|
On April 19 2013 05:38 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 05:36 EatThePath wrote:On April 19 2013 05:23 Arctic Daishi wrote:On April 19 2013 05:20 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 05:18 Arctic Daishi wrote:On April 19 2013 05:10 ComaDose wrote: The idea of being born into power or nobility has always been abhorrent and foreign to us. what? rich powerful mommies and daddies make rich powerful babbies everywhere. America is not different. Capitalism /=/ Aristocratic "born to rule" monarchism. Why don't you get a bit past this formal obsession with political words and instead use these words in order to speak to actual ideas. It doesn't take a genius to see that top-heavy capital agglomeration and familial lines follow fairly closely. The inheritance of privilege is alive and well in the US no matter how many denotative darts you throw at it. You mean to tell me that parents are allowed to try to give their children the best healthcare and education possible? And that somehow makes the United States a feudalistic monarchy? Have you never read chomsky? Or you just enjoy sounding ignorant? Chomsky is not a serious political theorizer outside of the internet and a vocal academic fringe. That's why he has to rage about the corporate media and the corporate controlled culture shutting him out, to explain why he doesn't have more influence. So, who really is enjoying sounding ignorant here?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/18/books.highereducation
On April 19 2013 05:54 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 05:38 Believer wrote:On April 19 2013 05:37 Teoman wrote:On April 19 2013 05:30 Believer wrote:
Swede here. Strongly support monarchy and wish the king had more power. May i ask. Why? I believe royals are superior to us "grunts". Are you trolling here or something? Our king is an illiterate whore-mongering imbecile who can't even spell his own title, all but one of his children are spoiled brats with an IQ barely above sea level who live off of the sweat of hard-working people, a non-stop party with the taxpayers picking up the bill. Their like a whole band of drunk uncles who just won't leave. Revolting. Monarchy is an embrassament, it's like a vestigial tumour from a time when we didn't know what an atom was and thought witches were responisble for soured milk. For the republics in Europe and the US, you have my sincere envy. Viva la revolucion.
I'm pretty sure the monarchy could be funded entirely on donations from the public, since enough are monarchist and like having a king (sort of the ultimate celebrity).
|
On April 19 2013 05:46 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 05:38 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 19 2013 05:36 EatThePath wrote:On April 19 2013 05:23 Arctic Daishi wrote:On April 19 2013 05:20 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 05:18 Arctic Daishi wrote:On April 19 2013 05:10 ComaDose wrote: The idea of being born into power or nobility has always been abhorrent and foreign to us. what? rich powerful mommies and daddies make rich powerful babbies everywhere. America is not different. Capitalism /=/ Aristocratic "born to rule" monarchism. Why don't you get a bit past this formal obsession with political words and instead use these words in order to speak to actual ideas. It doesn't take a genius to see that top-heavy capital agglomeration and familial lines follow fairly closely. The inheritance of privilege is alive and well in the US no matter how many denotative darts you throw at it. You mean to tell me that parents are allowed to try to give their children the best healthcare and education possible? And that somehow makes the United States a feudalistic monarchy? Have you never read chomsky? Or you just enjoy sounding ignorant? Chomsky is not a serious political theorizer outside of the internet and a vocal academic fringe. That's why he has to rage about the corporate media and the corporate controlled culture shutting him out, to explain why he doesn't have more influence. So, who really is enjoying sounding ignorant here? Replace Chomsky with Bourdieu : problem solved! Money is not the elite's biggest wealth; culture is. Growing up, I had no idea to which studies I was headed to, and neither did my parents. And yet I have a friend whose brother, aged 14, already knows the top 10 business schools of the country and their classification! Luckily my grandfather woke me up every morning to the sound of an opera, serving a typical Chilean breakfast while I would read books on military history. I don't know if a big fat cheque would've been a better gift, I don't think so.
Well the problem of replacing a pedantic, dishonest, and incoherent political theorist with a credible one is solved, at least. I disagree with Bourdieu, but he's a man you can have a discussion with him acting in good faith and actually being interested in disagreeing views.
And I agree that culture is a bigger wealth to the elite than money is. But culture is not necessarily a product of money, as your own personal experience shows (well, it could show that: was/is your grandfather wealthy?)
|
On April 19 2013 05:55 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 05:38 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 19 2013 05:36 EatThePath wrote:On April 19 2013 05:23 Arctic Daishi wrote:On April 19 2013 05:20 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 05:18 Arctic Daishi wrote:On April 19 2013 05:10 ComaDose wrote: The idea of being born into power or nobility has always been abhorrent and foreign to us. what? rich powerful mommies and daddies make rich powerful babbies everywhere. America is not different. Capitalism /=/ Aristocratic "born to rule" monarchism. Why don't you get a bit past this formal obsession with political words and instead use these words in order to speak to actual ideas. It doesn't take a genius to see that top-heavy capital agglomeration and familial lines follow fairly closely. The inheritance of privilege is alive and well in the US no matter how many denotative darts you throw at it. You mean to tell me that parents are allowed to try to give their children the best healthcare and education possible? And that somehow makes the United States a feudalistic monarchy? Have you never read chomsky? Or you just enjoy sounding ignorant? Chomsky is not a serious political theorizer outside of the internet and a vocal academic fringe. That's why he has to rage about the corporate media and the corporate controlled culture shutting him out, to explain why he doesn't have more influence. So, who really is enjoying sounding ignorant here? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/18/books.highereducation
Who did the voting on this poll? People from the internet, perhaps, where Chomsky is king in some circles the same way Alex Jones is in others? Or even if not, I still think the voting pool was probably not exactly made up of carefully selected thinkers and such.
Noam Chomsky is the sophisticated, progressive Alex Jones for the pseudo-sophisticated, progressive hipster.
|
I'd prefer Canada drop the Monarchy because its largely ostentation, and what effect it does have is the promulgation of our ridiculous executive focused constitutional order. I'd rather we abolish it, and replace it with a decentralized Government more in line with America [only do it right so the central Government doesnt eat everything up].
|
On April 19 2013 05:54 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 05:38 Believer wrote:On April 19 2013 05:37 Teoman wrote:On April 19 2013 05:30 Believer wrote:
Swede here. Strongly support monarchy and wish the king had more power. May i ask. Why? I believe royals are superior to us "grunts". Are you trolling here or something? Our king is an illiterate whore-mongering imbecile who can't even spell his own title, all but one of his children are spoiled brats with an IQ barely above sea level who live off of the sweat of hard-working people, a non-stop party with the taxpayers picking up the bill. Their like a whole band of drunk uncles who just won't leave. Revolting. Monarchy is an embrassament, it's like a vestigial tumour from a time when we didn't know what an atom was and thought witches were responisble for soured milk. For the republics in Europe and the US, you have my sincere envy. Viva la revolucion.
I am not trolling.
I have never said that the IQ or literally skills or even the morale of our royals are above us. I just think that they are worth more than me, in terms of "worthiness". If your wife was going to get hit by a bus and the only way to stop it was to push her out of the way and instead sacrifice yourself, would you do it? I suspect most of us would, I know I would. That is the sort of feeling I have for our royal family. Maybe not to the extent of sacrificing my existence to them, but I would do a lot.
|
the US spends millions every year on secret service outfits to keep ex presidents safe and happy, even keeping some employed as diplomatic envoys to maintain the relations they built up during their time in office.
i dont see how the british monarchy is very different from that at all.
|
Since ~1975, King/royal family has had no power at all. He's on our coins, that's about it. I see no harm in keeping a monarch as a figurehead/diplomat.
|
I think I enjoyed this post more when you did it on mmo-champ..but I'll take the time to reply here.
Not a huge fan of monarchy to be honest, admittedly it can have it's uses for the greater good that republics tend to end up in red tape trying to achieve.
|
We're a country founded on the principles of freedom, republicanism, rule of law, gun ownership, and equality for all peoples
That's funny for so many reasons  ... but "equality for all peoples" is just hilarious. It BECAME that... but it wasn't founded on it, not in practice at least.
That said, I don't know why so many people consider themselves "monarchist"... It confuses me a great deal.
|
Obviously the educated elite should rule a country, wtf is up with these ideas about monarchy and republics. The American Republic is mostly an old boy's club that these days doesn't even do very much, and monarchies are dumb because you could very well get a total shit leader next time, even if the current one is really good. In addition, anything that is democratically elected is stupid because many people don't even know what their candidates stand for; they elect based off popularity to a degree almost as bad as high-school elections. Even Winston Churchill admitted that the average voter is dumb as a sack of rocks. Also, important changes don't happen because everyone is scared of pissing off their constituents. This is why there is never medicare, social security, or medicaid reform among liberals and never military reform among conservatives (in the US).
What we truly need is a technocracy run by the leaders of industry, economics, and science (with restrictions, i.e. the current CEO of Ford should not be making decisions). Then we could rise above the uneducated and politically apathetic masses of a republic and the luck (and helplessness) that comes with monarchy while giving everybody the power to contribute simply by being highly knowledgeable in a field.
|
On April 19 2013 05:57 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 05:55 Grumbels wrote:On April 19 2013 05:38 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 19 2013 05:36 EatThePath wrote:On April 19 2013 05:23 Arctic Daishi wrote:On April 19 2013 05:20 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 05:18 Arctic Daishi wrote:On April 19 2013 05:10 ComaDose wrote: The idea of being born into power or nobility has always been abhorrent and foreign to us. what? rich powerful mommies and daddies make rich powerful babbies everywhere. America is not different. Capitalism /=/ Aristocratic "born to rule" monarchism. Why don't you get a bit past this formal obsession with political words and instead use these words in order to speak to actual ideas. It doesn't take a genius to see that top-heavy capital agglomeration and familial lines follow fairly closely. The inheritance of privilege is alive and well in the US no matter how many denotative darts you throw at it. You mean to tell me that parents are allowed to try to give their children the best healthcare and education possible? And that somehow makes the United States a feudalistic monarchy? Have you never read chomsky? Or you just enjoy sounding ignorant? Chomsky is not a serious political theorizer outside of the internet and a vocal academic fringe. That's why he has to rage about the corporate media and the corporate controlled culture shutting him out, to explain why he doesn't have more influence. So, who really is enjoying sounding ignorant here? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/18/books.highereducation Who did the voting on this poll? People from the internet, perhaps, where Chomsky is king in some circles the same way Alex Jones is in others? Or even if not, I still think the voting pool was probably not exactly made up of carefully selected thinkers and such. Noam Chomsky is the sophisticated, progressive Alex Jones for the pseudo-sophisticated, progressive hipster.
As if you ever had an opinion of your own, all your posts come directly from rightwing libertarian talking points and you are always an obnoxious presence in every thread involving politics.
Chomsky is one of the heroes of our time, ridiculing him as some sort of inconsequential demagogue reveals a lot about your character.
|
On April 19 2013 06:02 Chocolate wrote:
What we truly need is a technocracy run by the leaders of industry, economics, and science (with restrictions, i.e. the current CEO of Ford should not be making decisions). Then we could rise above the uneducated and politically apathetic masses of a republic and the luck (and helplessness) that comes with monarchy while giving everybody the power to contribute simply by being highly knowledgeable in a field.
Jesus Christ I hope not.
|
On April 19 2013 05:57 Believer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 05:54 McBengt wrote:On April 19 2013 05:38 Believer wrote:On April 19 2013 05:37 Teoman wrote:On April 19 2013 05:30 Believer wrote:
Swede here. Strongly support monarchy and wish the king had more power. May i ask. Why? I believe royals are superior to us "grunts". Are you trolling here or something? Our king is an illiterate whore-mongering imbecile who can't even spell his own title, all but one of his children are spoiled brats with an IQ barely above sea level who live off of the sweat of hard-working people, a non-stop party with the taxpayers picking up the bill. Their like a whole band of drunk uncles who just won't leave. Revolting. Monarchy is an embrassament, it's like a vestigial tumour from a time when we didn't know what an atom was and thought witches were responisble for soured milk. For the republics in Europe and the US, you have my sincere envy. Viva la revolucion. I am not trolling. I have never said that the IQ or literally skills or even the morale of our royals are above us. I just think that they are worth more than me, in terms of "worthiness". If your wife was going to get hit by a bus and the only way to stop it was to push her out of the way and instead sacrifice yourself, would you do it? I suspect most of us would, I know I would. That is the sort of feeling I have for our royal family. Maybe not to the extent of sacrificing my existence to them, but I would do a lot.
I'd push them in front of the bus.
Why would they have some greater inherent value than other members of the same primate species? Why are they exempt from the rule of being judged by your actions, not your birth? What an absolutely disgusting idea, fundamentally undemocratic and contrary to almost every humanistic principle I can think of. It's such a laughable concept, so illogical and without any reasoned merit whatsoever, it's based on bronze age morality and social policies one would expect to find in a pack of hyenas. The king is the king because he has power, soldiers, and can simply take what he wants. Might makes right, law of the jungle.
|
On April 19 2013 06:02 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +We're a country founded on the principles of freedom, republicanism, rule of law, gun ownership, and equality for all peoples That's funny for so many reasons ... but "equality for all peoples" is just hilarious. It BECAME that... but it wasn't founded on it, not in practice at least. That said, I don't know why so many people consider themselves "monarchist"... It confuses me a great deal.
at least 2 of them are amendments not founding principles, but i didnt want to be that guy.
|
On April 19 2013 06:05 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 06:02 Chocolate wrote:
What we truly need is a technocracy run by the leaders of industry, economics, and science (with restrictions, i.e. the current CEO of Ford should not be making decisions). Then we could rise above the uneducated and politically apathetic masses of a republic and the luck (and helplessness) that comes with monarchy while giving everybody the power to contribute simply by being highly knowledgeable in a field. Jesus Christ I hope not.
Why not? Why should the people who have proven themselves to be among the most capable leaders of their respective occupations not rule a nation? Most of the people currently running the nation are simply there because they are good politicians or even because of their connections, both familial and partisan. Sure, some have nice underdog stories but I would argue that most do not. In addition, while many of the legislative rulers are good lawyers, you need more than lawyers to decide how to run and even legislate a country.
|
Canadian reporting in. Hate the monarchy and everything it represents: a history of oppression, colonialism, and the idea that absolute power should be granted to someone on the basis of lineage. Utter nonsense, if you ask me. I'd depose them in a day if I could.
|
On April 19 2013 06:05 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 06:02 Chocolate wrote:
What we truly need is a technocracy run by the leaders of industry, economics, and science (with restrictions, i.e. the current CEO of Ford should not be making decisions). Then we could rise above the uneducated and politically apathetic masses of a republic and the luck (and helplessness) that comes with monarchy while giving everybody the power to contribute simply by being highly knowledgeable in a field. Jesus Christ I hope not.
He does make some good points though. If democracy is supposed to be the rule of the people then why are the people not all educated in basic politics and economics?
|
|
|
On April 19 2013 05:55 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 05:38 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 19 2013 05:36 EatThePath wrote:On April 19 2013 05:23 Arctic Daishi wrote:On April 19 2013 05:20 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 05:18 Arctic Daishi wrote:On April 19 2013 05:10 ComaDose wrote: The idea of being born into power or nobility has always been abhorrent and foreign to us. what? rich powerful mommies and daddies make rich powerful babbies everywhere. America is not different. Capitalism /=/ Aristocratic "born to rule" monarchism. Why don't you get a bit past this formal obsession with political words and instead use these words in order to speak to actual ideas. It doesn't take a genius to see that top-heavy capital agglomeration and familial lines follow fairly closely. The inheritance of privilege is alive and well in the US no matter how many denotative darts you throw at it. You mean to tell me that parents are allowed to try to give their children the best healthcare and education possible? And that somehow makes the United States a feudalistic monarchy? Have you never read chomsky? Or you just enjoy sounding ignorant? Chomsky is not a serious political theorizer outside of the internet and a vocal academic fringe. That's why he has to rage about the corporate media and the corporate controlled culture shutting him out, to explain why he doesn't have more influence. So, who really is enjoying sounding ignorant here? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/18/books.highereducationShow nested quote +On April 19 2013 05:54 McBengt wrote:On April 19 2013 05:38 Believer wrote:On April 19 2013 05:37 Teoman wrote:On April 19 2013 05:30 Believer wrote:
Swede here. Strongly support monarchy and wish the king had more power. May i ask. Why? I believe royals are superior to us "grunts". Are you trolling here or something? Our king is an illiterate whore-mongering imbecile who can't even spell his own title, all but one of his children are spoiled brats with an IQ barely above sea level who live off of the sweat of hard-working people, a non-stop party with the taxpayers picking up the bill. Their like a whole band of drunk uncles who just won't leave. Revolting. Monarchy is an embrassament, it's like a vestigial tumour from a time when we didn't know what an atom was and thought witches were responisble for soured milk. For the republics in Europe and the US, you have my sincere envy. Viva la revolucion. I'm pretty sure the monarchy could be funded entirely on donations from the public, since enough are monarchist and like having a king (sort of the ultimate celebrity).
Too bad that's not how it works. If a group of people wanted to put some guy on a big chair and give him a crown and call him a king, go for it. If they felt like paying for his life of luxury, hey whatever floats your boat. I would very much like to be left out of this idiocy.
|
On April 19 2013 06:02 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +We're a country founded on the principles of freedom, republicanism, rule of law, gun ownership, and equality for all peoples That's funny for so many reasons ... but "equality for all peoples" is just hilarious. It BECAME that... but it wasn't founded on it, not in practice at least. That said, I don't know why so many people consider themselves "monarchist"... It confuses me a great deal.
There wouldn't have been a USA if the North hadn't compromised with the South on slavery. There was a very contentious and divided debate at the Constitutional Convention over slavery. The Northern delegates pushed very hard to not have the word "slave" appear anywhere in the Constitution. In return, the South got the "3/5 compromise," which did NOT, NOT, NOT say that slaves were 3/5 of a person, just that for the purposes of representation in Congress, a slave state's number of House Representatives would be determined by the number of the non-slave population and 3/5 of the number of the slave population.
And this debate over slavery lulled down for about 30 years, then after the War of 1812 started up again and resulted in the Civil War. Please, if you're going to be snarky about things, at least acknowledge the context and everything that happened, not just the part of what happened that you want to be snarky about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
