Rollo
25th March 2008, 22:13
This morning I was sitting in at my desk when I heard a knock at the door and a clent of ours walked in and wanted his tax return done - simple enough, but the chap's name was interesting: Sir Martin.
This man had been a surgeon during the Korean War and whilst he hadn't performed any acts of bravery, he was still working in dangerous and arduous enough conditions to have a knighthood conferred upon him.
I thought about this later and in relation to this comment:
1.An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
As late as 1981, people of Her Majesty's United Kingdom were British Subjects. Supposedly the idea of democracy transformed us into "citizens" with personal choice and freedom - or did it? CEOs can still be like monarchs surrounded by courtiers. Behind the progressive window-dressing, a one-way chain of command still remains in force. As employees, consumers and citizens, most people follow orders with little voice or influence. So much for being a citizen.
Worse, if you happen to be in Australia or Canada (and if you're an American, you were never ever entitled anyway), then the whole idea of being honoured for your services to the country has now either been denied or removed.
Personally I think I'd rather be a subject. From a practical standpoint there's actually a face at the top instead of some corporate conglomo; then there's the possibility of getting a nice title. The idea of being Sir Andrew seems flashier to me than getting diddly squat.
What I want to know, is what's wrong with being a "subject"? And are you better off for being a "citizen"?
This man had been a surgeon during the Korean War and whilst he hadn't performed any acts of bravery, he was still working in dangerous and arduous enough conditions to have a knighthood conferred upon him.
I thought about this later and in relation to this comment:
1.An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
As late as 1981, people of Her Majesty's United Kingdom were British Subjects. Supposedly the idea of democracy transformed us into "citizens" with personal choice and freedom - or did it? CEOs can still be like monarchs surrounded by courtiers. Behind the progressive window-dressing, a one-way chain of command still remains in force. As employees, consumers and citizens, most people follow orders with little voice or influence. So much for being a citizen.
Worse, if you happen to be in Australia or Canada (and if you're an American, you were never ever entitled anyway), then the whole idea of being honoured for your services to the country has now either been denied or removed.
Personally I think I'd rather be a subject. From a practical standpoint there's actually a face at the top instead of some corporate conglomo; then there's the possibility of getting a nice title. The idea of being Sir Andrew seems flashier to me than getting diddly squat.
What I want to know, is what's wrong with being a "subject"? And are you better off for being a "citizen"?