Republicanism and Monarchism - Page 10

On April 19 2013 10:42 DaCruise wrote:
Monarchy is also about culture. Many EU contries get bombarded by vastly foreign cultures all the time, through medias and through immigration. The monarchy is a solid foundation, immune to foreign cultures and its nice to say "This represents me, this is who I am and where I come from", even if you disagree with some of the principles of monarchy or think the King/Queen is a dick.

On April 19 2013 10:44 Wombat_NI wrote:

What? With the almost incestuously close relationships between European royal families, they are hardly a bastion of native culture

On April 19 2013 10:37 bkrow wrote:

If you read the decisions on your Human Rights Act i'll think you find your Courts are heading the same direction as the US in terms of judicial activism and constitutional questions.

On April 19 2013 05:00 Arctic Daishi wrote:
While certainly some countries have very strong republican histories, such as the Czech Republic and Poland, others still cling to the trappings of unelected monarchs and aristocrats. Needless to say, these monarchs and aristocrats have very little real power, but the fact that they still exist at all is baffling. Even left-wing and libertarian groups that one would suspect to be opposed to monarchy, are okay with these unelected heads of state for the most part.

Oddly enough, some European countries even reverted from republics to monarchies. Take for instance the Netherlands, which was a federal republic since it's founding in the 16th century and remained that way well into the early 19th century. Yet this federal republic was later replaced with a unitary, centralized republic, and after that with a monarchy under French control. Yet even after the end of the French Empire, the Netherlands didn't return to republicanism.

In Canada throughout 18th and 19th centuries there were strong movements to have Upper and Lower Canada join the United States and republican states. A series of revolutions and civil wars were even fought by the Canadian people (and sympathetic Americans) to overthrow the British imperialists in the Canadian colonies. Yet after the British imperialists violently put down the revolution and executed political dissidents, the movement seemed to slow down a bit. Surely not all of the republicans and pro-America Canadians had been killed in Canada?

It's often said, and rightly so, that the United States is the first 'new' country. We're a country founded on the principles of freedom, republicanism, rule of law, gun ownership, and equality for all peoples. The idea of being born into power or nobility has always been abhorrent and foreign to us. Many have even pointed out that the reason the European Union is allowed to exist in it's current form, is because the idea of being ruled by unelected elites is a fundamental part of their cultures.

On April 19 2013 11:26 Scootaloo wrote:
Holy shit the OP feels like an American circle jerk, especially the part about "New" america, stating the US was founded on equality and freedom is romantisized propaganda, and the assertion that gun ownership is some sort of glorious right is just insane, or downright insensitive considering the bloodbaths your beautiful ideal is causing.

America has more murders relatively and financial inequality then those horrible monarchies you speak of, shit, if it wan't for the army you keep America would be a joke to those monarchies you despise so much.

On April 19 2013 11:35 Wombat_NI wrote:
Well anger aside, I haven't really heard many arguments that don't revolve around it being the status quo, or historically important that monarchism is a good way of doing things in the contemporary era. Be interested to hear some though

On April 19 2013 11:59 Wombat_NI wrote:
How is it communism?

On April 19 2013 11:35 Wombat_NI wrote:
Well anger aside, I haven't really heard many arguments that don't revolve around it being the status quo, or historically important that monarchism is a good way of doing things in the contemporary era. Be interested to hear some though

On April 19 2013 12:11 sc4k wrote:


Not sure there are any really. Technically the monarch is something of a defence against a crazy dictatorship, they can dissolve parliament, and if there were a military coup, the soldiers in the UK have sworn allegiance to the crown...maybe the Queen could command them to stand down. But yeah that's kinda random and probably unlikely.

It's really just a hangover from a previous system but it doesn't hold us back at all.

On April 19 2013 12:11 Scootaloo wrote:


Because the lack of personal property and inheritance has until now always lead to the state seizing it.
The point is that the logic that monarchies should not have wealth and titles is extremely Marxist, a idealogy that the US has usually had major issues with.

On April 19 2013 12:19 Wombat_NI wrote:

Technically with such powers, the Queen can do the same. It is convention, historical precedent and the Queen not being an idiot that precludes that.

Either eventuality is incredibly unlikely, but I hear it invoked as a possibility to justify the monarchy as a defense mechanism, without the acknowledgement of the monarchy abusing their powers in a similar fashion.

It doesn't hold us back at all sure. I don't see how the unemployed, the immigrant population and the disabled and unable to work hold us back either, but we're media culture is happy to make out like they're a huge problem on purely moral or ideological grounds

On April 19 2013 12:24 Wombat_NI wrote:

They can hold onto their personal property, but not the state-subsidised ones. Titles, privilege are just the vestigal tails of an anachronistic class system, and are not exactly favoured by free-market capitalists either.

On April 19 2013 13:42 Scootaloo wrote:


Do you really see such a big difference between gaining a plot of land because your forefathers bought it or attaining it because your forefathers gained it through medieval laws? Especially as these days, getting born into a powerful family controlling company's, hedgefunds, etc, can give you far more power then being born as the succesor of the Holy Roman Empire.

Inequality is inequality, whether you get it through exploiting ancient constructions of divine landownership or by exploiting people for the physical means to attain this land.

Capitalism is actually rather similar to the medieval mindset anyway, power trumps all unless the laws prohibit it, whether these laws are made by deranged prophets or greedy lawyers is relatively inconsequential for any kind of moralistic purpose.

And I gave you several reasons why holding on to a relatively powerless monarchy can have serious benefits earlier.

It's often said, and rightly so, that the United States is the first 'new' country. We're a country founded on the principles of freedom, republicanism, rule of law, gun ownership, and equality for all peoples. The idea of being born into power or nobility has always been abhorrent and foreign to us. Many have even pointed out that the reason the European Union is allowed to exist in it's current form, is because the idea of being ruled by unelected elites is a fundamental part of their cultures.