From: tnp@invalid.invalid   
      
   On 17/02/2024 23:57, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:   
   > On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 07:44:46 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 14/02/2024 20:56, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:   
   >>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:36:54 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> ... it will remind people of why there used to be a balance between   
   >>>> their Lord's temporal - the judiciary - their Lords Spiritual - the   
   >>>> Church, and the actual pragmatic government, which was electable, in   
   >>>> charge of keeping the peace and protecting the realm, not of engaging   
   >>>> in moral dictatorship.   
   >>>   
   >>> Were there reliable, independent sources of information back in those   
   >>> days?   
   >>   
   >> Of course not.   
   >   
   > So what was this “balance” you were talking about?   
      
   A balance of *power*, dear.   
      
   How did you not understand that?   
      
   A tripartite society, concerned with the rule of law, the use of law to   
   maintain the peace and the use of the army to guard the realm, and the   
   moral arbitration confined to archbishops and other clerics.   
      
   The army is still personally responsible to the King by the way.   
   Its not a question of arriving at 'right' decusions, its a question of   
   having a consensus and a balance to stop absolute power corrupting the   
   whole mechanism of government as it seems to have done today.   
      
   --   
   New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in   
   the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in   
   someone else's pocket.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)