|
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.
The question I pose to you is this, why do you think monarchism remains popular in first-world, democratic countries like Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and others? If you live in a monarchic state, do you support the monarchy?
Poll: Everyone: What do you find ideal?Federal Republic (82) 39% No Government (49) 24% Unitary Monarchy (33) 16% Unitary Republic (21) 10% Collective Leadership (13) 6% Federal Monarchy (10) 5% 208 total votes Your vote: Everyone: What do you find ideal? (Vote): Federal Republic
(Vote): Unitary Republic
(Vote): Federal Monarchy
(Vote): Unitary Monarchy
(Vote): Collective Leadership
(Vote): No Government
Poll: European Monarchists (Belgium, UK, Sweden, etc.): Where do you stand?Strongly Monarchist. (48) 33% Strongly Republican. (46) 32% Lean Monarchist. (33) 23% Lean Republican. (18) 12% 145 total votes Your vote: European Monarchists (Belgium, UK, Sweden, etc.): Where do you stand? (Vote): Strongly Republican.
(Vote): Lean Republican.
(Vote): Lean Monarchist.
(Vote): Strongly Monarchist.
Poll: European Republicans (France, Poland, etc.): Where do you stand?Strongly Republican. (45) 71% Strongly Monarchist. (8) 13% Lean Republican. (6) 10% Lean Monarchist. (4) 6% 63 total votes Your vote: European Republicans (France, Poland, etc.): Where do you stand? (Vote): Strongly Republican.
(Vote): Lean Republican.
(Vote): Lean Monarchist.
(Vote): Strongly Monarchist.
Poll: Australians/Canadians/Commonwealth: Where do you stand?Strongly Monarchist. (28) 39% Strongly Republican. (26) 36% Lean Republican. (10) 14% Lean Monarchist. (8) 11% 72 total votes Your vote: Australians/Canadians/Commonwealth: Where do you stand? (Vote): Strongly Republican.
(Vote): Lean Republican.
(Vote): Lean Monarchist.
(Vote): Strongly Monarchist.
|
12175 Posts
I'm from one of the monarchies. I have yet to hear an argument for abolishing it that is solid. The modern variant has no power and is a figurehead with less money than large stock owners and less power than elected officials. They bring in a positive in net worth.
So bring a good argument for removing them and I'll agree with you. 
|
On April 19 2013 05:00 Arctic Daishi wrote:
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.
Monarchs in todays Europe aren't ruling anyone. Also, the European Parliament is directly elected and the Council of the EU consists of elected ministers of the different nations. I don't see what that has to do with unelected elites.
|
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.
|
On April 19 2013 05:08 blackone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 05:00 Arctic Daishi wrote:
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. Monarchs in todays Europe aren't ruling anyone. Also, the European Parliament is directly elected and the Council of the EU consists of elected ministers of the different nations. I don't see what that has to do with unelected elites.
They are chosen by governments not elected by the people of each state, as for the OP you are using a lot of rhetoric and hyperbole which doesn't really ring true about current and past monarchies. As for the USA being the first republican liberal society blah blah blah i'm pretty sure that not true.
|
I disagree that monarchism is popular in the UK. There isn't a vast majority leaning against it, but I'd definitely say most people say the monarchy is outdated because it literally does nothing apart from smile and wave.
|
On April 19 2013 05:07 Yurie wrote:
I'm from one of the monarchies. I have yet to hear an argument for abolishing it that is solid. The modern variant has no power and is a figurehead with less money than large stock owners and less power than elected officials. They bring in a positive in net worth. It's unjust that some people become privileged because of their parents social status
|
I really hate the monarchy of the UK. They too often get off the hook for being considered some benign oddity that brings tourist money (which is a crap reason, even if it were true) but even if every terrible argument the monarchists bring forward were true, the principal of an unelected head of state by birth right is disgusting to me.
|
On April 19 2013 05:11 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 05:08 blackone wrote:On April 19 2013 05:00 Arctic Daishi wrote:
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. Monarchs in todays Europe aren't ruling anyone. Also, the European Parliament is directly elected and the Council of the EU consists of elected ministers of the different nations. I don't see what that has to do with unelected elites. They are chosen by governments not elected by the people of each state.
No, the Parliament is directly elected by the people. And the Council of the EU is the European governments.
|
Surely not all of the republicans and pro-America Canadians had been killed in Canada?
If you talk about the french-canadians patriots that asked aid and wanted to join the united-states they most likely transformed in Quebec's nationalist base nowadays. Every 24th of june, we celebrate Quebec's people and the patriots.
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
where do you get this from? If it is true, I doubt these monarchy aren't obsolete and only bear "symbolic" power. Libertarian group are against political power. if you discuss their views they will most likely tell you that their ideal is a representative state minus power (what they call true democracy is a fully decentralized state (abolition of the state) and political power). I have many friends who bear these ideas, on my part I'm more of a marxist. So In your poll I'd prolly tend towards direct democracy.
Could you give more intel on what you describe as lean republican? As a french-canadian, Im against federalism (for sovereignty of Quebec) and in favor of direct democracy
|
On April 19 2013 05:15 Jellikit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 05:07 Yurie wrote:
I'm from one of the monarchies. I have yet to hear an argument for abolishing it that is solid. The modern variant has no power and is a figurehead with less money than large stock owners and less power than elected officials. They bring in a positive in net worth. It's unjust that some people become privileged because of their parents social class
This phenomena is hardly unique to Monarchy. In fact, the guise of Republicanism can make hiding inequalities much easier.
|
On April 19 2013 05:10 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote + 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.
|
On April 19 2013 05:10 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote + 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.
Not all rich people in America (self-made or inherited wealth) care about or get involved in politics, there's a difference right there. Being born into the aristocracy in Europe back in the day meant that you were automatically invested and usually active in the political system.
And I think you can agree that there is a much stronger populist strain in America than in Europe, the "1%" vs the "99%" is just an example of that. FDR campaigned on a very explicit anti-big business message in his reelection campaign in 1936. During the labor struggles of the late 18th and early 19th century populism was even more fierce than it is today, the campaigns to lower or end tariffs, the campaign for a silver standard, etc. Barack Obama attacked Mitt Romney's wealth mercilessly. George W. Bush was "born with a silver spoon in his mouth, on third base," that happened in the 2000 campaign.
This country is very different from Europe, in the past or today (the aristocracy of blood in Europe has been replaced by the aristocracy of the technocrat and bureaucrat) when it comes to class.
|
On April 19 2013 05:15 blackone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 05:11 Zaros wrote:On April 19 2013 05:08 blackone wrote:On April 19 2013 05:00 Arctic Daishi wrote:
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. Monarchs in todays Europe aren't ruling anyone. Also, the European Parliament is directly elected and the Council of the EU consists of elected ministers of the different nations. I don't see what that has to do with unelected elites. They are chosen by governments not elected by the people of each state. No, the Parliament is directly elected by the people. And the Council of the EU is the European governments.
i meant the council and commission not the parliament
|
On April 19 2013 05:19 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +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. Not all rich people in America (self-made or inherited wealth) care about or get involved in politics, there's a difference right there. Being born into the aristocracy in Europe back in the day meant that you were automatically invested and usually active in the political system. And I think you can agree that there is a much stronger populist strain in America than in Europe, the "1%" vs the "99%" is just an example of that. FDR campaigned on a very explicit anti-big business message in his reelection campaign in 1936. During the labor struggles of the late 18th and early 19th century populism was even more fierce than it is today, the campaigns to lower or end tariffs, the campaign for a silver standard, etc. Barack Obama attacked Mitt Romney's wealth mercilessly. This country is very different from Europe, in the past or today (the aristocracy of blood in Europe has been replaced by the aristocracy of the technocrat and bureaucrat) when it comes to class.
eh people are always complaining about the rich in europe, if anything its America that cares less about the wealth gap.
|
On April 19 2013 05:18 Arctic Daishi wrote:Show nested quote +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 of inheritance follow fairly closely (not they they are in any sense overtly superimpositive). The inheritance of privilege is alive and well in the US no matter how many denotative darts you throw at it.
|
On April 19 2013 05:18 Arctic Daishi wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Except monarchies do not rule on Europe. They actually work for the state as diplomats mostly.
|
On April 19 2013 05:18 Arctic Daishi wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Actually, the idea of inheritence that lets rich people make their sons rich just because they are their sons are quite same idea. Of course in theory everyone can make it to that stage, and that is what makes it marginally better than the "hey, you have the wrong genes, so you will never live in this castle" idea of monarchy.
Not that i support monarchies in any way. The fact that some people can be born into positions is a shame upon a modern democracy, no matter what they happen to give back or no matter how "great" they are.
|
On April 19 2013 05:20 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 05:19 DeepElemBlues 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. Not all rich people in America (self-made or inherited wealth) care about or get involved in politics, there's a difference right there. Being born into the aristocracy in Europe back in the day meant that you were automatically invested and usually active in the political system. And I think you can agree that there is a much stronger populist strain in America than in Europe, the "1%" vs the "99%" is just an example of that. FDR campaigned on a very explicit anti-big business message in his reelection campaign in 1936. During the labor struggles of the late 18th and early 19th century populism was even more fierce than it is today, the campaigns to lower or end tariffs, the campaign for a silver standard, etc. Barack Obama attacked Mitt Romney's wealth mercilessly. This country is very different from Europe, in the past or today (the aristocracy of blood in Europe has been replaced by the aristocracy of the technocrat and bureaucrat) when it comes to class. eh people are always complaining about the rich in europe, if anything its America that cares less about the wealth gap.
I agree, but in Europe the technocrat/bureaucrat class that runs the EU and the individual countries is more merged with the rich class than in America, although I will agree that this merging is also going on in America and unfortunately this merging is advancing, particularly when it comes to big corporations like Google or GE basically being operational allies with the Democratic Party and the oil industry and firearms industry basically being operational allies of the Republicans.
|
On April 19 2013 05:20 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
