Shall We Have a King, Then?
I'se for democracy--mostly.
But Aunty likes her democracy as the Founders meant it to be--a system of government for folks who understood that government was "of the people" and them people knew that self-governing was the task of folks who understood theyselves as "under God."
The American Founders knew that government was an ill, a monster if not regulated.
A famous fella said Democracy wasn't that great, until ya considered the other options.
So, iffin' we misuse and abuse democracy, to the point of utter corruption of the whole idea, well, THEN, I ain't opposed to gettin' a good King (or Queen).
One that writes like this :
No King can be happy without his Subjects be at ease, and the people be secure of enjoying their own without the King be at his ease also, and in a condition to protect them and secure his own right; therefore preserve your prerogative,(as King)
but disturbe not the Subjects in their property, nor conscience, remember the great precept, Do as you would be done to, for that is the law and the Prophets. Be very carefull that none under you oppresse the people, or torment them with vexations, suits, or projects: Remember a King ought to be a Father of his people, and must have a fatherly tendernesse for them... be content with what is your own. Endeavour to settle Liberty of Conscience by a Law.
Our Blessed Saviour whipt people out of the Temple, but I never heard he commanded any should be forced into it; tis a particular grace and favour that God Almighty shews to any, who he enlightens so as to embrasse the true Religion, tis by gentleness, instruction, and good example, people are to be gained and not frightened into it, and I make no doubt if once Liberty of Conscience be well fixed, many conversions will ensue....
It be true that this king weren't perfect--but none ever are. At least when we have monarchs, we have a person that we know is human, not an impersonal system under which all manner of ill and horror can hide.
* * * * * * * * *