From: "Daniel J. Matyola"
I am not bitching about any system. I am only saying that I am
offended by the concept that anyone is superior to another person by
reason of birth.
If we say that the Queen is superior by reason of birth and has rights
that can't be taken away, then we legitimize the position of the
"nobility" who claim to be superior by birth to us "commoners." That
is just a short distance from saying that whites are superior to other
races by reason of birth, or that English are superior to Irish, or
that Japanese are superior to Koreans. Belief in status or privilege
arising our of ancestry is anti-democratic, and creates artificial
barriers that divide people who should seek common cause.
Dan
The only flaw I see is the supposition that inherited wealth and
position are a claim of inherited superiority.
No democracy is perfect. The British and Canadian versions have more
flaws than an idealized, perfect democracy, but fewer flaws than some
other actual implementations.
Seems to me it's a workable way of choosing a titular "head of state",
i.e. who represents the nation ... as opposed to who governs the nation.
As I understand it, the Queen has little actual power, merely some
formal prerogatives. I understand the Queen appoints a Governor General
for Canada, but I believe she appoints whoever the Prime Minister of
Canada recommends.
And that the Governor General "approves" legislation from the Canadian
Parliament in the Queen's name.
But does the Governor General have absolute veto power? What happens if
the Governor General declines to approve legislation?
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
