OK, thanks for the bits in economy. I am quite an idiot in such issues, after all I am into philosophy, in fact economy was the thing I failed at school.

And well, given my ignorance of the subject and admiting my inferiority in such concepts, I will not discuss because I realise I lack of arguments. I can't say you're right or wrong because I cannot support you or contradict you basing myself on my current knowledge. I think you'll need someone else to debate about such issues.

But let's get to the issues I can discuss about...

Stalin was not the only questionable man, Lenin was quoted "you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette" - These are hardly the inspired words.
Well, no, I do not agree in breaking a few eggs. Well, I guess it depends on the eggs and the omelette, but I do not believe in that rule. But I never defended Lenin either.

I do not think so... bees have a queen, Wolves have the pack leader and Humans today have the "Mercantilist politician/ egg blown regent" (in the west anyhow, but I think Nepal was the last true traditional monarchy so it may be world wide). If we step down to communism we won’t even have a leader. Lao Tsu wrote; Heaven follows the Tao, Nature follows Heaven but Man has ceased to follow nature... Clearly, we see a correlation between trends in politics and our movement from order toward chaos. Men like all other thing need hierarchy, and as Plato demonstrated the philosophic king is the best leader... the other ages of disorder follow. At present humans are in Plato's Bronze (merchant) age. Japan was in the silver until WW2, Nepal in the Gold until the massacre incident.
OK, let's see. You believe that hierarchy comes up naturally because you can look at such behaviour in the human kingdom. Bees have a queen, yes, wolves a pack leader (Except lone wolves) and so on. Yet, we know how bees or wolves act, but so far there has been no definite study to explain human nature, as our space of rationality allows us to emancipate from instinctive rules. Whatever Lao Tse wrote ( I do like him, and I can discuss about taoism if you wish, it's the religion I feel more identificated with and know more about asides from christianism, yet I am not a taoist) he was on the argument man had separated from the natural path. Good, but the question is if there is something as a "natural path". Taking the path of Ortega y Gasset's argumentation on techne, man is naturally rational (Don't talk about Freud now, please, you know psychoanalisis is not definate irrationalism), and as such it can change itself, it's perfectible. You can argument such thing as living without goverment is impossible. You can believe it.

And yet, I prefer not to. OK, so maybe it is true we need a hierarchy, I cannot deny that is a perfectably normal belief. In fact, it's probably true. However, as Neruda said in his nobel price speech (Heh, quoting is good), there are the ones who, being realistic, keep puting frontiers to advancment through their attitude. Those too bastract, on the other hand, fail to be able to communicate their idea. How to be more clear: Maybe the end of history is purely hypothetical, idealistic fiction we will never achieve, and yet, I believe it is a model to look up too, a reason not to give up in the fight for a better world (Then again, that fight can fvck up, yes). You probably know about Quijote, or Quixote (As I believe that is his name in English). In Spain, there are two types, Sanchos and Quijotes. Sancho Panza is that realistic person, he is in fact preety vulgar, simple man. Don Quijote is simply crazy, trying to fight windmills as if they were giants. Quijote fails to see the windmills, Sancho fails to imagine the giants. And I prefer to keep fighting windmills, and I will as long as I see the world is how it is.

And yet, if I had to accept a leader, then I believe I would need to agree with Plato. Certainly, if someone has to rule over us, I prefer king Solomon to Herodes, and Herodes seems the ruler here.

May I ask how much influence King Juan Carlos I, has in your country
Well, he is a tabu topic for many humorists, as some slight joking is accepted, but beware never to insult the...mental condition of his children or you get censored.

Yet, I could say the influence of the king...well, you know he has total power, and yet he leaves everything in charge of the president except for the moments he has needed to act, and he has acted well.

1- 1981, 27th of February- A coupe d'etat was attempted, and the tanks were in the streets until the king ordered everything to stop.

2- 2004, 14th of March- The goverment was manipulating information on the tragic terrorist attack on Atocha. The king got pissed and phoned the president demanding him to tell the truth. And...well...the king is a major figure.


As for the rest, he does awful jokes, he does lame speeches and smiles to the cameras. He also wins the gold cup in wind navigation competitions, he is in fact regarded as one of the best sportsman in Spain in such sport. In fact, he has lost little competitions, and no, he is not given any advantage, he really is good :b

And now his son is going to marry and I get the news on TV every time, talking about all the crap and money they will waste on the wedding, all coming from our pockets. Bah.

I must say I liked both of his two serious political interventions in politics, but I can't like the monarchy. Sure, he's preety good, I can't complain, and he saved our ass from another fascism, so I guess I must be thankful.


....



I say, let's kick his son out when Juan Carlos is dead.