I really hope that Americans have enough sense to skip the royal wedding tomorrow. Repeat after me, “When in the Course of human events…” I’m not sure what is worse, the British monarchy or the people (both here and abroad) infected with royal fever. Unbecoming of the spirit of liberty and democracy, many modern Americans of both major parties are infected with a related disease: President-worship.
Royal Wedding
April 29, 2011 by Grover Cleveland
Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments
6 Responses
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
About Pileus
Pileus is a group of scholars who examine public policy and philosophy in light of our respective disciplines. We differ in many ways but share a commitment to liberty and personal responsibility.
This blog is hosted by
The Fund for American Studies, an educational nonprofit (www.TFAS.org). TFAS is not responsible for the content of the blog and neither endorses nor condemns any of the content posted.What is a Pileus?
In ancient Rome, a pileus was a felt cap given to slaves upon receiving their freedom. Since then, this simple cap has been a powerful symbol of liberty.
Meet The Authors
Our Published Work
Archives
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
Tags
Adam Smith Ayn Rand capitalism Cheonan civil liberties decentralization economics elections Federalism financial reform freedom Free State Project government spending Growth of Government Hayek health care higher education Ideology immigration Libertarianism libertarians liberty migration Milton Friedman Moral Philosophy new hampshire North Korea Obamacare paternalism Paul Krugman President Obama Property Rights public debt Public Policy rand paul republicans Robert Nozick ron paul secession states Supreme Court Taxes Tea Party unions United KingdomBlogroll
- Beacon, The
- Brainstorm
- Cato at Liberty
- Coordination Problem
- Darwinian Conservatism
- Econlog
- FiveThirtyEight
- Foreign Policy
- Free State Blogs
- Front Porch Republic
- Greg Mankiw
- Guido Fawkes
- Hit & Run
- Imaginative Conservative
- Lawyers, Guns, and Money
- Let a Thousand Nations Bloom
- Liberty & Power
- Marginal Revolution
- Megan McArdle
- Offsetting Behaviour
- Phil Arena
- Pileus
- Political Class Dismissed
- Slate
- The Adam Smith Institute Blog
- The Corner
- The Monkey Cage
- The New Republic
- The Skeptics
- The Sociological Imagination
- The Volokh Conspiracy
- Tory Anarchist
- Unqualified Reservations
- Will Wilkinson
Post Categories
- 2010 Elections (15)
- 2012 election (64)
- Book Recommendations (13)
- British politics (7)
- Budget Deficit (67)
- bureaucracy (1)
- Canadian politics (2)
- capitalism (15)
- Chart of the Day (1)
- Civil Liberties (24)
- civil war (3)
- collective goods (1)
- Comparative culture (5)
- Congress (13)
- corporate welfare (8)
- courts (2)
- democratization (2)
- development (3)
- drugs (5)
- Economic geography (1)
- Economic recovery (26)
- Economics (71)
- Education (21)
- elections (2)
- electoral behavior (4)
- electoral systems (4)
- employment (5)
- Energy Policy (1)
- Enlightened Self-Interest (8)
- Entitlement Reform (12)
- Environment (2)
- Ethics (27)
- European Union (1)
- Eurozone (2)
- federalism (24)
- finance (9)
- fiscal policies (25)
- foreign policy (29)
- freedom (15)
- Greece (1)
- growth (11)
- Guest Post (9)
- Guns (2)
- Hayek (1)
- health care (22)
- Hero of the Week (1)
- History (18)
- History of Political Philosophy (1)
- ideologies (6)
- immigration (2)
- Immigration policy (6)
- inequality (10)
- institutions (22)
- international political economy (1)
- international relations (2)
- interstate conflict (1)
- IPE (3)
- judiciary (2)
- justice (1)
- labor (1)
- Law (31)
- left-libertarianism (4)
- libertarianism (13)
- libertarianism (6)
- Locke (1)
- Markets and Morality (4)
- Marriage (5)
- marriage law (4)
- methodology (4)
- National defense (7)
- Nozick (4)
- paternalism (1)
- political philosophy (21)
- Political Science (47)
- politics (56)
- psychology (8)
- Public Opinion (10)
- race and ethnicity (2)
- Rants and Raves (21)
- Rawls (4)
- redistribution (5)
- Regulation (38)
- religion (3)
- rent-seeking (6)
- representation (6)
- resource curse (2)
- secession (15)
- secession (11)
- social justice (1)
- Social psychology (2)
- socialism (5)
- Sociology and Anthropology (4)
- state politics (32)
- state politics (13)
- taxes (4)
- trade (4)
- U.S. presidential elections (22)
- Uncategorized (1413)
- welfare policy (6)


I reckon you underestimate the usefulness of the British Monarchy. Here you have a family who are indentured to the state of the nation. Sure, they got a lot of money, but it’s cheap at the price. It’s kind of like they keep all the bad parts about being King, without any of the good parts – except the riches, but that’s probably something they’d keep anyway.
As for the obsession with their social lives – you have that in USA; it’s called the A-list celebrities. Since it appears that society will create people like this whatever, might as well get something useful out of them.
I find the cult of celebrity pretty pathetic too.
There remains royalty in the world? Huh, go figure. I need to get out more.
I think this is great. Look what a circus it’s turned out to be! The more ridiculous leader-worship becomes, the closer we are to eliminating it.
Meanwhile, Ross Douthat posits an innately human love of monarchy:
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/in-praise-of-monarchy/
Go figure.
Perhaps I am simply a man of my time and place, but for the life of me I cannot imagine a justification, or even a rational argument, for royalty and monarchy. I mean, the fundamental premise is that they occupy their position, and are entitled to the people’s admiration, because of… blood relationships? It is an anachronism that I find ludicrous. And I would like to agree with Just An Australian, I find the fascination with celebrities – actors and musicians – equally silly.