At 12:10 PM 9/14/1997 -0600, Edward Becerra wrote:

On Sun, 14 Sep 1997, CHRISTIAN A ROGERS wrote:

<An interesting view of the entire Sailor Moon thing.  Innocent kids, 
warrior heroes, or mass murderers... you decide.>

Think of it this way....

Someone gives you powers and throws you into a fight with a drooling, 
ugly, sharp toothed, nasty monster, that won't hesitate to kill you 
given the chance.  Then, the someone says, "It's either you or them.
"

Now... which way are YOU gonna choose?

	That _is_ the case in the beginning, but as someone else pointed
out his his _terrific_ fic, 'Made of Stone' there aren't a lot of us that
would be happy under a monarchy. I doubt Americans are a majority of the
list, but we're likely a strong minority, and we don't have kindly
memories of the last time we were under the thumb of a royal house.

	Oh.. by the way, Sean... thanks for mentioning me in your
afterword in that fic. I don't deserve it, but thank you. Your fic was one
of the last things from the list that I was able to show my mother before
the cancer took her from me, and she was so proud that someone considered
me to be an author. And she took that pride with her to the end. 

	Thank you, Sean.

	Back to commentary. 

	Monarchies are nice.. *if* you're a member. But if you're not,
well, even in the best run, most benevolent of monarchies, life can be
miserable. Why? Because, as the Brits learned, trust is easily misplaced. 
Many regents, viceroys, govenors, and other satraps throughout history
have been quite corrupt, then desperately attempt to eliminate the
evidence of their corruption by eliminating the witnesses. 

	Dead men really DON'T tell tales.

This has nothing to do with how said leaders get there in the first place.

	And of course, there's the minor arrogance that creeps in. Again,

This does.

Sean points this out (possibly by accident) with the way Mars behaves..
the attitude that you were commiting a crime simply by not worshiping the
ground Serenity walks upon. Her attitude struck me as similar to the
Inquisition. Serenity is a goddess. Questioning that is heresy. Heresy is

And it would be harder to believe that if Serenity owed her position to some
of the masses in the first place.

evil. Evil is punished. No need to think, no need to possibly have to
admit that Serenity _might_ have made an honest mistake, and thereby rock
your entire worldview by realizing she's NOT infallable.. you have a nice
confortable belief, and you don't have to do any of that nasty thinking
stuff that scares you and gives you head-aches.

	And even if Serenity admits to errors, her court does NOT. Another
theme that's crept up from time to time is Serenity's INSULATION from the
world. She doesn't _wish_ to be insulated, but her lotal court often tries
that, thinking it's for her own good. ("We love you, your Majesty, and we
intend to protect you from everything, including yourself.")

	So she never learns about the minor problems that breed anger,
disaffection, poverty, disloyalty, et cetera.

And this in turn breeds more anger as she wouldn't have had to learn about
the outside world in order to lead in the first place (even the more
clueless democratically elected leaders have to figure out something about
some constituents on their way to elections, but some monarchs have gotten
away with not even speaking their nations' languages).  So people resent her
more because none of them had a chence to choose her.

Apart from that, a lot of these problems can apply to any other system as well.

	And of course, the people who DO know (like Mars) are apt to take
the attitude .. 'You're starving? So? That isn't important. You have your
love for Serenity. That should sustain you. If it doesn't, then perhaps
you're disloyal, hmmm? Perhaps you should be investigated?'

	Creeping McCarthy-ism, of a sort. The Kingdom has no problems,
mister, and if you claim it DOES, then you're lying, and possibly a
traitor, attempting to disrupt the peaceful kingdom. 

On the other hand, if the problems are prevalent enough and the leaders
ignore them they never see a second term (unless they stage coups or something).

	Or at least that's my take on the situation, having lived in the
military, a society where mindless, self-sacrificing loyalty and
conformity was once prized above almost everything else, since those two
qualities are what defines an army that'll attack to the death of the last
man. Meaning an army that will win. 

	Guess that's all I have to say for the moment. I'd like to hear
any opposing viewpoints.

Anyway, good points.  But what about other kinds of royal systems?
Hmm...what if Crystal Tokyo was a bicycle monarchy or something?  I think I
just made that Diana thread relevant....

	Ed Becerra

	"Dreamers may die, but the dream is eternal..."