortitude, she’s STILL working! How many women of her age are putting in the hours of public service she does, day in and day out?
The tax issue? Without the Royal Family, England’s tourist industry would have been much diminished: I’ll bet the RF easily attracts vastly more British tourist bucks a year than the annual tax breaks it ever got.
The Law of Unintended Consequences: the end of the Monarchy—and the further dumbing down of Canada’s authentic heritage—which costs Canadians very little, $-wise, but gives back a great deal in tradition and dignity, would saddle us with the likes of Trudeau, (Mulroney), Chretien, and Martin as our dog-eat-dog, political “Head of State”. Yuck!
I’m with the Beatles: give me Her Majesty any day:
“Her Majesty’s a pretty nice girl,
but she doesn’t have a lot to say.
Her Majesty’s a pretty nice girl
but she changes [sic!] from day to day;
I wanna tell her that I love her a lot,
but I gotta get a belly full of wine.
Her Majesty’s a pretty nice girl.
Some day I’m gonna make her mine,
Oh, yah, some day I’m gonna make her mine.”
Amen. Alleluia!
Happy Anniversary and all to Liz and Phil. Now go away and watch Britain being run down the drain. We do not need a monarchy.
Reading Liz’s post, I thought of the pathetic state of Britain and wonder how having a monarchy has saved them from anything. Certainly not the far left, the nanny state, the usurping of the Church of England’s influence, the invasion of insane Immams, etc. etc. All the dedication of Elizabeth and Philip has come to nought. As with her own family she must wonder, where did it all go wrong?
Doesn’t matter that she’s a billionaire, Without a kingdom, being royal is meaningless.
And, as much as we want to romanticize, their example of stability has meant absolutely nothing to those born after WWII. Not even to their own families, for that matter.
I salute them. Sixty years in the garish limelight is no mean milestone. They’ve played difficult roles very well and I wish them another ten happy years together.
Lookout, great little tune. I wonder how many people who own Abbey Road album have no idea this song is tagged on end.
Oh Gary, gotta love our freedom of speech where a bigot gets to call other people bigots; I will support the rights of everyone, including hateful a**holes like you, to state their opinions freely, just don’t cry when it blows back to you.
‘Disagree with ural: hierarchy is evident everywhere in nature. The Utopians have tried to distort human nature: they have usurped reality and tried to replace it with the false doctrine–dogma, actually–of “equality”.
The result? Irresponsible, neanderthal mannered kids–of all ages–running the show: right into the ground.
You can’t fool nature. All attempts to do so, most of which have included the brutal imposition of “equality” by one misguided political regime or another–here, in Canada, by the Liberals–have been disastrous.
So, I still say, “God save the [above politics] Queen!”
Ural – I repeat my point. Inequality is a necessity. What does ‘inequality’ mean?
First, it acknowledges the natural inequalities. We do not all have the same physical capacities. We differ; some of us can be firemen; some of us, physically, cannot. Furthermore, some of us require protection (children, elders) by those of us who are physically fit.
The other natural inequality is intellectual capacity. Some of us are mathematicians, some are linguistics, some are very limited in any skill, and most of us are in between these two levels.
Another inequality is ‘capacity to make things happen’. I repeat – in a society that operates by change rather than ‘no growth’, that society MUST operate in what is called a ‘far-from-equilibrium’ balance. It can’t operate with everything ‘in balance’. A bowl of jello is balanced. Any system that has the capacity to change MUST be ‘unbalanced’. Some of its parts must have more energy/capacity to do things than others.
Some parts of a society must be ‘very wealthy’ in knowledge (the research and devt part of a society). That takes a lot of time and energy.
Some parts of a society must be ‘very wealthy’ in money, which is the symbol of WORK. The society must be able to purchase WORK infrastructures for the long term future. Not just purchase of today’s bread, but purchase of the capacity to make bread. That means: land, seeds, irrigation, processing, workers, shipping, delivering.
Some parts of a society must employ short term low paid workers.
Some parts must employ longer term workers who develop long term skills.
The most vibrant and robust modern societies must have the capacity to change, to progress, to develop new technologies. That requires New Thoughts (from the small research class); that requires Money to Invest in long term infrastructures to develop these new technologies (that’s from the Wealthy investors).
The only societies that have no inequalities, are the most primitive, the Hunting and Gathering. They have no capacity to change their technology. No long term ‘thoughts’, no long term wealth to develop future life.
Inequality is a basic necessity of any living organism.
Don’t be utopian.
Yes, I do say God save the QUEEN but have to agree with gellen that the monarchy hasn’t saved Britain from a terrible fate. (Its utopian, PC politics have pretty well scuppered it.)
From one side of my mouth, I do think that the symbolic aspect of the monarchy can still fulfill a useful function: it can raise people’s sights to something above the mundane and selfish. However, on the other hand (mixing my metaphors), when a critical mass of people are entirely oblivious to the monarchy’s symbolic role–and, in Elizabeth’s case, actual giving–of sacrificial service to God and country . . . then what?
However, as the truth of the matter–certain goods of the monarchy–isn’t changed by its imperfect “incarnation”, I still believe the monarchy’s worth preserving.
“All […] who are gung-ho to become a Republic had better do a bit of homework on what that will mean.”
Two models for Republican governmnet within the British Commonwealth: 1.) Powerful, directly elected President; 2.) Weak hybrid of the Westminster system [aka the Politicians’ Republic].
1.) Direct-ballot Presidents in the Commonwealth — those who are also commanders-in-chief — mostly exist in Africa: South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, Sierra Leone.
Only since the mid-1990s have they been successful in overcoming tribalism, autocracy, corruption, and in some cases civil war.
2.) Politicians’ Republic: where the Westminster legislature chooses one of their own (usually an ex-PM of the ruling party) to fill the vacated post of Governor General / toothless figurehead. The model used by India, Pakistan (between President-Generals), Israel (hello Moshe Katsav and Simon Peres), Sri Lanka…
The model rejected by Australia in 1999.
Ireland directly elects their toothless figurehead president, the real power is wielded by the Taioseach (Prime Minister).
—————————————
Now, when John Manley mused aloud about republicanism, I had good reason – what with a Gliberal majority – to believe that Canada would end up with a Politicians’ Republic. And you all know what that would mean —
President Shawinigan Slugger!!!
Citizens for a Canadian Republic.
http://www.canadian-republic.ca/
I think the Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip were a lovely looking couple in their youth; unfortunately, their children, except, for maybe Andrew, received any of their good looks.
The Queen is a lovely lady and has been a loyal servant of the crown.
I am always of mixed mind when discussing the Monarchy. Her roll of Queen of Canada is in reality nothing more than a part of history and our heritage. As in the rest of the commonwealth, the Royals have not decreed anyone’s head to come off or be banished to the Tower of London in a long time. Neither does Canada foot the bill for her paycheck. So I don’t understand the push to become a republic and turf out the queen.
So much of our way of life has roots from Great Britain, from law and government, to name a few, so why try to deny out past? For better or worse, it is our heritage (our meaning Canada)so why waste any more time trying to change the past. Getting rid of the monarchy will not put a single more loonie in anyone’s pocket or change out position on the world stage.
I take it a few people here have little sense of history and tradition; perhaps because they do not identify with British lineage or heritage and would feel better about themselves if Canada was a melting pot of mediocrity.
ET: The only societies that have no inequalities, are the most primitive, the Hunting and Gathering. They have no capacity to change their technology. No long term ‘thoughts’, no long term wealth to develop future life.
True, complex societies will never achieve absolute equality. Inequalities are in that sense inevitable.
But the extent of those inequalities is variable between nations. Distributive and redistributive policies can be enacted (or not) to reduce (or not) such inequities. Further, such policies need not come at the expense of social innovation or economic prosperity.
A society of absolute equality is indeed utopian, but a society that actively seeks to balance prosperity and equity is not. Indeed, such societies exist today, and having successfully integrated capitalist free market economies with social democratic welfare systems, they are among the most affluent and stable democracies in the world. Whether we learn from them or deride them is a choice that we make.
selmer – of course there can’t be extreme inequities. That would disable the system in its ‘borderline state’ of ‘far-from-equilibrium.
If the system had several levels that were extremely unequal to each other, that would be moving out of the complex adaptive system (CAS) that I am describing and into eg, tribalism.
That’s where one tribe would hold all powers and wealth, and the others would not, and might include one tribe/caste that was ‘untouchable’.
My point is that in a robust society, which operates as a CAS, there MUST be inequalities of wealth and power. Just as there are physical and cognitive inequalities. The ratios in each level must be distinct but you’d have to have the majority in the middle.
The average Bell Curve best describes the ratios of typologies. If you’ve got too steep a curve, that means you’ve got too many in the middle. Too low, and you’ve got too many in the extremes. Canada is too steep; it relies on foreign wealth and intellect.
Well said, Selmer. Quite frankly, I find ET’s apoligia both stunningly irrelevant and utterly ridiculous.
Selmer says, “A society of absolute equality is indeed [a] utopian [idea], but a society that actively seeks to balance [meaning what] prosperity and equity is not. Indeed, such societies exist today, and having successfully integrated capitalist free market economies with social democratic welfare systems, they are among the most affluent and stable [comparatively, but not in relation to the past] democracies in the world”.
Selmer, you conveniently omit any examples, but if you’re talking places like Europe, (England, included) and Canada, who says they’ve “successfully integrated capitalist free market economies with social democratic welfare”? Indeed, as our traditions and freedoms become more compromised by the minute in this country, I believe your thesis is mere jargon.
Speaking of the politics of envy, I am envious of lookout (9:03 am post) at having had the opportunity to sing the wonderful Handelian coronation anthem. A great tradition linked to an even older tradition; a unifying theme of our civilization going back 3000 years.
@WL Mackenzie Redux:
I suppose you’re amused to see people categorize any republican as ‘socialist’. There’s an easy way to euchre that out at the outset, should a Republic of Canada come to pass. Just plead to the Sovereign to add a section to any agreement for Canada to become a republic which states that what used to be “Crown land,” not held by fee-simple tenancy or treaty, is now unowned. This measure would make it a lot more difficult to socialize anything.
Granted that this measure would not explicitly bring a limited-government republic, but the cue would be plainly obvious. If the Sovereign renders the Crown title to Crown lands void, then homesteading would be implicitly encouraged. So would be the right to hold property, as gained through the sweat of one’s brow.
A greater push towards limited government could be had through appealing to the characterisitc Windsor sense of humour. Something like: the “laws of the land” of Canada attained their force through they being an elaboration of the droit de chasse. They acquire their legitimacy through the tenant-fee-simple system, in which we have permanently leased what land we have from the Sovereign. Once the Sovereign is gone, this reason for legitimacy vanishes too.
Of course, the Queen still guarantees a certain kind of order in Canada. Those who wish for a republic, of any sort, should consider this point carefully: how are riots quelled?
Nice cheap shot Joanne.
Because heaven forbid a rational human being could BOTH maintain a deep understanding and appreciation of this country’s history and traditions AND yet still find the inequality and sense of entitlement associated with Royal Rule (even its ceremonial remnants) fundamentally repugnant.
Would the fact that I am a 5th generation Canadian with both British and French ancestry make my beliefs more valid to you? Would you still impugn my sense of patriotism, my knowledge of this country’s history, my appreciation of its traditions, with your musing (ie. “perhaps because they do not identify with British lineage or heritage and would feel better about themselves if Canada was a melting pot of mediocrity.”)?
ET, you seem to be confusing the natural and the man made. Utopian? – hardly.
I argue that unequal outcomes happen in societies – and it has nothing to do with necessity … that’s all. Does our society really need another Trudeau? after all outcomes can be positive or negative.
In short, we can only pick (sometimes in our own minds only) the brand of inequality we prefer.
ET: The average Bell Curve best describes the ratios of typologies. If you’ve got too steep a curve, that means you’ve got too many in the middle. Too low, and you’ve got too many in the extremes.
But steepness of curve is only one aspect of inequality, and in comparative analyses with populations held constant, then it is an artefact of two other, more important, dimensions. The first is breadth of its base–the distance between the extreme low and extreme high poles. The second is normalcy, or skewedness.
So, a country with a steep income curve that is highly left-skewed and long-tailed (i.e, wide breadth) indicates that most citizens are very poor, and a tiny handful of elites are super-rich. The distance between the poorest and the richest is very far, i.e., a highly unequal society.
In another country with similar population size, but with an income curve that is normal (i.e., bell-shaped) and extremely short-tailed, the vast majority would in comfortably in the middle, with only a few slightly poorer and slightly richer sub-groups. The distance between the poorest and the richest is short, i.e., a less unequal society. Note, the curve in this more (but not perfectly) equal society is as steep as the above highly unequal society.
Given the choice, which society would you rather work towards?
Canada is too steep; it relies on foreign wealth and intellect.
Of more concern should be the fact that Canada’s income/wealth curves are extremely skewed and extremely wide.
I don’t think Joanne intended it to be a ‘cheap’ shot. She meant it. Very simply – it’s what they call ‘inbreeding’. The Windsors derive from a very shallow gene pool. Which doesn’t detract from Elizabeth in any way. In fact, she is the best of the litter – and she’d know what a compliment that is and appreciate it, I’m sure.
Ahh … wealth and the bell curve. Marx loves you … proving a point by hammering in a screw with a pair of pliers.
lookout: Selmer, you conveniently omit any examples, but if you’re talking places like Europe, (England, included) and Canada, who says they’ve “successfully integrated capitalist free market economies with social democratic welfare”?
The United Kingdom is even more unequal than Canada in terms of income and wealth distribution.
No, I am thinking here of countries like Norway and Sweden, which have managed to accommodate within their societies (a) a representative democratic form of governance, (b) capitalist free market economic opportunities, and (c) social democratic/universalist public welfare supports.
Who says they’ve “successfully integrated” these dimensions? Many observers. For example, a 2006 Conference Board of Canada report ranked these two countries tied for #1 in terms of innovative capacity (the US was #3). Norway’s economy was ranked #1; Sweden was tied with the US at #3. In terms of education and skills, Norway and Sweden were #2 and #3 respectively, behind Finland. Also, Norway had the second highest GDP per capita in 2006 (International Monetary Fund) and the highest Human Development Index score over the past 5 years (UNDP). Depending on the method of analysis, its economic productivity (GDP/hr) is either highest in the world (GK$) or second highest (EKS$; behind Luxembourg) (University of Groningen/Conference Board)
Sorry. gellen, you can’t blame the Monarchy for the state Britain is in today. It would be more down to faulty immigration and elected governments for several decades. The Queen, as head of State respects the people’s choice.
How come the Duke appears to be dressed up finer than the queen?