...whereas actual political change in an institutional context (ngos, nonprofits, national orgs, etc) could dismantle/destroy these royal lifestyles via rapid loss of non-recoverable government funds/ideological subsidy (emptied wine cellars, filtered water basis for everyday luxury) On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 11:58 AM, brian carroll <electromagnetize@gmail.com> wrote:
perhaps the institutionalization of 'royal perks' explains in part the necessity of a one-party governing system, where any actual opposition (politics) are then managed and absorbed into this model, to protect/secure/maintain aristocratic lifestyles otherwise threatened by actual change, where the focus of issues of subsidy then becomes the poor:
"hark! peasants are drinking wine, wine!! with Our Money!"
(in a top-down surveillance context, who benefits/profits most?)
jya@pipeline.com wrote:
This is what governments and NGOs were invented for and remain the premier source of livelihood one way or the other, especially for those who pretend opposition while royally partying with opponents. Royally, not peasantly.