Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: rbowman Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,alt.usage.english Subject: Re: GNU Date: 29 Mar 2026 17:24:58 GMT Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <10pg2u5$f0nq$5@dont-email.me> <10phnao$113u1$6@dont-email.me> <1rsaf5i.1nrmqo3vtna18N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <1rsaj4d.rtb8ajbdoy69N%snipeco.2@gmail.com> <10pkqka$22prd$1@dont-email.me> <10ppr5m$3m2br$1@dont-email.me> <10pr6gg$2t5v$1@dont-email.me> <10pv2af$1eb4h$2@dont-email.me> <87zf3wx1jt.fsf@parhasard.net> <10pvhqb$1j2vg$1@dont-email.me> <1rsjtwr.9h8wo7a6jjujN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <10q2o7j$nr7l$1@news1.tnib.de> <1rsostx.1fumdje1pdrftiN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <1rsoqz0.19zzbh71ebfb7bN%snipeco.2@gmail.com> <18a11176d0ed8bfb$1717$2710841$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com> <1rsp93i.i0zwza16xvqdfN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <10q9np0$10un8$2@dont-email.me> <1rsqamf.1oo8wp41f0e1oqN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <10qb0n7$1h2rb$1@dont-email.me> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net XuEfgHknS793ilX2ROuIzAimB21gFIeWX8hlKKtiVRaPLYOeZ8 Cancel-Lock: sha1:pAzzEb/ea5pvPd6eUvcNFZCTkh4= sha256:KBGMj2VCm2pjPhSTNafmkXw5NkaqljuVH6MR4fnN45Q= User-Agent: Pan/0.162 (Pokrosvk) Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:84426 alt.usage.english:1141363 On Sun, 29 Mar 2026 21:59:48 +1100, Peter Moylan wrote: > On 29/03/26 21:21, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >> From what I understood about it, the original historical usage was far >> from ironic. Being a of the nobillty implied that you had to show it >> all the time by spending lots of money on status, usually overspending. >> >> Louis XIV even made a deliberate policy of it, to reduce the power of >> the great nobility. Forcing them to overspend on being acceptable at >> court in Versailles reduced their power. > > The reason why ordinary people didn't pay taxes, in days gone by, is > that the nobles were expected to contribute to the cost of running the > country, in particular the cost of financing the king's wars. If the > king was running short of money, he would promote more lords. > > It's an idea that might be worth reintroducing. Somehow I think the costs would trickle down to the peasants one way or the other,