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?) [email protected] 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.
