|
On April 20 2013 01:16 eeniebear wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 00:48 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On April 20 2013 00:41 eeniebear wrote:
I wish Fascism had been in existence long enough before the communists finally got their way for it to be an option in this poll. You like Fascism? Yes. Hitler and Mussolini had brilliant programs that very quickly raised the standard of living, as well as the economies of their nations, to heights not thought possible, all during a worldwide depression. Talk about men who could make decisions, they were the best at it. Although once 1939 rolled around Mussolini showed how incompetent he was as a military commander. If only Oswald Mosley had managed to get it done in the UK . . . .
Fascism's fervor burnt the candle on both ends my friend, 'twas was an economic loss as much as a military one. It would take some rather marvelous cherry-picking in order to understand the programs of Mussolini and Hitler as "brilliant"; the high standard of living in Germany circa 1938 was built on the back of an entirely overexploited minority.
|
On April 20 2013 01:30 Mambo wrote:
North Korea is a unitary republic.
Run by a dictator. NK's political problems are due to reasons other than being a self-titled "republic."
|
On April 20 2013 00:08 Domus wrote:
Interesting topic. I live in the Netherlands and this might sound a bit strange. I don't support a monarchy as a concept, the concept of having a birthright like this sounds very backward to me. We also have a monarchy that does not just have a ceremonial role like in some countries, does not pay taxes, and the king and queen earn about 10 times what the prime-minister earns, don't need to pay for the upkeep of their castles, don't need to pay for their employees. So they live in incredible luxury.
That said...I think our monarchy does an incredible job and there are some factors that make the monarchy a very valuable part of the Netherlands. First, a monarch is trained from birth to become a leader. Of course, this is both a bad and a good thing, if it is a king or queen without much potential it can backfire incredibly. A person with a lot of capacities though can truly shine in this role. In general the Oranjes are intelligent, driven people.
Second, a king or queen is free of party politics. The monarch is there for all citizens. This means our monarchy has had a dampening effect on some of the more extremist movements and thoughts. They visit/give moral support in times of need.
Third, a king or queen can have a more long term vision than a republic has. Often republics have incredible short term vision. Only the next election matters, and not the long-term effects on the country or the world.
Fourth. A monarchy is incredibly good for international relationships and trade. Because they have such a neutral position, and hold a revered position, and they are well trained. They can make a big difference for PR and can generally visit any country and be warmly welcomed, with a big group of dutch companies following in their wake to benefit from their reputation.
The king does pay taxes actually it's just that the government gives the king his net wage instead of his gross wage. So if the government decides to let him pay the income tax he'll still get the same amount of money which he gets now which is indeed quite an amount.
The thing about them not having to pay for their employees and castles is that that won't change when you gt a president. You will still need the security personel, have somewhere for the president to live, the palaces will still need maintainence etc.
Anyway the point I'm tryig to make is that a president as a head of state is not cheaper and the only real reason to have a president is ideology. And even then you can make an argument for the monarchy being democratic if the majority of the people want them there.
|
On April 20 2013 01:18 odeSSa wrote:
I'm a swede and I support our monarchy. They don't have any real power and they represent our country well. Also I like traditions and Sweden have had a king for a long time. I see more good than harm in it.
You're talking about this dude?
![[image loading]](http://img.izismile.com/img/img3/20100505/640/swedish_king_who_640_03.jpg)
The drunken, mildly retarded adulturer?
|
Ok, so I was considering putting some time in to write up a decent anti-monarch reply to dismiss the common claims but early in the thread it didn't really seem worth it, but the last couple of pages have proved it might just be worth it. So here goes...
Before I begin presenting the case, it's important I make a couple of points clear. The reasons I'm about to post aren't what caused me to take a republican stance they merely support the position. The reason I oppose the monarchy is simply that hereditary power and wealth by birth right to a single family is abhorrent to every sensibility I have. The reasons I will include here are primarily arguments against the monarchist position from a British perspective. Finally, whilst I may not quote www.republic.org.uk often, my early education in the subject was informed from that site so many of the arguments could probably be found in a similar form somewhere on that site, therefore it seems only fair I credit them (though I don't entirely agree with all their positions either).
The Tourism Argument
The Claim
One of the most often repeated claims of the benefits of having a British monarchy is that they bring in tourist cash. Were we to get rid of the monarchy the cost to the british tourist industry would be huge.
Response
Really, this claim should be dismissed without any evidence to the contrary. Even if it were true, is "well foreign people think it's kinda funny" a good way to decide on the head of state? Or maybe decisions of who gets to be the head of state should be made on which option gets most money from tourists? These are obvious preposterous positions. Fortunately, they're also based on a complete falsehood.
The Association of Leading Visitor Attractions tracks the number of tourists visiting attractions over time. Their figures for 2012 show (after enough scrolling) that not only do the royals not play a particularly big role in tourism, it might actually be better if they vacated their properties permanently such that we could open them as museums In case you had any concerns of the potential bias in the figures, the president of ALVA is the Duke of York.
The Finances Argument
The Claim
In a similar way to the tourist argument, this claim is that the royals bring in such an income to the country that it could lost billions in lost revenue if we no longer had them. Fortunately many monarchists even wouldn't go that far and simply assert that they don't cost much and perhaps even result in a slight income.
Response
This claim should really be considered as absurd as the tourist one in terms of the pure 'money' argument in that it's absurd to make a decision about who should be head of state on the idea that we might make a bit of cash. As it is the cost of the monarchy has increased almost every year for at least the past 20 years. The civil list cost has officially been locked since 2001 at £7.9million (source) and yet we find that the cost has increased every year between 1991 and 200 until it dropped mildly in 2009 following a £2 million rise the year before (source). They managed to rally themselves though for 2010, dropping again in 2011 by £700,000 to a mere £13.5 million according to the official royal finances. With all this money over the £7.9m though, are they funding themselves?
..no, of course not. The lock on the civil list came after 10 years of huge over payments and the money is taken from the 'civil list reserve' to make up the difference, which is to say the money they didn't need to spend in the 90s (source).
But in 2011 the civil list reserve was running out, so rather than maintaining the "freeze" of finances which had resulted in more money every year a new system has been installed known as the sovereign grant. This grant gives the Queen 15% of the crown estates net revenue which even according to conservative sources bemoaning it isn't more is an increase of £5 million for this year.
But wait, there's more! When you take a lot of the costs in to account we get the official cost of the royals at 62p per head in 2010 (source). This number has obviously increased, but since I can't find more recent data we'll stick with 62p for now. It's important to notice that the official figures refuse to include security which is likely another £100m according to even pro monarch papers in the Briain (source).
The estimated costs in total end up being around £202million in 2010 (source) which makes it roughly 100 times more expensive to maintain than the salary of the Irish president (source) for example. Maintaining an entire family of wealthy elite isn't cheap, and it certainly doesn't bring money in to the country.
The Stability Argument
The Claim
Many of the most developed countries in the world have monarchies. Indeed, many of the most stable in the world too. Without a monarchy, we would lose that stability.
Response
To this claim there is the obvious retort that many countries, including the US, are able to be stable and developed without a monarchy, and the fact that many monarchs around the world are anything but (for example, Saudi Arabia and Thailand). The point is that, it's more likely that stable countries keep their monarchs than that monarchs produce stable countries, not least because of the examples throughout history of countries after the removal of monarchs. Britain won't fall apart if the Windsors are removed from power.
The "They Don't Really Do Anything" Argument
The Claim
They're relatively benign, and they don't really do anything or cause any harm so we don't really have any reason to get rid of them.
Response
It is certainly true that the current monarch doesn't really do that much, but that's no reason at all to leave an unaccountable, unelected head of state. Especially when that unaccountable head of state provides all the authority for parliament. Even more so when that power includes a royal veto which is still used and which has been offered 39 times (source).
On top of that, we're still left with the position of a head of state which is not only undemocratic, but is also the very definition of anti-democratic nepotism!
Unfortunately I don't have time to finish this right now, but I'll cover topics such as 'Tradition' 'Hard Working and Charitable' and 'International Diplomacy' and the laughable 'Trained from Birth' (which I wasn't going to until it actually came up in this thread) tomorrow.
|
On April 20 2013 01:57 Iyerbeth wrote:Ok, so I was considering putting some time in to write up a decent anti-monarch reply to dismiss the common claims but early in the thread it didn't really seem worth it, but the last couple of pages have proved it might just be worth it. So here goes... Before I begin presenting the case, it's important I make a couple of points clear. The reasons I'm about to post aren't what caused me to take a republican stance they merely support the position. The reason I oppose the monarchy is simply that hereditary power and wealth by birth right to a single family is abhorrent to every sensibility I have. The reasons I will include here are primarily arguments against the monarchist position from a British perspective. Finally, whilst I may not quote www.republic.org.uk often, my early education in the subject was informed from that site so many of the arguments could probably be found in a similar form somewhere on that site, therefore it seems only fair I credit them (though I don't entirely agree with all their positions either). The Tourism ArgumentThe ClaimOne of the most often repeated claims of the benefits of having a British monarchy is that they bring in tourist cash. Were we to get rid of the monarchy the cost to the british tourist industry would be huge. ResponseReally, this claim should be dismissed without any evidence to the contrary. Even if it were true, is "well foreign people think it's kinda funny" a good way to decide on the head of state? Or maybe decisions of who gets to be the head of state should be made on which option gets most money from tourists? These are obvious preposterous positions. Fortunately, they're also based on a complete falsehood. The Association of Leading Visitor Attractions tracks the number of tourists visiting attractions over time. Their figures for 2012 show (after enough scrolling) that not only do the royals not play a particularly big role in tourism, it might actually be better if they vacated their properties permanently such that we could open them as museums In case you had any concerns of the potential bias in the figures, the president of ALVA is the Duke of York. The Finances ArgumentThe ClaimIn a similar way to the tourist argument, this claim is that the royals bring in such an income to the country that it could lost billions in lost revenue if we no longer had them. Fortunately many monarchists even wouldn't go that far and simply assert that they don't cost much and perhaps even result in a slight income. ResponseThis claim should really be considered as absurd as the tourist one in terms of the pure 'money' argument in that it's absurd to make a decision about who should be head of state on the idea that we might make a bit of cash. As it is the cost of the monarchy has increased almost every year for at least the past 20 years. The civil list cost has officially been locked since 2010 at £7.9million ( source) and yet we find that the cost has increased every year between 1991 and 200 until it dropped mildly in 2009 following a £2 million rise the year before ( source). They managed to rally themselves though for 2010, dropping again in 2011 by £700,000 to a mere £13.5 million according to the official royal finances. With all this money over the £7.9m though, are they funding themselves? ..no, of course not. The lock on the civil list came after 10 years of huge over payments and the money is taken from the 'civil list reserve' to make up the difference, which is to say the money they didn't need to spend in the 90s ( source). But in 2011 the civil list reserve was running out, so rather than maintaining the "freeze" of finances which had resulted in more money every year a new system has been installed known as the sovereign grant. This grant gives the Queen 15% of the crown estates net revenue which even according to conservative sources bemoaning it isn't more is an increase of £5 million for this year. But wait, there's more! When you take a lot of the costs in to account we get the official cost of the royals at 62p per head in 2010 ( source). This number has obviously increased, but since I can't find more recent data we'll stick with 62p for now. It's important to notice that the official figures refuse to include security which is likely another £100m according to even pro monarch papers in the Briain ( source). The estimated costs in total end up being around £202million in 2010 ( source) which makes it roughly 100 times more expensive to maintain than the salary of the Irish president ( source) for example. Maintaining an entire family of wealthy elite isn't cheap, and it certainly doesn't bring money in to the country. The Stability ArgumentThe ClaimMany of the most developed countries in the world have monarchies. Indeed, many of the most stable in the world too. Without a monarchy, we would lose that stability. ResponseTo this claim there is the obvious retort that many countries, including the US, are able to be stable and developed without a monarchy, and the fact that many monarchs around the world are anything but (for example, Saudi Arabia and Thailand). The point is that, it's more likely that stable countries keep their monarchs than that monarchs produce stable countries, not least because of the examples throughout history of countries after the removal of monarchs. Britain won't fall apart if the Windsors are removed from power. The "They Don't Really Do Anything" ArgumentThe ClaimThey're relatively benign, and they don't really do anything or cause any harm so we don't really have any reason to get rid of them. ResponseIt is certainly true that the current monarch doesn't really do that much, but that's no reason at all to leave an unaccountable, unelected head of state. Especially when that unaccountable head of state provides all the authority for parliament. Even more so when that power includes a royal veto which is still used and which has been offered 39 times ( source). On top of that, we're still left with the position of a head of state which is not only undemocratic, but is also the very definition of anti-democratic nepotism!
Unfortunately I don't have time to finish this right now, but I'll cover topics such as 'Tradition' 'Hard Working and Charitable' and 'International Diplomacy' and the laughable 'Trained from Birth' (which I wasn't going to until it actually came up in this thread) tomorrow.
Can't wait for that! Because unlike what you might think, they do play an important role when it comes to diplomacy with non-democratic nations.
|
In my opinion monarchies are barbaric and archaic concepts that should be fully abolished.
|
Northern Ireland26408 Posts
Lyerbeth, I look forward to the continuation of this.
|
Northern Ireland26408 Posts
On April 19 2013 23:30 dreamsmasher wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 14:40 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 19 2013 13:51 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 19 2013 13:42 Scootaloo wrote:On April 19 2013 12:24 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 19 2013 12:11 Scootaloo wrote:On April 19 2013 11:59 Wombat_NI wrote:
How is it communism? 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. 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. 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. How high should the death tax be then? Shouldn't need one. Rather than penalise those who have a wealthy background, with all the opportunities that opens up, concentrate on helping those who don't, have said opportunities. Don't really care for specifics how, just a general principle. this man in favor of buffs not nerfs.
Rofl, made me laugh a lot for some reason
|
On April 20 2013 02:08 DemigodcelpH wrote:
In my opinion monarchies are barbaric and archaic concepts that should be fully abolished.
It basically comes down to this. We can debate the merits of particular monarchies in pragmatic terms, but it really comes down to the fact that nepotism is an unjust form of government, no matter how much you emphasize the ceremonial nature of it. Why am I obligated to swear fealty to some Queen across the Atlantic? If it's just ceremonial, why can I be required to swear an oath to her? I take swearing oaths pretty seriously, and I absolutely cannot in good conscience give my unwavering obedience to someone who isn't a representative of the people.
|
On April 20 2013 01:57 Iyerbeth wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Ok, so I was considering putting some time in to write up a decent anti-monarch reply to dismiss the common claims but early in the thread it didn't really seem worth it, but the last couple of pages have proved it might just be worth it. So here goes... Before I begin presenting the case, it's important I make a couple of points clear. The reasons I'm about to post aren't what caused me to take a republican stance they merely support the position. The reason I oppose the monarchy is simply that hereditary power and wealth by birth right to a single family is abhorrent to every sensibility I have. The reasons I will include here are primarily arguments against the monarchist position from a British perspective. Finally, whilst I may not quote www.republic.org.uk often, my early education in the subject was informed from that site so many of the arguments could probably be found in a similar form somewhere on that site, therefore it seems only fair I credit them (though I don't entirely agree with all their positions either). The Tourism ArgumentThe ClaimOne of the most often repeated claims of the benefits of having a British monarchy is that they bring in tourist cash. Were we to get rid of the monarchy the cost to the british tourist industry would be huge. ResponseReally, this claim should be dismissed without any evidence to the contrary. Even if it were true, is "well foreign people think it's kinda funny" a good way to decide on the head of state? Or maybe decisions of who gets to be the head of state should be made on which option gets most money from tourists? These are obvious preposterous positions. Fortunately, they're also based on a complete falsehood. The Association of Leading Visitor Attractions tracks the number of tourists visiting attractions over time. Their figures for 2012 show (after enough scrolling) that not only do the royals not play a particularly big role in tourism, it might actually be better if they vacated their properties permanently such that we could open them as museums In case you had any concerns of the potential bias in the figures, the president of ALVA is the Duke of York. The Finances ArgumentThe ClaimIn a similar way to the tourist argument, this claim is that the royals bring in such an income to the country that it could lost billions in lost revenue if we no longer had them. Fortunately many monarchists even wouldn't go that far and simply assert that they don't cost much and perhaps even result in a slight income. ResponseThis claim should really be considered as absurd as the tourist one in terms of the pure 'money' argument in that it's absurd to make a decision about who should be head of state on the idea that we might make a bit of cash. As it is the cost of the monarchy has increased almost every year for at least the past 20 years. The civil list cost has officially been locked since 2010 at £7.9million ( source) and yet we find that the cost has increased every year between 1991 and 200 until it dropped mildly in 2009 following a £2 million rise the year before ( source). They managed to rally themselves though for 2010, dropping again in 2011 by £700,000 to a mere £13.5 million according to the official royal finances. With all this money over the £7.9m though, are they funding themselves? ..no, of course not. The lock on the civil list came after 10 years of huge over payments and the money is taken from the 'civil list reserve' to make up the difference, which is to say the money they didn't need to spend in the 90s ( source). But in 2011 the civil list reserve was running out, so rather than maintaining the "freeze" of finances which had resulted in more money every year a new system has been installed known as the sovereign grant. This grant gives the Queen 15% of the crown estates net revenue which even according to conservative sources bemoaning it isn't more is an increase of £5 million for this year. But wait, there's more! When you take a lot of the costs in to account we get the official cost of the royals at 62p per head in 2010 ( source). This number has obviously increased, but since I can't find more recent data we'll stick with 62p for now. It's important to notice that the official figures refuse to include security which is likely another £100m according to even pro monarch papers in the Briain ( source). The estimated costs in total end up being around £202million in 2010 ( source) which makes it roughly 100 times more expensive to maintain than the salary of the Irish president ( source) for example. Maintaining an entire family of wealthy elite isn't cheap, and it certainly doesn't bring money in to the country. The Stability ArgumentThe ClaimMany of the most developed countries in the world have monarchies. Indeed, many of the most stable in the world too. Without a monarchy, we would lose that stability. ResponseTo this claim there is the obvious retort that many countries, including the US, are able to be stable and developed without a monarchy, and the fact that many monarchs around the world are anything but (for example, Saudi Arabia and Thailand). The point is that, it's more likely that stable countries keep their monarchs than that monarchs produce stable countries, not least because of the examples throughout history of countries after the removal of monarchs. Britain won't fall apart if the Windsors are removed from power. The "They Don't Really Do Anything" ArgumentThe ClaimThey're relatively benign, and they don't really do anything or cause any harm so we don't really have any reason to get rid of them. ResponseIt is certainly true that the current monarch doesn't really do that much, but that's no reason at all to leave an unaccountable, unelected head of state. Especially when that unaccountable head of state provides all the authority for parliament. Even more so when that power includes a royal veto which is still used and which has been offered 39 times ( source). On top of that, we're still left with the position of a head of state which is not only undemocratic, but is also the very definition of anti-democratic nepotism!
Unfortunately I don't have time to finish this right now, but I'll cover topics such as 'Tradition' 'Hard Working and Charitable' and 'International Diplomacy' and the laughable 'Trained from Birth' (which I wasn't going to until it actually came up in this thread) tomorrow.
How come you didn't include that income from royal lands agreement into this?
Now since we're all talking about democracy and equality and stuff, it would be unseemly to just take their possessions from them, it would be akin to saying to Bill Gates grandson in 80 years that he should leave all the wealth his family acquired...
|
We (french people) beheaded our last monarchs so...yeah....pretty republican;)
|
On April 20 2013 01:30 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 01:16 eeniebear wrote:On April 20 2013 00:48 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On April 20 2013 00:41 eeniebear wrote:
I wish Fascism had been in existence long enough before the communists finally got their way for it to be an option in this poll. You like Fascism? Yes. Hitler and Mussolini had brilliant programs that very quickly raised the standard of living, as well as the economies of their nations, to heights not thought possible, all during a worldwide depression. Talk about men who could make decisions, they were the best at it. Although once 1939 rolled around Mussolini showed how incompetent he was as a military commander. If only Oswald Mosley had managed to get it done in the UK . . . . Fascism's fervor burnt the candle on both ends my friend, 'twas was an economic loss as much as a military one. It would take some rather marvelous cherry-picking in order to understand the programs of Mussolini and Hitler as "brilliant"; the high standard of living in Germany circa 1938 was built on the back of an entirely overexploited minority.
Please elaborate on that last point? Just want to clarify that you are indeed talking about the Jews, in which case I have a rebuttal.
|
Can we not quote massive posts to reply with two sentences? Or at least spoiler the massive quote?
|
On April 20 2013 02:19 eeniebear wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 01:30 farvacola wrote:On April 20 2013 01:16 eeniebear wrote:On April 20 2013 00:48 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On April 20 2013 00:41 eeniebear wrote:
I wish Fascism had been in existence long enough before the communists finally got their way for it to be an option in this poll. You like Fascism? Yes. Hitler and Mussolini had brilliant programs that very quickly raised the standard of living, as well as the economies of their nations, to heights not thought possible, all during a worldwide depression. Talk about men who could make decisions, they were the best at it. Although once 1939 rolled around Mussolini showed how incompetent he was as a military commander. If only Oswald Mosley had managed to get it done in the UK . . . . Fascism's fervor burnt the candle on both ends my friend, 'twas was an economic loss as much as a military one. It would take some rather marvelous cherry-picking in order to understand the programs of Mussolini and Hitler as "brilliant"; the high standard of living in Germany circa 1938 was built on the back of an entirely overexploited minority. Please elaborate on that last point? Just want to clarify that you are indeed talking about the Jews, in which case I have a rebuttal.
Nah, by "overexploited minority", I meant practically anyone that didn't fit under the Aryan and Nazi party label. Gypsies, Catholics, Jews, Atheists, pretty much any ethnic minority.
|
On April 20 2013 02:14 anomalopidae wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 01:57 Iyerbeth wrote:Ok, so I was considering putting some time in to write up a decent anti-monarch reply to dismiss the common claims but early in the thread it didn't really seem worth it, but the last couple of pages have proved it might just be worth it. So here goes... Before I begin presenting the case, it's important I make a couple of points clear. The reasons I'm about to post aren't what caused me to take a republican stance they merely support the position. The reason I oppose the monarchy is simply that hereditary power and wealth by birth right to a single family is abhorrent to every sensibility I have. The reasons I will include here are primarily arguments against the monarchist position from a British perspective. Finally, whilst I may not quote www.republic.org.uk often, my early education in the subject was informed from that site so many of the arguments could probably be found in a similar form somewhere on that site, therefore it seems only fair I credit them (though I don't entirely agree with all their positions either). The Tourism ArgumentThe ClaimOne of the most often repeated claims of the benefits of having a British monarchy is that they bring in tourist cash. Were we to get rid of the monarchy the cost to the british tourist industry would be huge. ResponseReally, this claim should be dismissed without any evidence to the contrary. Even if it were true, is "well foreign people think it's kinda funny" a good way to decide on the head of state? Or maybe decisions of who gets to be the head of state should be made on which option gets most money from tourists? These are obvious preposterous positions. Fortunately, they're also based on a complete falsehood. The Association of Leading Visitor Attractions tracks the number of tourists visiting attractions over time. Their figures for 2012 show (after enough scrolling) that not only do the royals not play a particularly big role in tourism, it might actually be better if they vacated their properties permanently such that we could open them as museums In case you had any concerns of the potential bias in the figures, the president of ALVA is the Duke of York. The Finances ArgumentThe ClaimIn a similar way to the tourist argument, this claim is that the royals bring in such an income to the country that it could lost billions in lost revenue if we no longer had them. Fortunately many monarchists even wouldn't go that far and simply assert that they don't cost much and perhaps even result in a slight income. ResponseThis claim should really be considered as absurd as the tourist one in terms of the pure 'money' argument in that it's absurd to make a decision about who should be head of state on the idea that we might make a bit of cash. As it is the cost of the monarchy has increased almost every year for at least the past 20 years. The civil list cost has officially been locked since 2010 at £7.9million ( source) and yet we find that the cost has increased every year between 1991 and 200 until it dropped mildly in 2009 following a £2 million rise the year before ( source). They managed to rally themselves though for 2010, dropping again in 2011 by £700,000 to a mere £13.5 million according to the official royal finances. With all this money over the £7.9m though, are they funding themselves? ..no, of course not. The lock on the civil list came after 10 years of huge over payments and the money is taken from the 'civil list reserve' to make up the difference, which is to say the money they didn't need to spend in the 90s ( source). But in 2011 the civil list reserve was running out, so rather than maintaining the "freeze" of finances which had resulted in more money every year a new system has been installed known as the sovereign grant. This grant gives the Queen 15% of the crown estates net revenue which even according to conservative sources bemoaning it isn't more is an increase of £5 million for this year. But wait, there's more! When you take a lot of the costs in to account we get the official cost of the royals at 62p per head in 2010 ( source). This number has obviously increased, but since I can't find more recent data we'll stick with 62p for now. It's important to notice that the official figures refuse to include security which is likely another £100m according to even pro monarch papers in the Briain ( source). The estimated costs in total end up being around £202million in 2010 ( source) which makes it roughly 100 times more expensive to maintain than the salary of the Irish president ( source) for example. Maintaining an entire family of wealthy elite isn't cheap, and it certainly doesn't bring money in to the country. The Stability ArgumentThe ClaimMany of the most developed countries in the world have monarchies. Indeed, many of the most stable in the world too. Without a monarchy, we would lose that stability. ResponseTo this claim there is the obvious retort that many countries, including the US, are able to be stable and developed without a monarchy, and the fact that many monarchs around the world are anything but (for example, Saudi Arabia and Thailand). The point is that, it's more likely that stable countries keep their monarchs than that monarchs produce stable countries, not least because of the examples throughout history of countries after the removal of monarchs. Britain won't fall apart if the Windsors are removed from power. The "They Don't Really Do Anything" ArgumentThe ClaimThey're relatively benign, and they don't really do anything or cause any harm so we don't really have any reason to get rid of them. ResponseIt is certainly true that the current monarch doesn't really do that much, but that's no reason at all to leave an unaccountable, unelected head of state. Especially when that unaccountable head of state provides all the authority for parliament. Even more so when that power includes a royal veto which is still used and which has been offered 39 times ( source). On top of that, we're still left with the position of a head of state which is not only undemocratic, but is also the very definition of anti-democratic nepotism!
Unfortunately I don't have time to finish this right now, but I'll cover topics such as 'Tradition' 'Hard Working and Charitable' and 'International Diplomacy' and the laughable 'Trained from Birth' (which I wasn't going to until it actually came up in this thread) tomorrow. How come you didn't include that income from royal lands agreement into this? Now since we're all talking about democracy and equality and stuff, it would be unseemly to just take their possessions from them, it would be akin to saying to Bill Gates grandson in 80 years that he should leave all the wealth his family acquired...
That's a good point I had meant to include. I'll cover that one tomorrow too.
|
On April 20 2013 02:15 clementdudu wrote:
We (french people) beheaded our last monarchs so...yeah....pretty republican;)
That's how you leave public office in style, decapitation.
|
On April 20 2013 01:57 Iyerbeth wrote:Ok, so I was considering putting some time in to write up a decent anti-monarch reply to dismiss the common claims but early in the thread it didn't really seem worth it, but the last couple of pages have proved it might just be worth it. So here goes... Before I begin presenting the case, it's important I make a couple of points clear. The reasons I'm about to post aren't what caused me to take a republican stance they merely support the position. The reason I oppose the monarchy is simply that hereditary power and wealth by birth right to a single family is abhorrent to every sensibility I have. The reasons I will include here are primarily arguments against the monarchist position from a British perspective. Finally, whilst I may not quote www.republic.org.uk often, my early education in the subject was informed from that site so many of the arguments could probably be found in a similar form somewhere on that site, therefore it seems only fair I credit them (though I don't entirely agree with all their positions either). The Tourism ArgumentThe ClaimOne of the most often repeated claims of the benefits of having a British monarchy is that they bring in tourist cash. Were we to get rid of the monarchy the cost to the british tourist industry would be huge. ResponseReally, this claim should be dismissed without any evidence to the contrary. Even if it were true, is "well foreign people think it's kinda funny" a good way to decide on the head of state? Or maybe decisions of who gets to be the head of state should be made on which option gets most money from tourists? These are obvious preposterous positions. Fortunately, they're also based on a complete falsehood. The Association of Leading Visitor Attractions tracks the number of tourists visiting attractions over time. Their figures for 2012 show (after enough scrolling) that not only do the royals not play a particularly big role in tourism, it might actually be better if they vacated their properties permanently such that we could open them as museums In case you had any concerns of the potential bias in the figures, the president of ALVA is the Duke of York. The Finances ArgumentThe ClaimIn a similar way to the tourist argument, this claim is that the royals bring in such an income to the country that it could lost billions in lost revenue if we no longer had them. Fortunately many monarchists even wouldn't go that far and simply assert that they don't cost much and perhaps even result in a slight income. ResponseThis claim should really be considered as absurd as the tourist one in terms of the pure 'money' argument in that it's absurd to make a decision about who should be head of state on the idea that we might make a bit of cash. As it is the cost of the monarchy has increased almost every year for at least the past 20 years. The civil list cost has officially been locked since 2010 at £7.9million ( source) and yet we find that the cost has increased every year between 1991 and 200 until it dropped mildly in 2009 following a £2 million rise the year before ( source). They managed to rally themselves though for 2010, dropping again in 2011 by £700,000 to a mere £13.5 million according to the official royal finances. With all this money over the £7.9m though, are they funding themselves? ..no, of course not. The lock on the civil list came after 10 years of huge over payments and the money is taken from the 'civil list reserve' to make up the difference, which is to say the money they didn't need to spend in the 90s ( source). But in 2011 the civil list reserve was running out, so rather than maintaining the "freeze" of finances which had resulted in more money every year a new system has been installed known as the sovereign grant. This grant gives the Queen 15% of the crown estates net revenue which even according to conservative sources bemoaning it isn't more is an increase of £5 million for this year. But wait, there's more! When you take a lot of the costs in to account we get the official cost of the royals at 62p per head in 2010 ( source). This number has obviously increased, but since I can't find more recent data we'll stick with 62p for now. It's important to notice that the official figures refuse to include security which is likely another £100m according to even pro monarch papers in the Briain ( source). The estimated costs in total end up being around £202million in 2010 ( source) which makes it roughly 100 times more expensive to maintain than the salary of the Irish president ( source) for example. Maintaining an entire family of wealthy elite isn't cheap, and it certainly doesn't bring money in to the country. The Stability ArgumentThe ClaimMany of the most developed countries in the world have monarchies. Indeed, many of the most stable in the world too. Without a monarchy, we would lose that stability. ResponseTo this claim there is the obvious retort that many countries, including the US, are able to be stable and developed without a monarchy, and the fact that many monarchs around the world are anything but (for example, Saudi Arabia and Thailand). The point is that, it's more likely that stable countries keep their monarchs than that monarchs produce stable countries, not least because of the examples throughout history of countries after the removal of monarchs. Britain won't fall apart if the Windsors are removed from power. The "They Don't Really Do Anything" ArgumentThe ClaimThey're relatively benign, and they don't really do anything or cause any harm so we don't really have any reason to get rid of them. ResponseIt is certainly true that the current monarch doesn't really do that much, but that's no reason at all to leave an unaccountable, unelected head of state. Especially when that unaccountable head of state provides all the authority for parliament. Even more so when that power includes a royal veto which is still used and which has been offered 39 times ( source). On top of that, we're still left with the position of a head of state which is not only undemocratic, but is also the very definition of anti-democratic nepotism!
Unfortunately I don't have time to finish this right now, but I'll cover topics such as 'Tradition' 'Hard Working and Charitable' and 'International Diplomacy' and the laughable 'Trained from Birth' (which I wasn't going to until it actually came up in this thread) tomorrow.
On the stability part as George Orwell noted the monarchy does provide a unique role in preventing dictatorships as any move from the monarch themselves towards a dictatorship would immediately result in republicanism and any head of government isn't actually the head of state and can't use pomp and ceremony to enhance themselves and can't really use the armed forces either.
|
On April 20 2013 02:21 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 02:19 eeniebear wrote:On April 20 2013 01:30 farvacola wrote:On April 20 2013 01:16 eeniebear wrote:On April 20 2013 00:48 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On April 20 2013 00:41 eeniebear wrote:
I wish Fascism had been in existence long enough before the communists finally got their way for it to be an option in this poll. You like Fascism? Yes. Hitler and Mussolini had brilliant programs that very quickly raised the standard of living, as well as the economies of their nations, to heights not thought possible, all during a worldwide depression. Talk about men who could make decisions, they were the best at it. Although once 1939 rolled around Mussolini showed how incompetent he was as a military commander. If only Oswald Mosley had managed to get it done in the UK . . . . Fascism's fervor burnt the candle on both ends my friend, 'twas was an economic loss as much as a military one. It would take some rather marvelous cherry-picking in order to understand the programs of Mussolini and Hitler as "brilliant"; the high standard of living in Germany circa 1938 was built on the back of an entirely overexploited minority. Please elaborate on that last point? Just want to clarify that you are indeed talking about the Jews, in which case I have a rebuttal. Nah, by "overexploited minority", I meant practically anyone that didn't fit under the Aryan and Nazi party label. Gypsies, Catholics, Jews, Atheists, pretty much any ethnic minority.
Of those minorities you listed, the largest was the Jews, accounting for 2% of the population in 1933. The rest you mentioned are negligible. A large part of that 2% were Polish nationals. Most of those Jews kept their jobs until they were deported. Gyspies were largely ignored, and barely register on the demographic charts anyway. Germany was very much a monolothic nation. Austria was far more diverse, and Hitler still managed a 99% approval rating, leading to the Anschluss. Persecution is not the same as exploitation, so I'm just wondering how you come to the conclusion that the economic successes from 1933 to 1939 are due to some kind of "exploitation?"
|
On April 20 2013 01:16 eeniebear wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 00:48 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On April 20 2013 00:41 eeniebear wrote:
I wish Fascism had been in existence long enough before the communists finally got their way for it to be an option in this poll. You like Fascism? Yes. Hitler and Mussolini had brilliant programs that very quickly raised the standard of living, as well as the economies of their nations, to heights not thought possible, all during a worldwide depression. Talk about men who could make decisions, they were the best at it. Although once 1939 rolled around Mussolini showed how incompetent he was as a military commander. If only Oswald Mosley had managed to get it done in the UK . . . .
I don't know so much about Italy but Nazi Germany's economic plans were a total shambles (also, Hitler had nothing to do with them, he appointed others to take care of the economy), it was very short term and short sighted planning that required the country to be constantly expanding to continue growth and led directly to WW2, they got involved in the Spanish civil war because they needed more resources, it's a big part of the reason why they annexed Austria then the Sudetenland etc. The house building and highway building programs had to be stopped in 1937-8 because the workers were needed to build the Westwall because they knew some serious consequences would come from their actions.
Not to mention the fact that their constant pogroms in the mid 1930s hurt the economy pretty badly (1935 was the worst year, they stopped it for the 1936 Berlin Olympics) because instead of working people were out smashing up shops and beating people up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
