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?
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.
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 05:00 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 05:07 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.
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 05:00 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
The council is the 27 member governments and the commision is voted on by the parliament.
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 magically transforms the bastion of freedom into a feudalistic monarchy?
I am in no way indicting the rational actions of agents in society; rich people are not evil, nor are their actions. Even the system itself is not evil; this does not conflict with my insistence that "success" in the US is strongly tied to inheritance. Perhaps less so than elsewhere, but the point still stands.
Again, stop with the "feudalistic monarchy"s; past a certain point, that brand of jargon really loses its usefulness.
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 magically transforms the bastion of freedom into a feudalistic monarchy?
I am in no way indicting the rational actions of agents in society; rich people are not evil, nor are their actions. Even the system itself is not evil; this does not conflict with my insistence that "success" in the US is strongly tied to inheritance. Perhaps less so than elsewhere, but the point still stands.
Again, stop with the "feudalistic monarchy"s; past a certain point, that brand of jargon really loses its usefulness.
Not so much inheritance but on the resources available to the parents to raise the child. They benefit more from their parent's wealth as children (healthcare, education, etc.) than they do as adults, at least from the perspective of creating productive members of society out of them.
Though I consider myself a republican, our monarchy isn't that bad. They do alright, and a fairly large majority of people are supportive of the royal family, they have made competent heads of state in the past, and there is something to be said for a stabilizing factor alongside the whimsical nature of popular opinion.
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 magically transforms the bastion of freedom into a feudalistic monarchy?
I am in no way indicting the rational actions of agents in society; rich people are not evil, nor are their actions. Even the system itself is not evil; this does not conflict with my insistence that "success" in the US is strongly tied to inheritance. Perhaps less so than elsewhere, but the point still stands.
Again, stop with the "feudalistic monarchy"s; past a certain point, that brand of jargon really loses its usefulness.
Not so much inheritance but on the resources available to the parents to raise the child. They benefit more from their parent's wealth as children (healthcare, education, etc.) than they do as adults, at least from the perspective of creating productive members of society out of them.
Well sure, though you could very easily posit a sort of "genealogy of success" that directly relates adulthood successes with inherited childhood resources. It certainly isn't as simple as "rich kids from rich parents". So yeah, we agree.
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?
Though the French approach to republicanism is too latin in my eyes. I'd very much appreciate some nordic rigour... as the Republic is a sacred, superhuman entity that transcends the individual will, and our only hope and goal is to serve it as we would serve mankind itself.
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".
Royals are but ants crawling under the feet of glorious nations. They will be stepped on sooner or later, and we will rejoice and dance under the trees.
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?
The monarchy is fine, I prefer a powerless head of state who is there for all his life instead of president nr 28 who nobody cares about. A monarch is just as expensive as a president and I don't really see the point in making the head of state democratically elected. It has no real benefit and only the added cost of another election nobody gives a damn about.
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".
Royals are but ants crawling under the feet of glorious nations. They will be stepped on sooner or later, and we will rejoice and dance under the trees.
Are you a fortune teller? Or do you just like to predict the future of murder?
Hmm the choice between a well-educated well-raised son of a queen without any real feel for the ordinary peoples problems or having a system where every idiot in the country can choose his or her representative, leading to 8 different parties, ranging from communists to one-item racists being elected, with no one being able to get a majority and as a result no one being able to rule. Tough choice.
Democracy/Republic does not work, neither does monarchy. Either way I dont really care.
Monarchy's in europe are ceremonial, fun, sort of a business card/diplomats to other countries, so I dont mind them, so let them be. In the end we have more choice concerning the people that are actually doing the ruling part of the job than americans (+- 8 relevant parties vs 2).
A monarch does not have to waste time lying to and manipulating the public in order to be re-elected. They do not need to act in their own self interest.
I would expect a monarch to have a much higher approval rating than an elected head of state as elections create division. A monarch can unite the people while elected officials make difficult decisions.
Cultural principles are not a good thing. We are brainwashed by our culture to think that our way is the right way and all other cultures are wrong. The OP seems to think that American values are the correct values but the vast majority of non-Americans will strongly disagree with this.
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.
On April 19 2013 05:30 Believer wrote: Swede here. Strongly support monarchy and wish the king had more power.
Swede here as well and didn't think anyone under 30 (which I assume you are) strongly supported the monarchy,
The monarchy in Sweden is more or less Big Brother on steroids. The members of the royal family are born to be celebrities and the tabloids follow their every move. They are absolutely not all bad, they do give Sweden a fair amount of publicity abroad and help Swedish companies seal big deals in some countries.
On April 19 2013 05:30 Believer wrote: Swede here. Strongly support monarchy and wish the king had more power.
Swede here as well and didn't think anyone under 30 (which I assume you are) strongly supported the monarchy,
The monarchy in Sweden is more or less Big Brother on steroids. The members of the royal family are born to be celebrities and the tabloids follow their every move. They are absolutely not all bad, they do give Sweden a fair amount of publicity abroad and help Swedish companies seal big deals in some countries.
I am 21, supported the royals all my life.
I agree that the press surrounding the royal family is sort of like the television show "Big Brother". But let's not confuse people to think that the Swedish royal family are like the origin of the phrase "Big Brother". They have no power whatsoever, except ceremonial things, like the Nobel Prize dinner and such.
On April 19 2013 05:30 Believer wrote: Swede here. Strongly support monarchy and wish the king had more power.
Swede here as well and didn't think anyone under 30 (which I assume you are) strongly supported the monarchy,
The monarchy in Sweden is more or less Big Brother on steroids. The members of the royal family are born to be celebrities and the tabloids follow their every move. They are absolutely not all bad, they do give Sweden a fair amount of publicity abroad and help Swedish companies seal big deals in some countries.
I am 21, supported the royals all my life.
I agree that the press surrounding the royal family is sort of like the television show "Big Brother". But let's not confuse people to think that the Swedish royal family are like the origin of the phrase "Big Brother". They have no power whatsoever, except ceremonial things, like the Nobel Prize dinner and such.
You know what they say; If you aren't at the table, chances are you are on the menu.
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. They're like a whole band of drunk uncles who just won't leave. Revolting.
Monarchy is an embarrassment, 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.
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?
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).
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?)
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?
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 05:30 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.
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?
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.
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 05:30 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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
That would make you a murderer. So far in this conversation you are the only admitted would-be criminal. You have disgust for certain people, I just like that specific group more than others. You are hateful, I am not. You argue on the points of humanistic principles, democracy and call my position laughable. Your argument is one of morality, which is a human invention. Monarchy is also a human invention, in the form that has been practiced in Europe for several hundreds of years atleast.
I state my position and you ridicule me. The OP wanted my opinion which is clear from the first post. I did not expect to be liked in this thread, but I did not expect blatant hate.
As for your last sentences, the king of Sweden has no army, no power and no might.
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?
Technocracy does not mean the people who have proven themselves the best leaders get to rule, it means rule by technocrats.
It has been tried to various degrees in various countries, particularly State Communist countries like the USSR and China in the 20th century, and it failed miserably. Technocrats are no more immune to political pressure and to human failings than anyone else.
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.
That would make you a murderer. So far in this conversation you are the only admitted would-be criminal. You have disgust for certain people, I just like that specific group more than others. You are hateful, I am not. You argue on the points of humanistic principles, democracy and call my position laughable. Your argument is one of morality, which is a human invention. Monarchy is also a human invention, in the form that has been practiced in Europe for several hundreds of years atleast.
I state my position and you ridicule me. The OP wanted my opinion which is clear from the first post. I did not expect to be liked in this thread, but I did not expect blatant hate.
As for your last sentences, the king of Sweden has no army, no power and no might.
Morality is just an invention, and you criticize the other poster for being a murderer? You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
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?
Technocracy does not mean the people who have proven themselves the best leaders get to rule, it means rule by technocrats.
It has been tried to various degrees in various countries, particularly State Communist countries like the USSR and China in the 20th century, and it failed miserably. Technocrats are no more immune to political pressure and to human failings than anyone else.
Plus they can support their own vested interest in each realm that represent.
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?
Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn.
As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned.
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?
Technocracy does not mean the people who have proven themselves the best leaders get to rule, it means rule by technocrats.
It has been tried to various degrees in various countries, particularly State Communist countries like the USSR and China in the 20th century, and it failed miserably. Technocrats are no more immune to political pressure and to human failings than anyone else.
I guess I described a modified version that included businessmen whereas conventional technocracies do not, but why shouldn't it work? I'd argue that many of the countries that have had radical forms of government had been economically backward long before adopting their newer gov. and thus aren't the best examples. A country like Singapore or Japan that became a technocracy would, in my opinion, be a fairer judge of its merits.
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?
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.
Too bad that's not how taxation works. You can't avoid paying taxes for whatever pet issue you might have. I mentioned that the monarchy could be funded entirely by donations not as an idea for the future, but to illustrate that you might as well tax it at that point. Furthermore, they can't officially represent the country without public funding.
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?
Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate.
Can you explain this? I somehow missed the Pluto downgrading & assorted debates despite being generally very interested in astronomy. :/
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.
That would make you a murderer. So far in this conversation you are the only admitted would-be criminal. You have disgust for certain people, I just like that specific group more than others. You are hateful, I am not. You argue on the points of humanistic principles, democracy and call my position laughable. Your argument is one of morality, which is a human invention. Monarchy is also a human invention, in the form that has been practiced in Europe for several hundreds of years atleast.
I state my position and you ridicule me. The OP wanted my opinion which is clear from the first post. I did not expect to be liked in this thread, but I did not expect blatant hate.
As for your last sentences, the king of Sweden has no army, no power and no might.
Morality is just an invention, and you criticize the other poster for being a murderer? You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
I have nothing against laws. Laws are specific moralities that we must all abide by if we expect to be treated like full citizens. I do not agree with all laws, but I must follow them. In the eyes of society and the judicial system he would not be treated like someone who isn't a murderer. I pointed out that I have not yet threatened anyone or said I would be a criminal if the situation arose. There is no double standard here like you propose.
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?
Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn.
As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned.
If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of.
Monarchy isn't really undemocratic by the way if a majority of the people actually wants the monarchy to remain. One of the effects of democracy is the possibility that it can absolve itself or parts of itself if it ever chooses to.
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?
Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn.
As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned.
If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of.
And how exactly do sweeping changes like that become implemented? Don't get me wrong, when you say "nationalized all industries", you are definitely speaking my language, but I think the journey is oftentimes far more important than the destination when it comes to politics.
Canadian here. Pro satus quo simply because I have no desire to see my country go through a re-writing of the constitution, which would essentially be required to boot the Queen. Our last attenpts to ammend the constitution didn't really end well...
Besside, if there is something that needs to go above all its first past the pole. The Queen (well, the GG) has a minor impact, FPTP not so much. Its just not an issue for me I guess, having a republic wouldn't inherently change the power distribution. Its hard to get worked up over a figurehead.
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?
Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn.
As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned.
If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of.
Then in a few years down the line they would all become unprofitable and inefficient.
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.
That would make you a murderer. So far in this conversation you are the only admitted would-be criminal. You have disgust for certain people, I just like that specific group more than others. You are hateful, I am not. You argue on the points of humanistic principles, democracy and call my position laughable. Your argument is one of morality, which is a human invention. Monarchy is also a human invention, in the form that has been practiced in Europe for several hundreds of years atleast.
I state my position and you ridicule me. The OP wanted my opinion which is clear from the first post. I did not expect to be liked in this thread, but I did not expect blatant hate.
As for your last sentences, the king of Sweden has no army, no power and no might.
Morality is just an invention, and you criticize the other poster for being a murderer? You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
He doesn't seem to understand that lots of things are just inventions of the mind, constructions of the mind, and these things guide / rule human behavior, and as such are just as real, at least in a way, as the people acting according to them. They cause behavior. The behavior is very real. Giving short shrift to why the behavior happened for the reason of advancing another moral-politico narrative is deliberately not holistic, at the very least.
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?
Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn.
As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned.
If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of.
Then in a few years down the line they would all become unprofitable and inefficient.
And the main reason for them being unprofitable and inefficient would be corruption, lack of a real reason to make progress other than politics, and concentration on political scheming and backstabbing and infighting rather than performance to keep their positions. That was the agro-industrial-politico culture of the USSR.
EDIT: But let's please not derail this thread into a debate about technocracy, the last two threads we had about technocracy were entirely silly, and the Republicanism or Monarchism discussion is not only more interesting, it's more practical even if the concepts are being discussed in the abstract.
On April 19 2013 06:11 Believer wrote: That would make you a murderer.
Depends on whether they died or not. Do you really think I was serious about pushing the king in front of a bus?
So far in this conversation you are the only admitted would-be criminal. You have disgust for certain people, I just like that specific group more than others. You are hateful, I am not. You argue on the points of humanistic principles, democracy and call my position laughable. Your argument is one of morality, which is a human invention. Monarchy is also a human invention, in the form that has been practiced in Europe for several hundreds of years atleast.
The OP wanted my opinion which is clear from the first post. I did not expect to be liked in this thread, but I did not expect blatant hate.
Can you even read? I said your idea was disgusting, precisely because it places a certain caste of people above others, undeservedly. I hate the idea of a monarchy yes, with all my heart. I ridicule you because your points are ridiculous.
Yes modern morality is a human invention, just like monarchy. Your point? Penicillin is a human invention too, and so is nazism. Some inventions are good, some bad. Monarchy is thoroughly terrible.
The OP wanted my opinion which is clear from the first post. I did not expect to be liked in this thread, but I did not expect blatant hate.
You get the responses your posts merit. If you want less hostility, consider making better posts.
As for your last sentences, the king of Sweden has no army, no power and no might.
I knew you'd say this. Reread the part about the principle and origin of monarchy again. The basic concept of a monarch is based on the idea of the rule of the strong, the king rules because anyone who challenges him will be beaten into submission. The fact that modern monarchies have become a farcical soap opera rather than a political force does not change the fundamental concept.
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.
That would make you a murderer. So far in this conversation you are the only admitted would-be criminal. You have disgust for certain people, I just like that specific group more than others. You are hateful, I am not. You argue on the points of humanistic principles, democracy and call my position laughable. Your argument is one of morality, which is a human invention. Monarchy is also a human invention, in the form that has been practiced in Europe for several hundreds of years atleast.
I state my position and you ridicule me. The OP wanted my opinion which is clear from the first post. I did not expect to be liked in this thread, but I did not expect blatant hate.
As for your last sentences, the king of Sweden has no army, no power and no might.
Morality is just an invention, and you criticize the other poster for being a murderer? You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
He doesn't seem to understand that lots of things are just inventions of the mind, constructions of the mind, and these things guide / rule human behavior, and as such are just as real, at least in a way, as the people acting according to them. They cause behavior. The behavior is very real. Giving short shrift to why the behavior happened for the reason of advancing another moral-politico narrative is deliberately not holistic, at the very least.
I am not too happy to be talked about while I am obviously reading the thread, and you are not. If you read my previous texts you will see that I do not advocate either side of the debate. I state that I am in favor of monarchy and why I do so. I point out that both morality and monarchy are to a large extent inventions of humans, I choose monarchy. Morality is not absolute, no one can argue that. I have morals, but they will not be the same as yours, probably very different. My morals are probably very different from most, but I'd argue that few moralities are exactly the same. You pick your favourite imaginations and you stick to them. That's what I've done and what I've stated in this thread.
So far in this conversation you are the only admitted would-be criminal. You have disgust for certain people, I just like that specific group more than others. You are hateful, I am not. You argue on the points of humanistic principles, democracy and call my position laughable. Your argument is one of morality, which is a human invention. Monarchy is also a human invention, in the form that has been practiced in Europe for several hundreds of years atleast.
The OP wanted my opinion which is clear from the first post. I did not expect to be liked in this thread, but I did not expect blatant hate.
Can you even read? I said your idea was disgusting, precisely because it places a certain caste of people above others, undeservedly. I hate the idea of a monarchy yes, with all my heart. I ridicule you because your points are ridiculous.
Yes modern morality is a human invention, just like monarchy. Your point? Penicillin is a human invention too, and so is nazism. Some inventions are good, some bad. Monarchy is thoroughly terrible.
As for your last sentences, the king of Sweden has no army, no power and no might.
I knew you'd say this. Reread the part about the principle and origin of monarchy again. The basic concept of a monarch is based on the idea of the rule of the strong, the king rules because anyone who challenges him will be beaten into submission. The fact that modern monarchies have become a farcical soap opera rather than a political force does not change the fundamental concept.
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.
monarchy is explicit support of such a hierarchy. people would be far less tolerant of such support if they had to live in a real feudal society for a bit as a serf or something.
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.
That would make you a murderer. So far in this conversation you are the only admitted would-be criminal. You have disgust for certain people, I just like that specific group more than others. You are hateful, I am not. You argue on the points of humanistic principles, democracy and call my position laughable. Your argument is one of morality, which is a human invention. Monarchy is also a human invention, in the form that has been practiced in Europe for several hundreds of years atleast.
I state my position and you ridicule me. The OP wanted my opinion which is clear from the first post. I did not expect to be liked in this thread, but I did not expect blatant hate.
As for your last sentences, the king of Sweden has no army, no power and no might.
Morality is just an invention, and you criticize the other poster for being a murderer? You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
I have nothing against laws. Laws are specific moralities that we must all abide by if we expect to be treated like full citizens. I do not agree with all laws, but I must follow them. In the eyes of society and the judicial system he would not be treated like someone who isn't a murderer. I pointed out that I have not yet threatened anyone or said I would be a criminal if the situation arose. There is no double standard here like you propose.
Well, i also thought you were trolling with the "I believe royals are superior to us "grunts".
And i would be with McBent on that case, i actually laughed when he answered the bus thing because i was thinking the same. My problem with monarchy, since while we have a king, and prince/ess that have obligations to the state while they are not involved in ruling, around them we have a lot of aristocracy with insane amount of wealth that have no purpose outside getting in magazines, or getting involved on corruption scandals. I would completely abolish it if i could, but for our country, i can understand why it is still on and why people still believe in our monarch (the king had the power once Franco died, and he "gave it up" to set up a democracy is how people believe it happened).
Anyways, i was more baffled about some of the points of view of the OP when trying to do a poll, not being objective about it, and the miss information on it.
On April 19 2013 06:15 Grumbels wrote: Too bad that's not how taxation works. You can't avoid paying taxes for whatever pet issue you might have. I mentioned that the monarchy could be funded entirely by donations not as an idea for the future, but to illustrate that you might as well tax it at that point. Furthermore, they can't officially represent the country without public funding.
So we get rid of it then. It serves no purpose, and is simply a drain of resources. It's also a matter of principle.
We have public representation already, it's called elected officials, you know the people who are actually qualified to represent the country in the first place, and were chosen based on their merits to do so.
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?
Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn.
As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned.
If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of.
And how exactly do sweeping changes like that become implemented? Don't get me wrong, when you say "nationalized all industries", you are definitely speaking my language, but I think the journey is oftentimes far more important than the destination when it comes to politics.
Realistically it would have to be either a very slow process where you nationalize things one by one, starting with the obvious ones like utilities and things like steel, which would be met with a lot of resistance and which would basically not happen, mostly because of things like lobbying. Hopefully people would begin to see its merits and things would progress from there.
If there was an explosive push for it, however, then feasibly there could be a revolution of sorts, but that will never happen so long as people can go out to eat at Applebee's and watch movies. There would have to be a revolution among the educated but disenfranchised, which I still don't see happening. Still, with time, conditions may change and the idea could become feasible.
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?
Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn.
As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned.
If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of.
Then in a few years down the line they would all become unprofitable and inefficient.
You don't know that. Are you referring to the USSR? That country was backwards and poor to begin with. I also think running things like a corporation could help alleviate stagnation. A negative flow of cash would have to lead to forced changes on behalf of whatever body oversees everything or a restructuring of sorts.
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.
That would make you a murderer. So far in this conversation you are the only admitted would-be criminal. You have disgust for certain people, I just like that specific group more than others. You are hateful, I am not. You argue on the points of humanistic principles, democracy and call my position laughable. Your argument is one of morality, which is a human invention. Monarchy is also a human invention, in the form that has been practiced in Europe for several hundreds of years atleast.
I state my position and you ridicule me. The OP wanted my opinion which is clear from the first post. I did not expect to be liked in this thread, but I did not expect blatant hate.
As for your last sentences, the king of Sweden has no army, no power and no might.
Morality is just an invention, and you criticize the other poster for being a murderer? You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
He doesn't seem to understand that lots of things are just inventions of the mind, constructions of the mind, and these things guide / rule human behavior, and as such are just as real, at least in a way, as the people acting according to them. They cause behavior. The behavior is very real. Giving short shrift to why the behavior happened for the reason of advancing another moral-politico narrative is deliberately not holistic, at the very least.
I am not too happy to be talked about while I am obviously reading the thread, and you are not. If you read my previous texts you will see that I do not advocate either side of the debate. I state that I am in favor of monarchy and why I do so. I point out that both morality and monarchy are to a large extent inventions of humans, I choose monarchy. Morality is not absolute, no one can argue that. I have morals, but they will not be the same as yours, probably very different. My morals are probably very different from most, but I'd argue that few moralities are exactly the same. You pick your favourite imaginations and you stick to them. That's what I've done and what I've stated in this thread.
It happens to everyone but I will try to remember to address you directly from now on.
I disagree with moral relativism but that is tangential to the specific issue here.
I am saying that the concept of morality as an invention devalues it more than it should. Morality "governs" non-instinctual behaviors. Calling it an invention implies it is less real than it is and less important than it is. Behavior is real. What causes it, by causation and by proxy, is real. That is why morals are debated. That is why the morals of a society are an issue for that society, no matter good or bad how they are, no matter that the good and bad are supposedly relative. Because the effects of behavior are real and have an impact on others.
You don't know that. Are you referring to the USSR? That country was backwards and poor to begin with. I also think running things like a corporation could help alleviate stagnation. A negative flow of cash would have to lead to forced changes on behalf of whatever body oversees everything or a restructuring of sorts.
W-w-w-whaaaaaat?
Go read an in-depth history about the USSR, please. What you just said, the wrongness of it, it's over 9000 thousand for sure.
I know how humans behave. "Office politics," anyone? It's worse when the office politics are part and parcel of the real, politics politics of the government.
during my teenage years I was really opposed to monarchy as an institution and found the idea that we in norway still have an unelected king whom lives in a fucking castle absolutely ridiculous. Actually, I still do. It's just that my opposition has declined a large amount over the last 6-7 years.
reason?
the king of norway and the crown prince of norway are both probably just about the best possible representatives for norway we could possibly get. if there was an election, and either of them decided to run for "representative of state", I would vote for them ahead of every single other norwegian person I can think of. they're great people.
so like, I'm still opposed. I just don't care very much, because I'm so content with the situation.
here's the really funny thing. Our crown prince (Haakon) has an older sister, Märtha Louise. When she was born, we still suffered from this, highly anachronistic idea that females could not be regents, and thus, she merely became a princess rather than a crown princess, and has no claim to the future throne. This rule has been abolished since. Now, I'm principally just about equally opposed to the idea that males should have hereditary rights more so than females as I am to the idea that the head of state should be a hereditary position period; but: I'm fine with Haakon being my future king, because he's such an awesome person. martha louise however, is an absolute first class nutcase. These two moronic rules essentially cancel eachother out and create a very liveable situation.
I have a hard time imagining monarchy as an institution surviving past haakon though. pretty certain norwegians are growing more and more opposed to it - principally.
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?
Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn.
As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned.
If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of.
And how exactly do sweeping changes like that become implemented? Don't get me wrong, when you say "nationalized all industries", you are definitely speaking my language, but I think the journey is oftentimes far more important than the destination when it comes to politics.
Realistically it would have to be either a very slow process where you nationalize things one by one, starting with the obvious ones like utilities and things like steel, which would be met with a lot of resistance and which would basically not happen, mostly because of things like lobbying. Hopefully people would begin to see its merits and things would progress from there.
If there was an explosive push for it, however, then feasibly there could be a revolution of sorts, but that will never happen so long as people can go out to eat at Applebee's and watch movies. There would have to be a revolution among the educated but disenfranchised, which I still don't see happening. Still, with time, conditions may change and the idea could become feasible.
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?
Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn.
As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned.
If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of.
Then in a few years down the line they would all become unprofitable and inefficient.
You don't know that. Are you referring to the USSR? That country was backwards and poor to begin with. I also think running things like a corporation could help alleviate stagnation. A negative flow of cash would have to lead to forced changes on behalf of whatever body oversees everything or a restructuring of sorts.
I'm referring to any state run industry, if there is no profit motive there is no reason to do things efficiently and for the customers and it also stifles innovation even if it could be run efficiently.
On April 19 2013 05:46 Kukaracha wrote: 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?)
In fact he did come from a wealthy family! It was only a series of eccentric poor decisions that led him to a relative state of poverty. It was very odd to see that he has old friends that work in the government or in foreign universities.
I do feel that culture is also greatly inherited from our environment and thus from our family, and not only in the narrowest sense. Many times I have seen people debate on this matter speaking in absolute possibilities : a man can do what he desires, nothing prevents him from attending a public library, earning a degree and slowly walking towards a higher standard of living. But the way I see it, ambition or even the perception of a possible better life are cultural inheritances, and this works at all levels. A kid from a wealthy family may grow up with some ambitions, but he will likely only reproduce his parents's situation without really looking to establish himself as an even more powerful member of society. The masses follow their parents' footsteps while a few take stray paths that lead them to unknown territories.
The point I was making about my grandfather and my friend is that perspectives are themselves inherited, and this is the reason I believe the state must intervene in some way : to provide a cultural baggage to every citizen so social mobility, and thus a higher level of competitivity and excellence are ensured. It also works towards social justice, but I believe it is a more personal take on ethics and the importance of empathy.
So far in this conversation you are the only admitted would-be criminal. You have disgust for certain people, I just like that specific group more than others. You are hateful, I am not. You argue on the points of humanistic principles, democracy and call my position laughable. Your argument is one of morality, which is a human invention. Monarchy is also a human invention, in the form that has been practiced in Europe for several hundreds of years atleast.
The OP wanted my opinion which is clear from the first post. I did not expect to be liked in this thread, but I did not expect blatant hate.
Can you even read? I said your idea was disgusting, precisely because it places a certain caste of people above others, undeservedly. I hate the idea of a monarchy yes, with all my heart. I ridicule you because your points are ridiculous.
Yes modern morality is a human invention, just like monarchy. Your point? Penicillin is a human invention too, and so is nazism. Some inventions are good, some bad. Monarchy is thoroughly terrible.
As for your last sentences, the king of Sweden has no army, no power and no might.
I knew you'd say this. Reread the part about the principle and origin of monarchy again. The basic concept of a monarch is based on the idea of the rule of the strong, the king rules because anyone who challenges him will be beaten into submission. The fact that modern monarchies have become a farcical soap opera rather than a political force does not change the fundamental concept.
The quotes are becoming to many, I will answer them by numbers instead. I hope you understand.
#1: Sarcasm is hard on the internet, many people say terrible things being very serious and some are not serious. Considering your earlier posts, I do not consider it at all impossible for you to have the gut reaction to kill the king.
#2: Again, your impression of "deserving" is different from mine. I do believe the royals deserve to have more power than they currently have. Your argument is one of meritocracy, which most agree with, but I do not. The OP wanted honest opinions from all over the world, I have provided mine and I won't withdraw it because of your bullying.
#3: Please read my response to the other gentleman, I talk about human inventions there.
#4: My posts merit hate and discussion of murder? I wouldn't take it that far. My opinion is not one of popularity, but does it not deserve acceptance? Out of the two of us, you favour democracy more. Shouldn't you be glad when I have opposing ideas, ideological flavour so to speak.
#5: Yes, the monarchs ruled with an iron fist in ages past. Though I thought we discussed current day monarchies, in our case the Swedish royalty. If you'd like to point at me saying that I want more power to the royals, how far are you really gonna assume things? Are you gonna assume that I want the kings of the 1700 or 1800? That's what you've been doing so far. I dislike having words put in my mouth, is it really impossible that I want the royal power of 1974?
On April 19 2013 06:11 Believer wrote: That would make you a murderer.
Depends on whether they died or not. Do you really think I was serious about pushing the king in front of a bus?
So far in this conversation you are the only admitted would-be criminal. You have disgust for certain people, I just like that specific group more than others. You are hateful, I am not. You argue on the points of humanistic principles, democracy and call my position laughable. Your argument is one of morality, which is a human invention. Monarchy is also a human invention, in the form that has been practiced in Europe for several hundreds of years atleast.
The OP wanted my opinion which is clear from the first post. I did not expect to be liked in this thread, but I did not expect blatant hate.
Can you even read? I said your idea was disgusting, precisely because it places a certain caste of people above others, undeservedly. I hate the idea of a monarchy yes, with all my heart. I ridicule you because your points are ridiculous.
Yes modern morality is a human invention, just like monarchy. Your point? Penicillin is a human invention too, and so is nazism. Some inventions are good, some bad. Monarchy is thoroughly terrible.
The OP wanted my opinion which is clear from the first post. I did not expect to be liked in this thread, but I did not expect blatant hate.
You get the responses your posts merit. If you want less hostility, consider making better posts.
As for your last sentences, the king of Sweden has no army, no power and no might.
I knew you'd say this. Reread the part about the principle and origin of monarchy again. The basic concept of a monarch is based on the idea of the rule of the strong, the king rules because anyone who challenges him will be beaten into submission. The fact that modern monarchies have become a farcical soap opera rather than a political force does not change the fundamental concept.
I would stop replying I think he is a troll.
He very likely is not. Trust me, on average the world has a VERY exaggerated view of Sweden and the people that live here. For some reason this place breeds a unique type of cretin that I have yet to discover anywhere else.
The quotes are becoming to many, I will answer them by numbers instead. I hope you understand.
#1: Sarcasm is hard on the internet, many people say terrible things being very serious and some are not serious. Considering your earlier posts, I do not consider it at all impossible for you to have the gut reaction to kill the king.
#2: Again, your impression of "deserving" is different from mine. I do believe the royals deserve to have more power than they currently have. Your argument is one of meritocracy, which most agree with, but I do not. The OP wanted honest opinions from all over the world, I have provided mine and I won't withdraw it because of your bullying.
#3: Please read my response to the other gentleman, I talk about human inventions there.
#4: My posts merit hate and discussion of murder? I wouldn't take it that far. My opinion is not one of popularity, but does it not deserve acceptance? Out of the two of us, you favour democracy more. Shouldn't you be glad when I have opposing ideas, ideological flavour so to speak.
#5: Yes, the monarchs ruled with an iron fist in ages past. Though I thought we discussed current day monarchies, in our case the Swedish royalty. If you'd like to point at me saying that I want more power to the royals, how far are you really gonna assume things? Are you gonna assume that I want the kings of the 1700 or 1800? That's what you've been doing so far. I dislike having words put in my mouth, is it really impossible that I want the royal power of 1974?
Do you know how the swedish king managed to secure his unprecendented position of wealth and complete absence of responsibilities? How he more or less blackmailed the government into handing him and his useless heirs a big check every month in exchange for surrendering his political power?
I accept your opinion and will no effort to silence it, that would be entirely against my principles. I will however refute and ridicule them if I find it appropriate.
I don't really care what kind of king you want, the concept is steeped in barbarism and bloodshed, just because the pig is currently wearing some insipid makeup does not make it less of a pig. It's repugnant, and has no place in a modern society.
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?
Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn.
As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned.
If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of.
And how exactly do sweeping changes like that become implemented? Don't get me wrong, when you say "nationalized all industries", you are definitely speaking my language, but I think the journey is oftentimes far more important than the destination when it comes to politics.
Realistically it would have to be either a very slow process where you nationalize things one by one, starting with the obvious ones like utilities and things like steel, which would be met with a lot of resistance and which would basically not happen, mostly because of things like lobbying. Hopefully people would begin to see its merits and things would progress from there.
If there was an explosive push for it, however, then feasibly there could be a revolution of sorts, but that will never happen so long as people can go out to eat at Applebee's and watch movies. There would have to be a revolution among the educated but disenfranchised, which I still don't see happening. Still, with time, conditions may change and the idea could become feasible.
On April 19 2013 06:19 Zaros wrote:
On April 19 2013 06:16 Chocolate wrote:
On April 19 2013 06:12 farvacola wrote:
On April 19 2013 06:07 Chocolate wrote:
On April 19 2013 06:05 farvacola wrote:
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?
Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn.
As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned.
If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of.
Then in a few years down the line they would all become unprofitable and inefficient.
You don't know that. Are you referring to the USSR? That country was backwards and poor to begin with. I also think running things like a corporation could help alleviate stagnation. A negative flow of cash would have to lead to forced changes on behalf of whatever body oversees everything or a restructuring of sorts.
I'm referring to any state run industry, if there is no profit motive there is no reason to do things efficiently and for the customers and it also stifles innovation even if it could be run efficiently.
Why does that have to be the case? A state owned business should have the same motivations as a privately owned business. For a start if a state owned business does badly then the senior staff should be fired. If it continues to do badly then it should be dissolved.
On April 19 2013 06:32 Liquid`Drone wrote: during my teenage years I was really opposed to monarchy as an institution and found the idea that we in norway still have an unelected king whom lives in a fucking castle absolutely ridiculous. Actually, I still do. It's just that my opposition has declined a large amount over the last 6-7 years.
reason?
the king of norway and the crown prince of norway are both probably just about the best possible representatives for norway we could possibly get. if there was an election, and either of them decided to run for "representative of state", I would vote for them ahead of every single other norwegian person I can think of. they're great people.
so like, I'm still opposed. I just don't care very much, because I'm so content with the situation.
here's the really funny thing. Our crown prince (Haakon) has an older sister, Märtha Louise. When she was born, we still suffered from this, highly anachronistic idea that females could not be regents, and thus, she merely became a princess rather than a crown princess, and has no claim to the future throne. This rule has been abolished since. Now, I'm principally just about equally opposed to the idea that males should have hereditary rights more so than females as I am to the idea that the head of state should be a hereditary position period; but: I'm fine with Haakon being my future king, because he's such an awesome person. martha louise however, is an absolute first class nutcase. These two moronic rules essentially cancel eachother out and create a very liveable situation.
I have a hard time imagining monarchy as an institution surviving past haakon though. pretty certain norwegians are growing more and more opposed to it - principally.
do you think if royals are involved in real political decisions, then this nice and fuzzy image you have of them will quickly collapse.
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?
Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn.
As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned.
If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of.
And how exactly do sweeping changes like that become implemented? Don't get me wrong, when you say "nationalized all industries", you are definitely speaking my language, but I think the journey is oftentimes far more important than the destination when it comes to politics.
Realistically it would have to be either a very slow process where you nationalize things one by one, starting with the obvious ones like utilities and things like steel, which would be met with a lot of resistance and which would basically not happen, mostly because of things like lobbying. Hopefully people would begin to see its merits and things would progress from there.
If there was an explosive push for it, however, then feasibly there could be a revolution of sorts, but that will never happen so long as people can go out to eat at Applebee's and watch movies. There would have to be a revolution among the educated but disenfranchised, which I still don't see happening. Still, with time, conditions may change and the idea could become feasible.
On April 19 2013 06:19 Zaros wrote:
On April 19 2013 06:16 Chocolate wrote:
On April 19 2013 06:12 farvacola wrote:
On April 19 2013 06:07 Chocolate wrote:
On April 19 2013 06:05 farvacola wrote:
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?
Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn.
As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned.
If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of.
Then in a few years down the line they would all become unprofitable and inefficient.
You don't know that. Are you referring to the USSR? That country was backwards and poor to begin with. I also think running things like a corporation could help alleviate stagnation. A negative flow of cash would have to lead to forced changes on behalf of whatever body oversees everything or a restructuring of sorts.
I'm referring to any state run industry, if there is no profit motive there is no reason to do things efficiently and for the customers and it also stifles innovation even if it could be run efficiently.
Why does that have to be the case? A state owned business should have the same motivations as a privately owned business. For a start if a state owned business does badly then the senior staff should be fired. If it continues to do badly then it should be dissolved.
On April 19 2013 06:11 Believer wrote: That would make you a murderer.
Depends on whether they died or not. Do you really think I was serious about pushing the king in front of a bus?
So far in this conversation you are the only admitted would-be criminal. You have disgust for certain people, I just like that specific group more than others. You are hateful, I am not. You argue on the points of humanistic principles, democracy and call my position laughable. Your argument is one of morality, which is a human invention. Monarchy is also a human invention, in the form that has been practiced in Europe for several hundreds of years atleast.
The OP wanted my opinion which is clear from the first post. I did not expect to be liked in this thread, but I did not expect blatant hate.
Can you even read? I said your idea was disgusting, precisely because it places a certain caste of people above others, undeservedly. I hate the idea of a monarchy yes, with all my heart. I ridicule you because your points are ridiculous.
Yes modern morality is a human invention, just like monarchy. Your point? Penicillin is a human invention too, and so is nazism. Some inventions are good, some bad. Monarchy is thoroughly terrible.
The OP wanted my opinion which is clear from the first post. I did not expect to be liked in this thread, but I did not expect blatant hate.
You get the responses your posts merit. If you want less hostility, consider making better posts.
As for your last sentences, the king of Sweden has no army, no power and no might.
I knew you'd say this. Reread the part about the principle and origin of monarchy again. The basic concept of a monarch is based on the idea of the rule of the strong, the king rules because anyone who challenges him will be beaten into submission. The fact that modern monarchies have become a farcical soap opera rather than a political force does not change the fundamental concept.
I would stop replying I think he is a troll.
He very likely is not. Trust me, on average the world has a VERY exaggerated view of Sweden and the people that live here. For some reason this place breeds a unique type of cretin that I have yet to discover anywhere else.
Again, I dislike being talk about rather than to, when I am present. This post clearly demonstrates hate rather than discussion.
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?
Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn.
As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned.
If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of.
And how exactly do sweeping changes like that become implemented? Don't get me wrong, when you say "nationalized all industries", you are definitely speaking my language, but I think the journey is oftentimes far more important than the destination when it comes to politics.
Realistically it would have to be either a very slow process where you nationalize things one by one, starting with the obvious ones like utilities and things like steel, which would be met with a lot of resistance and which would basically not happen, mostly because of things like lobbying. Hopefully people would begin to see its merits and things would progress from there.
If there was an explosive push for it, however, then feasibly there could be a revolution of sorts, but that will never happen so long as people can go out to eat at Applebee's and watch movies. There would have to be a revolution among the educated but disenfranchised, which I still don't see happening. Still, with time, conditions may change and the idea could become feasible.
On April 19 2013 06:19 Zaros wrote:
On April 19 2013 06:16 Chocolate wrote:
On April 19 2013 06:12 farvacola wrote:
On April 19 2013 06:07 Chocolate wrote:
On April 19 2013 06:05 farvacola wrote:
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?
Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn.
As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned.
If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of.
Then in a few years down the line they would all become unprofitable and inefficient.
You don't know that. Are you referring to the USSR? That country was backwards and poor to begin with. I also think running things like a corporation could help alleviate stagnation. A negative flow of cash would have to lead to forced changes on behalf of whatever body oversees everything or a restructuring of sorts.
I'm referring to any state run industry, if there is no profit motive there is no reason to do things efficiently and for the customers and it also stifles innovation even if it could be run efficiently.
I'm pretty certain that having a million brands of cola, waste inherent in capitalist production and the cost to the individual workers, and lack of bottom up efficiency in industry are bigger stiflers of creativity. Trade secrets, patenting medicines, keeping the best in a field divided and without full knowledge of what's coming up are bigger. Making everything require market suitability before it's considered probably doesn't help either.
The idea that people neither cn be or will be productive without proffit is obviously absurd, and is only ever accepted because of how often it is repeated.
I see our monarchy as an undemocratic, unelected waste of space and tax money. Yes they put alot back into our economy, but why should i agree to that just because 'its the age old time honored way of things'? That's the same logic that brings us homophobic law and institutional racism. Fuck the royal family. Fuck them up their stupid asses.
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.
That would make you a murderer. So far in this conversation you are the only admitted would-be criminal. You have disgust for certain people, I just like that specific group more than others. You are hateful, I am not. You argue on the points of humanistic principles, democracy and call my position laughable. Your argument is one of morality, which is a human invention. Monarchy is also a human invention, in the form that has been practiced in Europe for several hundreds of years atleast.
I state my position and you ridicule me. The OP wanted my opinion which is clear from the first post. I did not expect to be liked in this thread, but I did not expect blatant hate.
As for your last sentences, the king of Sweden has no army, no power and no might.
Morality is just an invention, and you criticize the other poster for being a murderer? You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
I have nothing against laws. Laws are specific moralities that we must all abide by if we expect to be treated like full citizens. I do not agree with all laws, but I must follow them. In the eyes of society and the judicial system he would not be treated like someone who isn't a murderer. I pointed out that I have not yet threatened anyone or said I would be a criminal if the situation arose. There is no double standard here like you propose.
Well, i also thought you were trolling with the "I believe royals are superior to us "grunts".
And i would be with McBent on that case, i actually laughed when he answered the bus thing because i was thinking the same. My problem with monarchy, since while we have a king, and prince/ess that have obligations to the state while they are not involved in ruling, around them we have a lot of aristocracy with insane amount of wealth that have no purpose outside getting in magazines, or getting involved on corruption scandals. I would completely abolish it if i could, but for our country, i can understand why it is still on and why people still believe in our monarch (the king had the power once Franco died, and he "gave it up" to set up a democracy is how people believe it happened).
Anyways, i was more baffled about some of the points of view of the OP when trying to do a poll, not being objective about it, and the miss information on it.
I'm not sure what point you are making, other than stating your opinion. I'm glad I could read something from Spain about monarchy, but I do not completely understand what the discussion value is, I'm sorry.
I don't really think the benefits of having a monarchy outweigh the disadvantages, but if that's what those countries want to do I'm completely fine with it.
I support status quo. I like how things work in Denmark and my worst nightmare is that one day our democracy would turn into an abomination such as American "democracy".
I believe that the best way to run a country is by having a large state where wealth is evenly distributed and where it is easy to claim power. In Denmark our minister of foreign affairs is cringeworthy to say the least*, but it somewhat soothes me to know that literally everyone can get political influence, unlike USA where a degree from Harvard or Yale is borderline mandatory if you want to be president. If you watch the video it will become evident that some Danish politicans are, well... Watch the video. But atleast i know that we do not have a political elite.
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?
Technocracy does not mean the people who have proven themselves the best leaders get to rule, it means rule by technocrats.
It has been tried to various degrees in various countries, particularly State Communist countries like the USSR and China in the 20th century, and it failed miserably. Technocrats are no more immune to political pressure and to human failings than anyone else.
I guess I described a modified version that included businessmen whereas conventional technocracies do not, but why shouldn't it work? I'd argue that many of the countries that have had radical forms of government had been economically backward long before adopting their newer gov. and thus aren't the best examples. A country like Singapore or Japan that became a technocracy would, in my opinion, be a fairer judge of its merits.
The problem with technocracy is the absence of an outside judgement. Different fields are ruled by different dominant currents : leftists will for example complain that economists are cold-hearted pro-business fascists, when rightists often whine about how universities and newspapers are ruled by socialist scum. Besides, what is seen as expertise today may very well be the mistake of tomorrow. Look at the crisis we are facing! It was built by experts. It did not prevent it from happening. The existance of experts in itself is an illusion! If economists disagree, for example, and that one third believes A, another believes B and the last one believes C, then two thirds of the total of these "experts" are necessarily and utterly wrong. Only time (sort of) tells.
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?
Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn.
As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned.
If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of.
And how exactly do sweeping changes like that become implemented? Don't get me wrong, when you say "nationalized all industries", you are definitely speaking my language, but I think the journey is oftentimes far more important than the destination when it comes to politics.
Realistically it would have to be either a very slow process where you nationalize things one by one, starting with the obvious ones like utilities and things like steel, which would be met with a lot of resistance and which would basically not happen, mostly because of things like lobbying. Hopefully people would begin to see its merits and things would progress from there.
If there was an explosive push for it, however, then feasibly there could be a revolution of sorts, but that will never happen so long as people can go out to eat at Applebee's and watch movies. There would have to be a revolution among the educated but disenfranchised, which I still don't see happening. Still, with time, conditions may change and the idea could become feasible.
On April 19 2013 06:19 Zaros wrote:
On April 19 2013 06:16 Chocolate wrote:
On April 19 2013 06:12 farvacola wrote:
On April 19 2013 06:07 Chocolate wrote:
On April 19 2013 06:05 farvacola wrote:
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?
Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn.
As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned.
If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of.
Then in a few years down the line they would all become unprofitable and inefficient.
You don't know that. Are you referring to the USSR? That country was backwards and poor to begin with. I also think running things like a corporation could help alleviate stagnation. A negative flow of cash would have to lead to forced changes on behalf of whatever body oversees everything or a restructuring of sorts.
I'm referring to any state run industry, if there is no profit motive there is no reason to do things efficiently and for the customers and it also stifles innovation even if it could be run efficiently.
Why does that have to be the case? A state owned business should have the same motivations as a privately owned business. For a start if a state owned business does badly then the senior staff should be fired. If it continues to do badly then it should be dissolved.
It doesn't have the same motivations though.
Of course it does. How does a business being private or public change the motivations? The motivations of say a public school and a state school differ not because of their ownership but because of their market. If you take any business and privatize or nationalize it without any other changes then it's motivations remain the same.
On April 19 2013 06:41 Farmer Poopy wrote: I don't really think the benefits of having a monarchy outweigh the disadvantages, but if that's what those countries want to do I'm completely fine with it.
That depends on what you class as a country? If you mean: "if that's what the political ruling class want to do i'm completely fine with it" then i heartily disagree.
If, however, you mean "if that's what the population of that country wants to do i'm completely fine with it" you are deluded because the population has literally zero input on the matter.
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?
Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn.
As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned.
If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of.
And how exactly do sweeping changes like that become implemented? Don't get me wrong, when you say "nationalized all industries", you are definitely speaking my language, but I think the journey is oftentimes far more important than the destination when it comes to politics.
Realistically it would have to be either a very slow process where you nationalize things one by one, starting with the obvious ones like utilities and things like steel, which would be met with a lot of resistance and which would basically not happen, mostly because of things like lobbying. Hopefully people would begin to see its merits and things would progress from there.
If there was an explosive push for it, however, then feasibly there could be a revolution of sorts, but that will never happen so long as people can go out to eat at Applebee's and watch movies. There would have to be a revolution among the educated but disenfranchised, which I still don't see happening. Still, with time, conditions may change and the idea could become feasible.
On April 19 2013 06:19 Zaros wrote:
On April 19 2013 06:16 Chocolate wrote:
On April 19 2013 06:12 farvacola wrote:
On April 19 2013 06:07 Chocolate wrote:
On April 19 2013 06:05 farvacola wrote:
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?
Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn.
As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned.
If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of.
Then in a few years down the line they would all become unprofitable and inefficient.
You don't know that. Are you referring to the USSR? That country was backwards and poor to begin with. I also think running things like a corporation could help alleviate stagnation. A negative flow of cash would have to lead to forced changes on behalf of whatever body oversees everything or a restructuring of sorts.
I'm referring to any state run industry, if there is no profit motive there is no reason to do things efficiently and for the customers and it also stifles innovation even if it could be run efficiently.
I'm pretty certain that having a million brands of cola, waste inherent in capitalist production and the cost to the individual workers, and lack of bottom up efficiency in industry are bigger stiflers of creativity. Trade secrets, patenting medicines, keeping the best in a field divided and without full knowledge of what's coming up are bigger. Making everything require market suitability before it's considered probably doesn't help either.
The idea that people neither cn be or will be productive without proffit is obviously absurd, and is only ever accepted because of how often it is repeated.
Advertising is also incredibly wasteful, unnecessary, and frankly dishonest. We would live in a better world if we bought things off merit rather than subliminal thoughts about brands. The only things I like about ads are when I hear about something new, and there could easily just be a segment on the news or a section of a local paper to describe such an occurence.
Also, this shows how industry improved in the USSR during the 5 year plans.
How horrible! I think this is a pretty good way to show how state run industries can definitely thrive, even though this is sort of a unique case. Consolidation would also be very beneficial in utilities, which aren't shown (pricewise).
My emotional and under-educated opinion is to cut ties with the monarch. Appeals to tradition are among the worst reasons to keep something, and I haven't heard any other reasons for Canadians to support the royal family. Plus, I waited almost 5 hours to get through customs at Heathrow. Apparently being a subject of her majesty affords me no more privilege than non commonwealth individuals entering the UK.
However, I really have no idea what the cost of phasing out ties to the monarchy is compared to keeping them. We still have some constitutional tie-ins which are essentially ceremonial(but important) that would take some work to untangle.
On the plus side, when people ask which animal is on specific coins of ours, I get to say a cow.
sometimes it's not very productive to talk to monarchists about why to have a monarchy, just like it's unproductive to talk to justin bieber fangirls about whether that culture is healthy.
don't have a clear idea if the monarchy spawned royal family navel gazing culture is degenerative in some important aspect, such as perhaps making people accept an idea of social privilege and give them some royals to worship. but this sort of thing is not unique to monarchies, so i dunno if removing this particular, rather explicit endorsement of a social elite would have good impact on political culture at large.
i also don't think people who themselves regard the monarchy as merely ceremonial, taking a distanced look at it, has a fair grasp of the real cultural impact of monarchy and thus are able to judge its impact. people tend to think that everyone believes the royals are merely ceremonial, while it's a fact that stuff like teh royal wedding still has enormous popular following and a ton of fangirls who think it's somehow interesting. whatever idea that is powering that popularity is not being properly shown in a distanced view of the monarchy as mere ceremony.
On April 19 2013 06:39 Iyerbeth wrote: I'm pretty certain that having a million brands of cola, waste inherent in capitalist production and the cost to the individual workers, and lack of bottom up efficiency in industry are bigger stiflers of creativity. Trade secrets, patenting medicines, keeping the best in a field divided and without full knowledge of what's coming up are bigger. Making everything require market suitability before it's considered probably doesn't help either.
The idea that people neither cn be or will be productive without proffit is obviously absurd, and is only ever accepted because of how often it is repeated.
Then why were communist* economies so weak? Planning certainly wasn't the only problem, if the USSR not only suffered shortages but also a poor productivity.
Well, in fact planning is a problem, because... who is fit to plan the whole economy of a large country?
*or "popular" or "marxists-leninist" if such a use of "communism" offends anyone
On April 19 2013 06:42 Prog455 wrote: I support status quo. I like how things work in Denmark and my worst nightmare is that one day our democracy would turn into an abomination such as American "democracy".
I believe that the best way to run a country is by having a large state where wealth is evenly distributed and where it is easy to claim power. In Denmark our minister of foreign affairs is cringeworthy to say the least*, but it somewhat soothes me to know that literally everyone can get political influence, unlike USA where a degree from Harvard or Yale is borderline mandatory if you want to be president. If you watch the video it will become evident that some Danish politicans are, well... Watch the video. But atleast i know that we do not have a political elite.
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERW9hq9QKSM
Having highly qualified people in positions of power is bad? From what I see in american politics, it's saturated with people who would fail an elementary school exam in science or biology, but if having a good education makes you more likely to be president, surely that is a good thing.
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?
Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn.
As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned.
If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of.
And how exactly do sweeping changes like that become implemented? Don't get me wrong, when you say "nationalized all industries", you are definitely speaking my language, but I think the journey is oftentimes far more important than the destination when it comes to politics.
Realistically it would have to be either a very slow process where you nationalize things one by one, starting with the obvious ones like utilities and things like steel, which would be met with a lot of resistance and which would basically not happen, mostly because of things like lobbying. Hopefully people would begin to see its merits and things would progress from there.
If there was an explosive push for it, however, then feasibly there could be a revolution of sorts, but that will never happen so long as people can go out to eat at Applebee's and watch movies. There would have to be a revolution among the educated but disenfranchised, which I still don't see happening. Still, with time, conditions may change and the idea could become feasible.
On April 19 2013 06:19 Zaros wrote:
On April 19 2013 06:16 Chocolate wrote:
On April 19 2013 06:12 farvacola wrote:
On April 19 2013 06:07 Chocolate wrote:
On April 19 2013 06:05 farvacola wrote:
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?
Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn.
As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned.
If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of.
Then in a few years down the line they would all become unprofitable and inefficient.
You don't know that. Are you referring to the USSR? That country was backwards and poor to begin with. I also think running things like a corporation could help alleviate stagnation. A negative flow of cash would have to lead to forced changes on behalf of whatever body oversees everything or a restructuring of sorts.
I'm referring to any state run industry, if there is no profit motive there is no reason to do things efficiently and for the customers and it also stifles innovation even if it could be run efficiently.
I'm pretty certain that having a million brands of cola, waste inherent in capitalist production and the cost to the individual workers, and lack of bottom up efficiency in industry are bigger stiflers of creativity. Trade secrets, patenting medicines, keeping the best in a field divided and without full knowledge of what's coming up are bigger. Making everything require market suitability before it's considered probably doesn't help either.
The idea that people neither cn be or will be productive without proffit is obviously absurd, and is only ever accepted because of how often it is repeated.
A Capitalism discussion with iyerbeth, we havent done this before
First there isn't a million brand of cola, and even if their were that is not a bad thing if people want those million brand of cola, if they don't want them some or lots or all will go bust until there is what people want assuming the market isn't rigged in some way either by the government or by collusion of firms.
Don't really know what you mean by waste inherent capitalist production to bottom up efficiency in industry. As for trade secrets, patenting medicines etc they aren't really capitalist features they are corporatists features that I don't generally support. Finally market suitability if you mean licenses and government/regulator criteria then i'm against those if you mean something else I don't know what that is, the only suitability is what people want and can buy or what the government says is legal.
Well in all honesty, and I can probably speak for fellow countrymen, our king and rest of the royal family means very little to most of us. Sure, you always got your flag-waving patriots, but the royal family isnt really something you should be proud of. The king isnt that involved in politics either : hes more there for the ribbon-cutting and stuff.
So, yeah, we have a monarchy, but if the royal family wasent there, most of us would probably not notice any significant differences.
On April 19 2013 06:42 Prog455 wrote: I support status quo. I like how things work in Denmark and my worst nightmare is that one day our democracy would turn into an abomination such as American "democracy".
I believe that the best way to run a country is by having a large state where wealth is evenly distributed and where it is easy to claim power. In Denmark our minister of foreign affairs is cringeworthy to say the least*, but it somewhat soothes me to know that literally everyone can get political influence, unlike USA where a degree from Harvard or Yale is borderline mandatory if you want to be president. If you watch the video it will become evident that some Danish politicans are, well... Watch the video. But atleast i know that we do not have a political elite.
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERW9hq9QKSM
Having highly qualified people in positions of power is bad? From what I see in american politics, it's saturated with people who would fail an elementary school exam in science or biology, but if having a good education makes you more likely to be president, surely that is a good thing.
I don't necissarily agree with him, but he does have a point. We live in a democracy, not an aristocracy. We are supposed to be ruled by representatives of the people, and one could argue that a person of average intelligence represents the people better than a more intelligent person.
On April 19 2013 06:42 Prog455 wrote: I support status quo. I like how things work in Denmark and my worst nightmare is that one day our democracy would turn into an abomination such as American "democracy".
I believe that the best way to run a country is by having a large state where wealth is evenly distributed and where it is easy to claim power. In Denmark our minister of foreign affairs is cringeworthy to say the least*, but it somewhat soothes me to know that literally everyone can get political influence, unlike USA where a degree from Harvard or Yale is borderline mandatory if you want to be president. If you watch the video it will become evident that some Danish politicans are, well... Watch the video. But atleast i know that we do not have a political elite.
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERW9hq9QKSM
Having highly qualified people in positions of power is bad? From what I see in american politics, it's saturated with people who would fail an elementary school exam in science or biology, but if having a good education makes you more likely to be president, surely that is a good thing.
I don't necissarily agree with him, but he does have a point. We live in a democracy, not an aristocracy. We are supposed to be ruled by representatives of the people, and one could argue that a person of average intelligence represents the people better than a more intelligent person.
The same goes for wealth etc.
"Represantation" is such a polarizing word. Does it mean the average of everything to represent what the population is like? Does it mean that the person has views that most of the population agree with? Your post leaves me wondering, really. It's not that I disagree with you necessarily, just an interesting quirk of words.
I am curious. Are the people who are voting for "No Goverment" anarchists or right americans who are afraid from the goverment having to much influence?
On April 19 2013 06:54 Paljas wrote: I am curious. Are the people who are voting for "No Goverment" anarchists or right americans who are afraid from the goverment having to much influence?
I'm curious, I've seen already a few people on the internet organizing their sentences like this but I've never figured out why?
On April 19 2013 06:39 Iyerbeth wrote: I'm pretty certain that having a million brands of cola, waste inherent in capitalist production and the cost to the individual workers, and lack of bottom up efficiency in industry are bigger stiflers of creativity. Trade secrets, patenting medicines, keeping the best in a field divided and without full knowledge of what's coming up are bigger. Making everything require market suitability before it's considered probably doesn't help either.
The idea that people neither cn be or will be productive without proffit is obviously absurd, and is only ever accepted because of how often it is repeated.
Then why were communist* economies so weak? Planning certainly wasn't the only problem, if the USSR not only suffered shortages but also a poor productivity.
Well, in fact planning is a problem, because... who is fit to plan the whole economy of a large country?
*or "popular" or "marxists-leninist" if such a use of "communism" offends anyone
If you'd like I would be happy to discuss the problems communist archetype economies have faced (and explain why the USSR is a particularly bad example for the opposition), but before I do, I just want to make my original point clear. I wouldn't say capitalist economic structure isn't productive or able to produce creative solutions, it clearly is. My point was that there are factors which would seem to limit it, and yet it's the people and not the system that are productive and creative and that any reasonable system is capable of them.
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?
Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn.
As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned.
If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of.
And how exactly do sweeping changes like that become implemented? Don't get me wrong, when you say "nationalized all industries", you are definitely speaking my language, but I think the journey is oftentimes far more important than the destination when it comes to politics.
Realistically it would have to be either a very slow process where you nationalize things one by one, starting with the obvious ones like utilities and things like steel, which would be met with a lot of resistance and which would basically not happen, mostly because of things like lobbying. Hopefully people would begin to see its merits and things would progress from there.
If there was an explosive push for it, however, then feasibly there could be a revolution of sorts, but that will never happen so long as people can go out to eat at Applebee's and watch movies. There would have to be a revolution among the educated but disenfranchised, which I still don't see happening. Still, with time, conditions may change and the idea could become feasible.
On April 19 2013 06:19 Zaros wrote:
On April 19 2013 06:16 Chocolate wrote:
On April 19 2013 06:12 farvacola wrote:
On April 19 2013 06:07 Chocolate wrote:
On April 19 2013 06:05 farvacola wrote:
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?
Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn.
As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned.
If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of.
Then in a few years down the line they would all become unprofitable and inefficient.
You don't know that. Are you referring to the USSR? That country was backwards and poor to begin with. I also think running things like a corporation could help alleviate stagnation. A negative flow of cash would have to lead to forced changes on behalf of whatever body oversees everything or a restructuring of sorts.
I'm referring to any state run industry, if there is no profit motive there is no reason to do things efficiently and for the customers and it also stifles innovation even if it could be run efficiently.
I'm pretty certain that having a million brands of cola, waste inherent in capitalist production and the cost to the individual workers, and lack of bottom up efficiency in industry are bigger stiflers of creativity. Trade secrets, patenting medicines, keeping the best in a field divided and without full knowledge of what's coming up are bigger. Making everything require market suitability before it's considered probably doesn't help either.
The idea that people neither cn be or will be productive without proffit is obviously absurd, and is only ever accepted because of how often it is repeated.
A Capitalism discussion with iyerbeth, we havent done this before
First there isn't a million brand of cola, and even if their were that is not a bad thing if people want those million brand of cola, if they don't want them some or lots or all will go bust until there is what people want assuming the market isn't rigged in some way either by the government or by collusion of firms.
Don't really know what you mean by waste inherent capitalist production to bottom up efficiency in industry. As for trade secrets, patenting medicines etc they aren't really capitalist features they are corporatists features that I don't generally support. Finally market suitability if you mean licenses and government/regulator criteria then i'm against those if you mean something else I don't know what that is, the only suitability is what people want and can buy or what the government says is legal.
I was going to avoid the monarch discussion with you as far as possible at least, but I couldn't let you get away with that attack on state run industry. If you disagree with the above though, I'd be happy to discuss the inherent problems of capitalist production further if you want, and the benefits of industry owned and controlled by the workers in a planned economy and why it's traditionally had problems.
As to state owned businesses, China's State Owned Enterprices (SOE) are doing particularily well in terms of business, though it may simply be a side effect of the China's rise.
The problem with democracies is that it relies on a well educated well informed population, with an interest in electing the "right" kinds of people to lead.
The opening post is just banal though, as if there are any power structures remaining in the western world where royalty and aristocrats have great priveleges. He says it baffles him why they still exist, when aristocrats simply exist because they reproduce. You might as well ask, why does a family line continue to exist.
On April 19 2013 06:42 Prog455 wrote: I support status quo. I like how things work in Denmark and my worst nightmare is that one day our democracy would turn into an abomination such as American "democracy".
I believe that the best way to run a country is by having a large state where wealth is evenly distributed and where it is easy to claim power. In Denmark our minister of foreign affairs is cringeworthy to say the least*, but it somewhat soothes me to know that literally everyone can get political influence, unlike USA where a degree from Harvard or Yale is borderline mandatory if you want to be president. If you watch the video it will become evident that some Danish politicans are, well... Watch the video. But atleast i know that we do not have a political elite.
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERW9hq9QKSM
Having highly qualified people in positions of power is bad? From what I see in american politics, it's saturated with people who would fail an elementary school exam in science or biology, but if having a good education makes you more likely to be president, surely that is a good thing.
Obviously it is preferable to have bright minds to run the country, but having a good education does not make you smart, and you don't need an education to have insight in a certain field. Denmarks former prime minster (Anders Fogh Rasmussen) said at one point during his time as PM (2001-2009) that every book on economical theory should be rewritten, given that we was never going to experience a financial crisis again. I guess it goes without saying that he was not entirely right on that matter. He had a Masters Degree in economics.
On April 19 2013 06:39 Iyerbeth wrote: I'm pretty certain that having a million brands of cola, waste inherent in capitalist production and the cost to the individual workers, and lack of bottom up efficiency in industry are bigger stiflers of creativity. Trade secrets, patenting medicines, keeping the best in a field divided and without full knowledge of what's coming up are bigger. Making everything require market suitability before it's considered probably doesn't help either.
The idea that people neither cn be or will be productive without proffit is obviously absurd, and is only ever accepted because of how often it is repeated.
Then why were communist* economies so weak? Planning certainly wasn't the only problem, if the USSR not only suffered shortages but also a poor productivity.
Well, in fact planning is a problem, because... who is fit to plan the whole economy of a large country?
*or "popular" or "marxists-leninist" if such a use of "communism" offends anyone
I'd point the finger at corruption, which,admittedly, is inevitable in any governmental system. USSR and China had a history of corruption before their communist governments came into being, and in those places allegiance to the party was (and is) oftentimes more important than true merit. They both also put a ton of resources into military spending which isn't too productive to begin with, because then there is even more corruption and waste. Their top level leaders, too, were also pretty damn psycho.
First there isn't a million brand of cola, and even if their were that is not a bad thing if people want those million brand of cola, if they don't want them some or lots or all will go bust until there is what people want assuming the market isn't rigged in some way either by the government or by collusion of firms.
The point is that the colas are effectively the same and there is waste in their separation. Also, what the people want is not always for the best (illegal drugs which cause heavier crime) , and resources are wasted by "startups" that are ultimately unsuccessful. It would be more efficient if existing companies adopted new ideas. Heavy industry with high cost of entry like steel, coal, gas, lumber, etc. would also benefit greatly because there is very little difference between the products.
the 'technocrats are no better at their own politics even if they have the best studies possible on the politics at large that they are experts in' argument is important. it is not completely knockdown against technocracy though, because technocrats can be aware of this problem and have motivational, procedural and ideological safeguards.
for example, a term limit is important, removal of professional politicians who need to pander to get votes, respect for open data and accurate data.
the problem of the top level of a political system becoming unchecked is also not unique to technocracy in all its possible form. i think the very idea of technocracy is born otu of criticisms against existing popular politics and some of the stuff going on with our politicians and how they win votes etc. don't have to go full technocrat to recognize these criticisms.
On April 19 2013 06:42 Prog455 wrote: I support status quo. I like how things work in Denmark and my worst nightmare is that one day our democracy would turn into an abomination such as American "democracy".
I believe that the best way to run a country is by having a large state where wealth is evenly distributed and where it is easy to claim power. In Denmark our minister of foreign affairs is cringeworthy to say the least*, but it somewhat soothes me to know that literally everyone can get political influence, unlike USA where a degree from Harvard or Yale is borderline mandatory if you want to be president. If you watch the video it will become evident that some Danish politicans are, well... Watch the video. But atleast i know that we do not have a political elite.
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERW9hq9QKSM
Having highly qualified people in positions of power is bad? From what I see in american politics, it's saturated with people who would fail an elementary school exam in science or biology, but if having a good education makes you more likely to be president, surely that is a good thing.
I don't necissarily agree with him, but he does have a point. We live in a democracy, not an aristocracy. We are supposed to be ruled by representatives of the people, and one could argue that a person of average intelligence represents the people better than a more intelligent person.
The same goes for wealth etc.
But the average person is woefully unequipped to deal with the complexity involved in running a major industrialized nation in 2013. See G.W Bush for reference.
I'm all in favour of a democratic vote, but I staunchly oppose this idea that candidates should represent some kind of population median. They should be the best the parties can offer. In every area except politics, elite is a good thing. If I'm sick, I'd love to have an elite doctor, if we are in a military conflict having an elite fighting force is good, if a plane is having a malfunction at 10 000 metres, I'd feel a lot safer with an elite pilot in the cockpit.
I don't want an average joe running my country, because the average joe is not very bright and would likely cause horrendous damage with his fumbling attempts at governing.
In Canada's case, removing the Monarch would mean rewriting how our democracy works. If you think getting a consensus on abolishing the Monarchy is hard, imagine getting unanimous consent on how to rewrite your constitution. The status quo works very well in Canada, even though an effective and elected head of state would be a useful tool in reigning in our ridiculously powerful Prime Minister.
Even if the disadvantages of a Monarchy outweigh the advantages, the massive impact of abolishing the Monarchy still wouldn't necessarily make the act worth it, or politically feasible.
On April 19 2013 06:54 Paljas wrote: I am curious. Are the people who are voting for "No Goverment" anarchists or right americans who are afraid from the goverment having to much influence?
I'm curious, I've seen already a few people on the internet organizing their sentences like this but I've never figured out why?
On April 19 2013 06:54 Paljas wrote: I am curious. Are the people who are voting for "No Goverment" anarchists or right americans who are afraid from the goverment having to much influence?
I'm curious, I've seen already a few people on the internet organizing their sentences like this but I've never figured out why?
On April 19 2013 06:39 Iyerbeth wrote: I'm pretty certain that having a million brands of cola, waste inherent in capitalist production and the cost to the individual workers, and lack of bottom up efficiency in industry are bigger stiflers of creativity. Trade secrets, patenting medicines, keeping the best in a field divided and without full knowledge of what's coming up are bigger. Making everything require market suitability before it's considered probably doesn't help either.
The idea that people neither cn be or will be productive without proffit is obviously absurd, and is only ever accepted because of how often it is repeated.
Then why were communist* economies so weak? Planning certainly wasn't the only problem, if the USSR not only suffered shortages but also a poor productivity.
Well, in fact planning is a problem, because... who is fit to plan the whole economy of a large country?
*or "popular" or "marxists-leninist" if such a use of "communism" offends anyone
I'd point the finger at corruption, which,admittedly, is inevitable in any governmental system. USSR and China had a history of corruption before their communist governments came into being, and in those places allegiance to the party was (and is) oftentimes more important than true merit. They both also put a ton of resources into military spending which isn't too productive to begin with, because then there is even more corruption and waste. Their top level leaders, too, were also pretty damn psycho.
First there isn't a million brand of cola, and even if their were that is not a bad thing if people want those million brand of cola, if they don't want them some or lots or all will go bust until there is what people want assuming the market isn't rigged in some way either by the government or by collusion of firms.
The point is that the colas are effectively the same and there is waste in their separation. Also, what the people want is not always for the best (illegal drugs which cause heavier crime) , and resources are wasted by "startups" that are ultimately unsuccessful. It would be more efficient if existing companies adopted new ideas. Heavy industry with high cost of entry like steel, coal, gas, lumber, etc. would also benefit greatly because there is very little difference between the products.
One brand of Cola is only efficient in the sense that it would mean they can merge various production etc for economies of scale, but there would be no competition and no choice and a the instance of merging it might be more efficient but after time it would get worse and worse and less and less efficient. As for illegal drugs public opinion is heading toward decriminalisation the rest i disagree with but i think i've said enough i don't want to keep derailing the thread.
On April 19 2013 06:42 Prog455 wrote: I support status quo. I like how things work in Denmark and my worst nightmare is that one day our democracy would turn into an abomination such as American "democracy".
I believe that the best way to run a country is by having a large state where wealth is evenly distributed and where it is easy to claim power. In Denmark our minister of foreign affairs is cringeworthy to say the least*, but it somewhat soothes me to know that literally everyone can get political influence, unlike USA where a degree from Harvard or Yale is borderline mandatory if you want to be president. If you watch the video it will become evident that some Danish politicans are, well... Watch the video. But atleast i know that we do not have a political elite.
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERW9hq9QKSM
Having highly qualified people in positions of power is bad? From what I see in american politics, it's saturated with people who would fail an elementary school exam in science or biology, but if having a good education makes you more likely to be president, surely that is a good thing.
I don't necissarily agree with him, but he does have a point. We live in a democracy, not an aristocracy. We are supposed to be ruled by representatives of the people, and one could argue that a person of average intelligence represents the people better than a more intelligent person.
The same goes for wealth etc.
But the average person is woefully unequipped to deal with the complexity involved in running a major industrialized nation in 2013. See G.W Bush for reference.
I'm all in favour of a democratic vote, but I staunchly oppose this idea that candidates should represent some kind of population median. They should be the best the parties can offer. In every area except politics, elite is a good thing. If I'm sick, I'd love to have an elite doctor, if we are in a military conflict having an elite fighting force is good, if a plane is having a malfunction at 10 000 metres, I'd feel a lot safer with an elite pilot in the cockpit.
I don't want an average joe running my country, because the average joe is not very bright and would likely cause horrendous damage with his fumbling attempts at governing.
I'd just like to point out that G.W. Bush has a BA in History from Yale University and an MBA from Harvard Business School.
And in regards to average joe running your country, you should remember that ministry has a highly educated staff to help politicans.
On April 19 2013 06:39 Iyerbeth wrote: I'm pretty certain that having a million brands of cola, waste inherent in capitalist production and the cost to the individual workers, and lack of bottom up efficiency in industry are bigger stiflers of creativity. Trade secrets, patenting medicines, keeping the best in a field divided and without full knowledge of what's coming up are bigger. Making everything require market suitability before it's considered probably doesn't help either.
The idea that people neither cn be or will be productive without proffit is obviously absurd, and is only ever accepted because of how often it is repeated.
Then why were communist* economies so weak? Planning certainly wasn't the only problem, if the USSR not only suffered shortages but also a poor productivity.
Well, in fact planning is a problem, because... who is fit to plan the whole economy of a large country?
*or "popular" or "marxists-leninist" if such a use of "communism" offends anyone
I'd point the finger at corruption, which,admittedly, is inevitable in any governmental system. USSR and China had a history of corruption before their communist governments came into being, and in those places allegiance to the party was (and is) oftentimes more important than true merit. They both also put a ton of resources into military spending which isn't too productive to begin with, because then there is even more corruption and waste. Their top level leaders, too, were also pretty damn psycho.
First there isn't a million brand of cola, and even if their were that is not a bad thing if people want those million brand of cola, if they don't want them some or lots or all will go bust until there is what people want assuming the market isn't rigged in some way either by the government or by collusion of firms.
The point is that the colas are effectively the same and there is waste in their separation. Also, what the people want is not always for the best (illegal drugs which cause heavier crime) , and resources are wasted by "startups" that are ultimately unsuccessful. It would be more efficient if existing companies adopted new ideas. Heavy industry with high cost of entry like steel, coal, gas, lumber, etc. would also benefit greatly because there is very little difference between the products.
One brand of Cola is only efficient in the sense that it would mean they can merge various production etc for economies of scale, but there would be no competition and no choice and a the instance of merging it might be more efficient but after time it would get worse and worse and less and less efficient. As for illegal drugs public opinion is heading toward decriminalisation the rest i disagree with but i think i've said enough i don't want to keep derailing the thread.
I don't think it's derailment. The thread is about forms of leadership of a government and I posited one that was neglected by the OP. I think while monarchies and republics are important structures from the past, technocracy could very well be the future.
Competition is not necessary if, as I previously mentioned, state industry is run like a corporation. Hell, there could even be votes periodically over whether people like the new taste, and there could still be different colas produced by the same company, which would mean a more efficient infrastructure at the very least. Also, I agree with limited decriminalization but meth is probably never going to be legal and as long as it is illegal, there will be lots of criminal activity around it.
On April 19 2013 06:42 Prog455 wrote: I support status quo. I like how things work in Denmark and my worst nightmare is that one day our democracy would turn into an abomination such as American "democracy".
I believe that the best way to run a country is by having a large state where wealth is evenly distributed and where it is easy to claim power. In Denmark our minister of foreign affairs is cringeworthy to say the least*, but it somewhat soothes me to know that literally everyone can get political influence, unlike USA where a degree from Harvard or Yale is borderline mandatory if you want to be president. If you watch the video it will become evident that some Danish politicans are, well... Watch the video. But atleast i know that we do not have a political elite.
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERW9hq9QKSM
Having highly qualified people in positions of power is bad? From what I see in american politics, it's saturated with people who would fail an elementary school exam in science or biology, but if having a good education makes you more likely to be president, surely that is a good thing.
I don't necissarily agree with him, but he does have a point. We live in a democracy, not an aristocracy. We are supposed to be ruled by representatives of the people, and one could argue that a person of average intelligence represents the people better than a more intelligent person.
The same goes for wealth etc.
But the average person is woefully unequipped to deal with the complexity involved in running a major industrialized nation in 2013. See G.W Bush for reference.
I'm all in favour of a democratic vote, but I staunchly oppose this idea that candidates should represent some kind of population median. They should be the best the parties can offer. In every area except politics, elite is a good thing. If I'm sick, I'd love to have an elite doctor, if we are in a military conflict having an elite fighting force is good, if a plane is having a malfunction at 10 000 metres, I'd feel a lot safer with an elite pilot in the cockpit.
I don't want an average joe running my country, because the average joe is not very bright and would likely cause horrendous damage with his fumbling attempts at governing.
I'd just like to point out that G.W. Bush has a BA in History from Yale University and an MBA from Harvard Business School.
And in regards to average joe running your country, you should remember that ministry has a highly educated staff to help politicans.
In America, many elite, normally very selective colleges will admit less qualified applicants if they have important parents.
On April 19 2013 06:42 Prog455 wrote: I support status quo. I like how things work in Denmark and my worst nightmare is that one day our democracy would turn into an abomination such as American "democracy".
I believe that the best way to run a country is by having a large state where wealth is evenly distributed and where it is easy to claim power. In Denmark our minister of foreign affairs is cringeworthy to say the least*, but it somewhat soothes me to know that literally everyone can get political influence, unlike USA where a degree from Harvard or Yale is borderline mandatory if you want to be president. If you watch the video it will become evident that some Danish politicans are, well... Watch the video. But atleast i know that we do not have a political elite.
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERW9hq9QKSM
Having highly qualified people in positions of power is bad? From what I see in american politics, it's saturated with people who would fail an elementary school exam in science or biology, but if having a good education makes you more likely to be president, surely that is a good thing.
I don't necissarily agree with him, but he does have a point. We live in a democracy, not an aristocracy. We are supposed to be ruled by representatives of the people, and one could argue that a person of average intelligence represents the people better than a more intelligent person.
The same goes for wealth etc.
But the average person is woefully unequipped to deal with the complexity involved in running a major industrialized nation in 2013. See G.W Bush for reference.
I'm all in favour of a democratic vote, but I staunchly oppose this idea that candidates should represent some kind of population median. They should be the best the parties can offer. In every area except politics, elite is a good thing. If I'm sick, I'd love to have an elite doctor, if we are in a military conflict having an elite fighting force is good, if a plane is having a malfunction at 10 000 metres, I'd feel a lot safer with an elite pilot in the cockpit.
I don't want an average joe running my country, because the average joe is not very bright and would likely cause horrendous damage with his fumbling attempts at governing.
I'd just like to point out that G.W. Bush has a BA in History from Yale University and an MBA from Harvard Business School.
And in regards to average joe running your country, you should remember that ministry has a highly educated staff to help politicans.
Out of curiosity, were those degrees actually legit or just daddy's clout?
I don't know, maybe I'm wierd for wanting the actual elected leaders to be a cut above, not reliant on a staff of surrogate brains to do their thinking. Hardcore meritocracy is where it's at, holla at ya boi.
On April 19 2013 06:42 Prog455 wrote: I support status quo. I like how things work in Denmark and my worst nightmare is that one day our democracy would turn into an abomination such as American "democracy".
I believe that the best way to run a country is by having a large state where wealth is evenly distributed and where it is easy to claim power. In Denmark our minister of foreign affairs is cringeworthy to say the least*, but it somewhat soothes me to know that literally everyone can get political influence, unlike USA where a degree from Harvard or Yale is borderline mandatory if you want to be president. If you watch the video it will become evident that some Danish politicans are, well... Watch the video. But atleast i know that we do not have a political elite.
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERW9hq9QKSM
Having highly qualified people in positions of power is bad? From what I see in american politics, it's saturated with people who would fail an elementary school exam in science or biology, but if having a good education makes you more likely to be president, surely that is a good thing.
I don't necissarily agree with him, but he does have a point. We live in a democracy, not an aristocracy. We are supposed to be ruled by representatives of the people, and one could argue that a person of average intelligence represents the people better than a more intelligent person.
The same goes for wealth etc.
But the average person is woefully unequipped to deal with the complexity involved in running a major industrialized nation in 2013. See G.W Bush for reference.
I'm all in favour of a democratic vote, but I staunchly oppose this idea that candidates should represent some kind of population median. They should be the best the parties can offer. In every area except politics, elite is a good thing. If I'm sick, I'd love to have an elite doctor, if we are in a military conflict having an elite fighting force is good, if a plane is having a malfunction at 10 000 metres, I'd feel a lot safer with an elite pilot in the cockpit.
I don't want an average joe running my country, because the average joe is not very bright and would likely cause horrendous damage with his fumbling attempts at governing.
I'd just like to point out that G.W. Bush has a BA in History from Yale University and an MBA from Harvard Business School.
And in regards to average joe running your country, you should remember that ministry has a highly educated staff to help politicans.
Out of curiosity, were those degrees actually legit or just daddy's clout?
I don't know, maybe I'm wierd for wanting the actual elected leaders to be a cut above, not reliant on a staff of surrogate brains to do their thinking. Hardcore meritocracy is where it's at, holla at ya boi.
Those degrees are most certainly as legit as can be, given that USA is the country where every man is self made an no one should be born into power.
simulating competition by votes or committee decisions is not that easy. once you have a mechanism that doles out important outcomes like "who gets fired in this room," be sure that that very mechanism will have to satisfy the test of whether it corresponds to the benefit of society/consumer. this is the problem of creating higher and higher tiers of corruptible committees.
the market is pretty good at what it does, but it's not a priori perfect like a theoretical description would have it, due to the way economic theories are generated in the first place. (starting from limited set of assumptions rather than real world situations).
rent seeking and inbred hierarchies are a problem whether you are in the USSR or high finance.
i am glad to see mcbengt and drone serve knugen and angel princess so i did not have to dirty my hands.
i echo drones sentiment. when i was younger i didn't care for the monarchy, and i still don't. it's an absurd and inefficient way of producing a good representative. however haakon turned out to be a very good representative, much better than the politicians i know about.
i am caught in an awkward equilibrium. hopefully haakon will be the last one.
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.
Though I may disagree with Believer's views, he is just as entitled to his opinion as you are.
On April 19 2013 06:42 Prog455 wrote: I support status quo. I like how things work in Denmark and my worst nightmare is that one day our democracy would turn into an abomination such as American "democracy".
I believe that the best way to run a country is by having a large state where wealth is evenly distributed and where it is easy to claim power. In Denmark our minister of foreign affairs is cringeworthy to say the least*, but it somewhat soothes me to know that literally everyone can get political influence, unlike USA where a degree from Harvard or Yale is borderline mandatory if you want to be president. If you watch the video it will become evident that some Danish politicans are, well... Watch the video. But atleast i know that we do not have a political elite.
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERW9hq9QKSM
Having highly qualified people in positions of power is bad? From what I see in american politics, it's saturated with people who would fail an elementary school exam in science or biology, but if having a good education makes you more likely to be president, surely that is a good thing.
I don't necissarily agree with him, but he does have a point. We live in a democracy, not an aristocracy. We are supposed to be ruled by representatives of the people, and one could argue that a person of average intelligence represents the people better than a more intelligent person.
The same goes for wealth etc.
But the average person is woefully unequipped to deal with the complexity involved in running a major industrialized nation in 2013. See G.W Bush for reference.
I'm all in favour of a democratic vote, but I staunchly oppose this idea that candidates should represent some kind of population median. They should be the best the parties can offer. In every area except politics, elite is a good thing. If I'm sick, I'd love to have an elite doctor, if we are in a military conflict having an elite fighting force is good, if a plane is having a malfunction at 10 000 metres, I'd feel a lot safer with an elite pilot in the cockpit.
I don't want an average joe running my country, because the average joe is not very bright and would likely cause horrendous damage with his fumbling attempts at governing.
I'd just like to point out that G.W. Bush has a BA in History from Yale University and an MBA from Harvard Business School.
And in regards to average joe running your country, you should remember that ministry has a highly educated staff to help politicans.
Out of curiosity, were those degrees actually legit or just daddy's clout?
I don't know, maybe I'm wierd for wanting the actual elected leaders to be a cut above, not reliant on a staff of surrogate brains to do their thinking. Hardcore meritocracy is where it's at, holla at ya boi.
Those degrees are most certainly as legit as can be, given that USA is the country where every man is self made an no one should be born into power.
G.W Bush was infamous for being pushed into positions he was entirely unqualified for because of his father's contacts. A dubious diploma is certainly not beyond reason.
Though I may disagree with Believer's views, he is just as entitled to his opinion as you are.
I have never challenged his right to his opinion. I will challenge the opinion itself though.
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.
Though I may disagree with Believer's views, he is just as entitled to his opinion as you are.
so are the hyenas, but that's what makes them hyenas.
I have to say, the amount of rhetoric in the OP would be hilarious if the TC wasn't completely serious.
Aside from the initial war between the British and French colonies, there were no "revolutions" or "civil wars" in Canada, let alone "a series". At best, you have a couple of rebellions in what are now the Canadian prairies, but those were about French speaking colonists and Metis (natives) fighting for land and rights, not for independence from the crown. And yes, pro-annexation movements were prevalent in Canada, but what killed the momentum was the provinces joining confederacy (aka, becoming part of Canada instead of just colonies), not brutal oppression. There were still plenty of people pushing for joining America, but they were fringe groups at best, ones that had no fear of executions.
Saying that America opposed being born into power and nobility is absolutely laughable. The United States might have rejected the monarchy, but they absolutely supported aristocracy. It took at least a century before "equality for all people" even meant equality for all people.
And while I have no knowledge of the Netherlands and their history, it would not surprise me if your statements were completely false as well.
Honestly, I'm struggling to find anything in the OP that's even remotely sensible.
Chocolate: I don't think it's derailment. The thread is about forms of leadership of a government and I posited one that was neglected by the OP. I think while monarchies and republics are important structures from the past, technocracy could very well be the future.
Competition is not necessary if, as I previously mentioned, state industry is run like a corporation. Hell, there could even be votes periodically over whether people like the new taste, and there could still be different colas produced by the same company, which would mean a more efficient infrastructure at the very least. Also, I agree with limited decriminalization but meth is probably never going to be legal and as long as it is illegal, there will be lots of criminal activity around it.
The thread is titled Republicanism and Monarchism. Not R and M and Technocracy or whatever other form of government we want to talk about.
i echo drones sentiment. when i was younger i didn't care for the monarchy, and i still don't. it's an absurd and inefficient way of producing a good representative. however haakon turned out to be a very good representative, much better than the politicians i know about.
I think that in the countries that remain *monarchies,* particularly the European ones, the monarchy provides a unifying symbol for the country, a proud acknowledgment of its, and I think it provides additional dignity to the culture of a country as well.
Saying that America opposed being born into power and nobility is absolutely laughable. The United States might have rejected the monarchy, but they absolutely supported aristocracy. It took at least a century before "equality for all people" even meant equality for all people.
The only aristocracy absolutely supported in America was the antebellum Southern aristocracy. We nearly annihilated it in the Civil War, either directly through death in battle or by razing of plantations and appropriations of their property and the freeing of their slaves.
The old colonial and revolutionary (two different things, with some families in both) aristocracy had mostly died out by the 1830s, with John Quincy Adams stubbornly reminding everyone that they had once existed.
Slavery as an aristocratic system makes no sense. It simply is not. It can be a facet of one, as it was with the Southern planter aristocracy. In the North and particularly in the "West" (the region between the Appalachians and the Mississippi River, excluding the Deep and coastal South but not states like Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, western North Carolina, etc.) nuveau riche sprung up like mushrooms. And then Texas and the Great Plains and the Rockies and the Pacific Northwest and California made even more, while back in places like my own Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, boys raised in a distinctly lower-middle class setting like Andrew Carnegie turned themselves into titans of industry.
Let's not ignore history. The American aristocracy, as it was in the year 1900, largely made itself over the course of the second half of the 19th century. The American aristocracy of today is an aristocracy of a different nature that I will explore in a later, and it will be quite long (yinz been warned!), post.
How come america is listed as a democracy while it is clearly a plutocrazy and people dont even realize it. The rich tule the americans and they are ruled by money, at least a monarch could maybe have some form of dignity, respect and humansim compared to our plutocratic politicans nowadays. I think the canadians are damn happy of not belonging to the US nowadays
The best form of governance would be a dictatorship with me as the dictator of the whole world, because lets be real, humans are frackin stupid, and I would lead them to peace, progression and prosperity. I would end all wars, educate the people and have a renaisance of rationalism, respect and humansim in the world. I would abolish hunger, greed and unequality and the financial industry to focus on the real economy instead of shadows and lies.
On April 19 2013 07:32 Holy_AT wrote: How come america is listed as a democracy while it is clearly a plutocrazy and people dont even realize it. The rich tule the americans and they are ruled by money, at least a monarch could maybe have some form of dignity, respect and humansim compared to our plutocratic politicans nowadays. I think the canadians are damn happy of not belonging to the US nowadays
The best form of governance would be a dictatorship with me as the dictator of the whole world, because lets be real, humans are frackin stupid, and I would lead them to peace, progression and prosperity. I would end all wars, educate the people and have a renaisance of rationalism, respect and humansim in the world. I would abolish hunger, greed and unequality and the financial industry to focus on the real economy instead of shadows and lies.
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.
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.
After everything you said I still maintain that the US was not actually founded on principles of equality. I do acknowledge what you said, but yeah, it doesn't change the facts. Many of the things that make the US so "great" cannot be attributed to the origins, but are the results of changes that were made. It's no less honorable, but still not about the origins.
Edit: The poll results suggest to me that people are confused with the terminology.
On April 19 2013 06:59 Chocolate wrote: illegal drugs which cause heavier crime
what are you talking about?
In the 1920's with prohibition and now with the "war on drugs" there is a large part of the underground world that is funded by illegal drugs. Illegal drugs encourage gangs which cause violence over turf or the threat of a deal gone wrong. Illegal ownership of guns, illegal conduct with money, and general law-breaking thugs are all products of a lucrative drug trade.
The thread is titled Republicanism and Monarchism. Not R and M and Technocracy or whatever other form of government we want to talk about.
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.
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.
After everything you said I still maintain that the US was not actually founded on principles of equality. I do acknowledge what you said, but yeah, it doesn't change the facts. Many of the things that make the US so great cannot be attributed to the origins.
I'm saying it was, and the tension between those ideals and the way the country was living up to them became a great source of debate and conflict starting only a generation after the Constitution was written. And that there was one of the most destructive civil wars in a "European" (USA was considered basically a European country over the sea, a bit rough around the edges, but obviously civilized back then) country in the modern era over it, and the side fighting for those founding ideals won. Abraham Lincoln was a great one for quoting the Declaration of Independence as being more than simply a statement of ideals and a document of political revolution.
As part of his argument for secession being illegal, he argued that the Union had been created by the Articles of Association in 1774, declared itself independent in 1776, drew its members closer together with the articles of Confederation, and finally declared their mission and union to be perpetual in the Constitution with it's phrase about "a more perfect union." By this logic, the Declaration of Independence's statement that all men are created equal was given not just a moral force, but also Constitutional imperative. I agree with that logic. Millions in the North did, before, during, and after the war. Lincoln's politics were greatly inspired by one of the greatest statesmen, patriots, citizens, and men America has ever had, and who is shamefully not given more attention in our history education, Daniel Webster:
United States Senator Daniel Webster, who should be on a coin or a bill or at least have a big ass monument in Washington, speaking in the Senate, January 26, 1830:
I have not allowed myself, sir, to look beyond the Union, to see what might he hidden in the dark recess behind. I have not coolly weighed the chances of preserving liberty when the bonds that unite us together shall be broken asunder. I have not accustomed myself to hang over the precipice of disunion, to see whether, with my short sight, I can fathom the depth of the abyss below; nor could I regard him as a safe counselor in the affairs in this government whose thoughts should be mainly bent on considering, not how the Union may be best preserved but how tolerable might be the condition of the people when it should be broken up and destroyed. While the Union lasts, we have high, exciting, gratifying prospects spread out before us, for us and our children. Beyond that I seek not to penetrate the veil.
God grant that in my day, at least, that curtain may not rise! God grant that on my vision never may be opened what lies behind! When my eyes shall be turned to behold for the last time the sun in heaven, may I not see him shining on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glorious Union; on states dissevered, discordant, belligerent; on a land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood! Let their last feeble and lingering glance rather behold the gorgeous ensign of the republic, now known and honored throughout the earth, still full high advanced, its arms and trophies streaming in their original luster, not a stripe erased or polluted, nor a single star obscured, bearing for its motto, no such miserable interrogatory as "What is all this worth?" nor those other words of delusion and folly, "Liberty first and Union afterwards"; but everywhere, spread all over in characters of living light, blazing on all its ample folds, as they float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear to every true American heart-Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!
So as you can see, talking about slavery in the simplistic way you guys are doing it is inaccurate and not helping anything. America did and does have an aristocracy. Just not the kind you think.
On April 19 2013 07:39 Mefano wrote: And still the USA are so much further from freedom than Sweden :-)
Depends on how you measure freedom. You taxation is higher in Sweden, so Americans have more freedom over their money. Also they have guns. In terms of everything else i'd tend to agree with you. As a European i see USA as the least democratic and least free country in OECD.
On April 19 2013 07:39 Mefano wrote: And still the USA are so much further from freedom than Sweden :-)
Depends on how you measure freedom. You taxation is higher in Sweden, so Americans have more freedom over their money. Also they have guns. In terms of everything else i'd tend to agree with you. As a European i see USA as the least democratic and least free country in OECD.
This may be a slight derailment, but I think the USA is the most democratic and most free country in the OECD. You have more speech restrictions, you have the highly undemocratic EU apparatus, the highest taxes, the most regulations, etc. There is no way we are last, even if we are not first, which I think we are. Maybe Iceland is freer than we are, I wouldn't be surprised if it was!
I don't really support monarchy. However, on the list of potential improvements to government, getting rid of the royal family is fairly unimportant. Like drone said earlier, monarchy has worked here so far because the people who have been monarchs have been charismatic, hard-working people. My impression is that the country as a whole is in favour of keeping a royal family, and the general concensus amongst the elected officials is the same.
For me, it seems unreasonable to have children born with the burden of becoming the future monarch, even if they choose to deny their claim to the throne. The public attention and pressures it brings with it seem too much for a child to bear. Regular people get to live regular lives, but the royal family will always in one way or another be trapped to live the life we force them to live. Eventually we're going to get monarchs who are not able to perform up to standard. That time might be the better time to have the national debate about republicanism. That is, unless the royal family as a whole abdicates and forces it upon us before then.
On April 19 2013 07:46 DeepElemBlues wrote: As part of his argument for secession being illegal, he argued that the Union had been created by the Articles of Association in 1774, declared itself independent in 1776, drew its members closer together with the articles of Confederation, and finally declared their mission and union to be perpetual in the Constitution with it's phrase about "a more perfect union." By this logic, the Declaration of Independence's statement that all men are created equal was given not just a moral force, but also Constitutional imperative. I agree with that logic. Millions in the North did, before, during, and after the war. Lincoln's politics were greatly inspired by one of the greatest statesmen, patriots, citizens, and men America has ever had, and who is shamefully not given more attention in our history education, Daniel Webster:
I fail to see how your interpretation of it changes the practical way of doing things in the decades following the declaration of independence.
On April 19 2013 07:39 Mefano wrote: And still the USA are so much further from freedom than Sweden :-)
Depends on how you measure freedom. You taxation is higher in Sweden, so Americans have more freedom over their money. Also they have guns. In terms of everything else i'd tend to agree with you. As a European i see USA as the least democratic and least free country in OECD.
I guess it depends on how you look at it. Individuals in the US have more freedom in terms of literally their freedom to do things. Sweden has more stability, which is a kind of freedom. Freedom usually involves a fair bit of instability as your choices have more of an impact on your own life. Many Americans still prefer 'more' freedom even if that means a lower standard of living overall. Somalians have the greatest freedom in the world by that definition - their is literally no functioning government and therefore no pesky regulations.
The US is supposed to be meritocracy, but today has one of the lowest potential for people of one class to move to another class, in the entire developed world. This has been documented and studied by a group who tracks the % of people who move from one income quintile to another. In other words what are you chances from moving from the bottom 20% to the 20-40% range, etc. The US has the absolutely lowest mobility score of all the countries tested.
The reasons for that can be widely debated. However, it's clear at least to me however, that the degree which cost me about $60,000 to achieve here in Canada would cost probably 3 - 4 times that much down south. That fact alone may have meant I would not move up.
Edit: And as a Canadian I don't care about the queen either. She costs us nothing but a few deluxe hotel rooms for whatever family member is visiting every few years, and at a far lower cost that many other visiting diplomats.
On April 19 2013 07:39 Mefano wrote: And still the USA are so much further from freedom than Sweden :-)
Depends on how you measure freedom. You taxation is higher in Sweden, so Americans have more freedom over their money. Also they have guns. In terms of everything else i'd tend to agree with you. As a European i see USA as the least democratic and least free country in OECD.
This may be a slight derailment, but I think the USA is the most democratic and most free country in the OECD. You have more speech restrictions, you have the highly undemocratic EU apparatus, the highest taxes, the most regulations, etc. There is no way we are last, even if we are not first, which I think we are. Maybe Iceland is freer than we are, I wouldn't be surprised if it was!
There is next to no speech restrictions in Denmark. In terms to EU i can't argue against that. It is true that we have regulations such as smoking restrictions and such, but on the flip side things such as abortion and gay marrige is much more accessible. Also we don't have a legal system that is incomprehensible for your average joe.
On April 19 2013 07:56 stenole wrote: Eventually we're going to get monarchs who are not able to perform up to standard. That time might be the better time to have the national debate about republicanism. That is, unless the royal family as a whole abdicates and forces it upon us before then.
Look no further than your friendly, if somewhat rustic neighbour to the east if you wish to see the exact situation you described. It's like a having a barely trained chimp in your house, think the drunk ape with Crusty the Clown.
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?
Well you didn't exactly endear yourself to us between your Manifest Destiny and your raiding Fenians in US military uniforms... Also revolutions and civil wars is a little dramatic. French-Canada had a full on rebellion certainly. But William Lyon Mackenzie's Yonge Street march was an upgraded barroom brawl. Alright. I'm down-playing it a bit, but it really was pretty small and got snuffed out pretty quick.
The thing is after the US's revolution, Britain was rather accommodating to its colonies and so there never was a reason to throw it off entirely. Britain was as likely to push Canada into having more autonomy as Canada was to demand it. The Royal Navy was still on the west coast until WWI and it took us until the 80's to patriate our constitution. And so as it stands now, why bother throwing off the 'yoke' of monarchy? The impact on Canada is pretty negligible. We have the queen on our coin, her Governor General rubber stamps our bills into laws and owns a few houses and the royalty pops by for a visit every now and then. And we get to play in the Commonwealth Games unlike you rebels
I would not support opening up a constitutional debate to turn us into a republic because the material benefit is microscopic compared to all the old provincial and Eng vs Fr wound that it would open up. If we're going to change the constitution I would want it to be over something that is more tangible.
On April 19 2013 07:46 DeepElemBlues wrote: As part of his argument for secession being illegal, he argued that the Union had been created by the Articles of Association in 1774, declared itself independent in 1776, drew its members closer together with the articles of Confederation, and finally declared their mission and union to be perpetual in the Constitution with it's phrase about "a more perfect union." By this logic, the Declaration of Independence's statement that all men are created equal was given not just a moral force, but also Constitutional imperative. I agree with that logic. Millions in the North did, before, during, and after the war. Lincoln's politics were greatly inspired by one of the greatest statesmen, patriots, citizens, and men America has ever had, and who is shamefully not given more attention in our history education, Daniel Webster:
I fail to see how your interpretation of it changes the practical way of doing things in the decades following the declaration of independence.
You're just focusing on the part of the picture that supports your condemnation. Both the condemnation and the method to support it are simplistic. Let me say it again: After 30 years of not living up to its ideals in the area of slavery, this nation embarked on a 35-year ideological struggle resulting in a very destructive war, and the side fighting for the ideals won.
What you're saying gives no credit and no honor to the abolitionists and Unionists who struggled and fought and died for equality and unity. That is atrocious.
On April 19 2013 07:39 Mefano wrote: And still the USA are so much further from freedom than Sweden :-)
Depends on how you measure freedom. You taxation is higher in Sweden, so Americans have more freedom over their money. Also they have guns. In terms of everything else i'd tend to agree with you. As a European i see USA as the least democratic and least free country in OECD.
This may be a slight derailment, but I think the USA is the most democratic and most free country in the OECD. You have more speech restrictions, you have the highly undemocratic EU apparatus, the highest taxes, the most regulations, etc. There is no way we are last, even if we are not first, which I think we are. Maybe Iceland is freer than we are, I wouldn't be surprised if it was!
I'm not sure about that. Studies have been done which rank nations based on the potential for an individual to have meaningful political involvement or have your voice reflected in public polices, and the US ranked near the last. I'm a fan of many things in the US so don't take that as US bashing.
OP is funny considering that who are your parents is more important in US than in basically all European countries.
Anyway monarchies in Europe are about the same thing as elections being not over weekends in US. Kind of useless tradition that does not have that big of an impact on anything. Actually I would say elections not being over the weekend is bigger problem for representative democracy than constitutional monrachies, where the head of state has more symbolic than real power.
On April 19 2013 07:39 Mefano wrote: And still the USA are so much further from freedom than Sweden :-)
Depends on how you measure freedom. You taxation is higher in Sweden, so Americans have more freedom over their money. Also they have guns. In terms of everything else i'd tend to agree with you. As a European i see USA as the least democratic and least free country in OECD.
This may be a slight derailment, but I think the USA is the most democratic and most free country in the OECD. You have more speech restrictions, you have the highly undemocratic EU apparatus, the highest taxes, the most regulations, etc. There is no way we are last, even if we are not first, which I think we are. Maybe Iceland is freer than we are, I wouldn't be surprised if it was!
I'm not sure about that. Studies have been done which rank nations based on the potential for an individual to have meaningful political involvement or have your voice reflected in public polices, and the US ranked near the last. I'm a fan of many things in the US so don't take that as US bashing.
I really find those kinds of things hard to believe considering 1: The Tea Party 2: Obama's OFA organization 3: you can set up just about any kind of PAC you want these days and raise money for it without limit 4: referendums are used very frequently in the US at the state level 5: I'd have to look at how these things were measured by these studies, but quite frankly I think the facts of political participation in the US contradict them.
I'll just throw it out there : the Founding Fathers had a platonician view of the state and rejected the idea of direct democracy. I don't think their ideas are that close to the popular currents of the American public opinion and our contemporary definition of equality or freedom. The only strong idea that I feel has remained somewhat intact in the American spirit is federalism.
"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?"
This made me laugh quite a bit. Such an American point of view on Canadian history.
What if I told you from a Canadian point of view the Americans lost the war of independence? That the Brits still controlled more than half of North America? I know it's a dumb argument, but one side's capitol building got burned down, and it wasn't the Brits.
The only Canadians who want to be American are a minority in Alberta.
Also, there were no socialist options. I would have picked something on that spectrum.
On April 19 2013 08:06 Shai wrote: "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?"
This made me laugh quite a bit. Such an American point of view on Canadian history.
What if I told you from a Canadian point of view the Americans lost the war of independence? That the Brits still controlled more than half of North America? I know it's a dumb argument, but one side's capitol building got burned down, and it wasn't the Brits.
The only Canadians who want to be American are a minority in Alberta.
Also, there were no socialist options. I would have picked something on that spectrum.
You're totally right, there never were strong Canadian sentiments for Canada joining the US.
On April 19 2013 08:06 Shai wrote: "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?"
This made me laugh quite a bit. Such an American point of view on Canadian history.
What if I told you from a Canadian point of view the Americans lost the war of independence? That the Brits still controlled more than half of North America? I know it's a dumb argument, but one side's capitol building got burned down, and it wasn't the Brits.
The only Canadians who want to be American are a minority in Alberta.
Also, there were no socialist options. I would have picked something on that spectrum.
texas can have alberta. i want BC and the rest of the tree loving folk
On April 19 2013 07:39 Mefano wrote: And still the USA are so much further from freedom than Sweden :-)
Depends on how you measure freedom. You taxation is higher in Sweden, so Americans have more freedom over their money. Also they have guns. In terms of everything else i'd tend to agree with you. As a European i see USA as the least democratic and least free country in OECD.
This may be a slight derailment, but I think the USA is the most democratic and most free country in the OECD. You have more speech restrictions, you have the highly undemocratic EU apparatus, the highest taxes, the most regulations, etc. There is no way we are last, even if we are not first, which I think we are. Maybe Iceland is freer than we are, I wouldn't be surprised if it was!
That depends how you measure freedom. I get a lot for my taxes and it gives me bigger freedom than lower taxes would. EU apparatus is getting more democratic, but it is not like every official being elected is a good thing. Speech restrictions I will grant you, but they are still so minor that nobody actually cares. Regulations are like taxes, the good ones give me freedom to do what I want instead of worrying about nonsense and I would be surprised if the amount of regulations was significantly higher in EU than in US.
As for Iceland, no, just no. That is like nightmare for people who want minimal government. I love their state setup quite a lot, but I am not small government fanatic. They have a lot of regulations , definitely more free speech limitations than US, high taxes and a lot of institutions that would be called fascist by US republicans.
On April 19 2013 07:39 Mefano wrote: And still the USA are so much further from freedom than Sweden :-)
Depends on how you measure freedom. You taxation is higher in Sweden, so Americans have more freedom over their money. Also they have guns. In terms of everything else i'd tend to agree with you. As a European i see USA as the least democratic and least free country in OECD.
This may be a slight derailment, but I think the USA is the most democratic and most free country in the OECD. You have more speech restrictions, you have the highly undemocratic EU apparatus, the highest taxes, the most regulations, etc. There is no way we are last, even if we are not first, which I think we are. Maybe Iceland is freer than we are, I wouldn't be surprised if it was!
I'm not sure about that. Studies have been done which rank nations based on the potential for an individual to have meaningful political involvement or have your voice reflected in public polices, and the US ranked near the last. I'm a fan of many things in the US so don't take that as US bashing.
I really find those kinds of things hard to believe considering 1: The Tea Party 2: Obama's OFA organization 3: you can set up just about any kind of PAC you want these days and raise money for it without limit 4: referendums are used very frequently in the US at the state level 5: I'd have to look at how these things were measured by these studies, but quite frankly I think the facts of political participation in the US contradict them.
Cannot that because you are looking only at US without much knowledge about other countries ? Because those studies compare different countries, they are not saying absolute statements. US political involvement is still pretty good, no matter what.
On April 19 2013 08:06 Shai wrote: "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?"
This made me laugh quite a bit. Such an American point of view on Canadian history.
What if I told you from a Canadian point of view the Americans lost the war of independence? That the Brits still controlled more than half of North America? I know it's a dumb argument, but one side's capitol building got burned down, and it wasn't the Brits.
The only Canadians who want to be American are a minority in Alberta.
Also, there were no socialist options. I would have picked something on that spectrum.
You're totally right, there never were strong Canadian sentiments for Canada joining the US.
It was a very popular thing for American newspapers and politicians to talk about though.
There was a small contingent of US businessmen in the colony British Columbia that wanted to join the states, but they were very much in the minority. Plus Upper Canada had a fair number of Loyalists that had just fled from the States in addition to many recent British immigrants. I doubt they'd consider flipping sides. And I really think Lower Canada/French Canada never leaned American so much as independent. Amongst Upper and Lower Canadians, only the most extreme element would have considered joining the States I think.
After reading through your previous topics I dont know if you are trolling or if you are hardcore republican. Maybe you are getting payed for starting these weird topics, who knows. (If you truely believe any country is perfect then I feel sorry for you and I hope you will one day wake up.)
Why do you make threads like this? You say you think USA is the greatest country in the world, well good for you. Now step down from your high horses and look them in the teeth instead.
You name many cornerstones of the foundation of USA. Take a second and reflect on those, you might realize an ugly truth.
On April 19 2013 05:15 Iyerbeth wrote: 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.
What he said is pretty much my position. Fucking hell, I don't even mind them existing, but if I have to see the BBC debase itself with another report of William and Kate going to X place, sitting around waving, and describing to us what she was wearing when we JUST SAW it... fuck.
It's anaethema to everything else you are taught almost from birth about meritocracy being important.
On April 19 2013 05:15 Iyerbeth wrote: 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.
What he said is pretty much my position. Fucking hell, I don't even mind them existing, but if I have to see the BBC debase itself with another report of William and Kate going to X place, sitting around waving, and describing to us what she was wearing when we JUST SAW it... fuck.
It's anaethema to everything else you are taught almost from birth about meritocracy being important.
If it wasn't them, it would be a movie star or pop singer.
Ideally neither in favour of actual news and journalism. Would take a movie star or a pop singer every time though if you accept this false dichotomy as being true.
However, given where we are in history, I favor more Monarchist or Aristocratic measures in my darker moments. The truth is that a broken Federal Republic (particularly a constitutional one) cannot fix itself.
An Republic functioning on an unwritten constitution probably has a better chance of successful repair.
"In a government of laws, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipotent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. If government becomes a lawbreaker it breeds contempt for law: it invites every man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy."
I definately don't agree with the common perception that pictures monarchies as oppressive and unjust.
I think monarchy had its place in history. The Christian Monarchies of around year 1000 AD created stability and security in Europe. The Christian Monarchies was necessary for us to get out of the tribal era, to transform into organized nations, and this is the main reason why Europe eventually grew so far ahead of the rest of the world.
Back then, monarchy was necessary in order to get our societies to work towards the same cause, and it was necessary to protect the citizens from petty plunderers, but today, our societies are advanced enough that democracy has become the superior alternative.
I don't support monarchy in either form today, and if I lived in a republic I would be against reinstating a monarchy, even if it's just ceremonial. There are more important things to focus on. But I also think it's silly when ppl oppose the modern ceremonial monarchies. The king have no real power, so what's the problem? I think the best thing is to just wait and let the monarchs abdicate peacefully on their own initiative
society didn't work toward the same cause. there was just a concentration of wealth and power. the church did more in unifying society than the monarchy, and they co-evolved.
On April 19 2013 09:20 oneofthem wrote: society didn't work toward the same cause. there was just a concentration of wealth and power. the church did more in unifying society than the monarchy, and they co-evolved.
There's an argument to be made that they were equally responsible for European modernization at different periods. Early, definitely the Church. Later (late 15th century onward) Nationalism was beautiful fuel for the fires of advancement as different peoples tried to outdo each other from science and warfare to philosophy and music. Germany in particular.
On April 19 2013 09:20 oneofthem wrote: society didn't work toward the same cause. there was just a concentration of wealth and power. the church did more in unifying society than the monarchy, and they co-evolved.
There's an argument to be made that they were equally responsible for European modernization at different periods. Early, definitely the Church. Later (late 15th century onward) Nationalism was beautiful fuel for the fires of advancement as different peoples tried to outdo each other from science and warfare to philosophy and music. Germany in particular.
nationalism is quite distinct from the monarchy itself
On April 19 2013 08:49 Wombat_NI wrote: Ideally neither in favour of actual news and journalism. Would take a movie star or a pop singer every time though if you accept this false dichotomy as being true.
It's not a false dichotomy, it's called being realistic. You've got the royals on television because celebrity gossip sells. It's unfortunate, but it's also something you have to accept as long as you watch any news channel reliant on viewership numbers.
Having studied a bit of constitutional and administrative law...it's hard to say any one system is definitively better than another. Our constitutional monarchy, in which the 3 powers of state aren't properly separated, we have no written constitution and the monarch still has significant if never used powers; should on paper be in a much worse state than it is. In reality, it's actually very useful. 'Elected tyrannies' (where the legislature and the executive are fused) allow parties to fall on their sword rather than blame the other side, and give the country a more solid direction for the period of time a government is in power. Also, due to our not having a constitution and entrenched legislation, our legislative system has the potential to be faster than the constitutional countries in responding to things and we have no situation where we will have laws on the books that are outdated but extremely hard to change (ie second amendment in the US).
Of course there are plenty of benefits to being a federal republic.
Also whenever an American thinks 'isn't it weird having an unelected person in a position of power?' They should consider that really, the judges in the US Supreme Court are unelected and they have (or at least use) way more power than the Queen in England for example. They make massive differences to the country regularly. The potential for judicial activism in the US is far greater than in the UK (although on human rights issues now we do kind of have a constitution i.e. the Human Rights Act which puts the ECHR in a quasi-constitutional position).
On April 19 2013 09:20 oneofthem wrote: society didn't work toward the same cause. there was just a concentration of wealth and power. the church did more in unifying society than the monarchy, and they co-evolved.
There's an argument to be made that they were equally responsible for European modernization at different periods. Early, definitely the Church. Later (late 15th century onward) Nationalism was beautiful fuel for the fires of advancement as different peoples tried to outdo each other from science and warfare to philosophy and music. Germany in particular.
nationalism is quite distinct from the monarchy itself
Monarchies formed the basis of Nationalistic feelings (particularly in France and England) as a result of the conflation between the person of the King and the Nation itself stemming from Germanic tendencies to follow men rather than ideas or concepts. The two may be distinct today, but they certainly did not begin that way.
On April 19 2013 09:41 ControlMonkey wrote: As an Australian, I don't care that we have an un-elected Monarch as our head of state, its a largely ceremonial role.
What does bug me is that the Queen of Australia is the Queen of England. That and the fact that our flag has the union jack on it.
I'd prefer to keep the current system we have now, and transfer whatever ceremonial duties etc the Queen has to our govenor general.
I agree. Additionally, I don't think the average Australian gives a crap about the Monarch as they essentially contribute zero to our country (besides being able to compete in the Commonwealth games, woo!)
We had a referendum to become a Republic in 1999 but the question that we had to vote on was "should we become a Republic with the President appointed by Parliament. A lot of people took exception to this self-appointment part of the question and voted no.
The other thing is it would most likely result in a change to the Constitution and that is always a bit scary considering the political discourse in this country :\
On April 19 2013 10:18 sc4k wrote: Also whenever an American thinks 'isn't it weird having an unelected person in a position of power?' They should consider that really, the judges in the US Supreme Court are unelected and they have (or at least use) way more power than the Queen in England for example. They make massive differences to the country regularly. The potential for judicial activism in the US is far greater than in the UK (although on human rights issues now we do kind of have a constitution i.e. the Human Rights Act which puts the ECHR in a quasi-constitutional position).
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.
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 10:42 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.
What? With the almost incestuously close relationships between European royal families, they are hardly a bastion of native culture
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.
What? With the almost incestuously close relationships between European royal families, they are hardly a bastion of native culture
You dont know what you are talking about. Please do some research as I cant be bothered.
User was warned for this post
Fine! posting this from what I remember.
-The danish monarchy is 1000 years old (a thousand). I believe our first king was Harald Blåtand (Harald Bluetooth) and he brought christianity to the danes.
- Many wars were fought, which changed the geographical landscape. For instance, Norway was once part of Denmark and so were southern Sweden as well as parts of northern Germany. Because of that these regions have a special tie to Denmark just like Australia has a special tie to England and its in a good way (mostly).
-Many famous and cultural buildings were build by the royal family.
-Each year our queen visits Greenland and the Faroe Islands, which are part of the danish Rigsfællesskab (dont know the english word for that) and she also travels to small communities in Denmark to show her support for the locals, which matters a great deal to those people according to statistics.
Yes, the royal families are closely tied but their history is still very important from a historic and cultural POV.
Witness the Windsor rebrand from The House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Or a small TV segment I ran across yesterday showing the heir-apparent Wilhelm and his wife, who is Argentine.
As an institution, a symbol perhaps it is immune to these foreign influences and is a comfort blanket for those who have to define their identity by arbitrary symbols. Don't mean to come across as bitter or anything.
On April 19 2013 10:18 sc4k wrote: Also whenever an American thinks 'isn't it weird having an unelected person in a position of power?' They should consider that really, the judges in the US Supreme Court are unelected and they have (or at least use) way more power than the Queen in England for example. They make massive differences to the country regularly. The potential for judicial activism in the US is far greater than in the UK (although on human rights issues now we do kind of have a constitution i.e. the Human Rights Act which puts the ECHR in a quasi-constitutional position).
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.
but that's only as far as human rights questions goes. In terms of our courts overturning elections and other such shenanigans...the ECHR isn't going to do diddly squat. Also the HRA can be repealed just like any other legislation with a simple 50% majority.
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 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.
"Oddly enough, some European countries even reverted from republics to monarchies". Why is that odd? Is republicanism some how be proven to be better than any other system?
"We're a country founded on the principles of freedom, republicanism, rule of law, gun ownership, and equality for all peoples". And what? We're not? We are fundamentally racist? We have no freedom?
Honestly, I'm not try to troll here. I've been living in NY for a few years now, so I've come accustomed to most "american-ism's". The thing I can not accustom to, is your arrogance that your way of doing things is the best and the only way things should be done. That if it is different from your own, it is somehow inferior.
I could on for absolutely ages about how ridiculous your gun laws are. And how your ineffectual government can't get past corporate america and change the law to stop innocent school children being killed. But I won't. I just had to say something, as I found the OP very annoying.
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 11:26 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
For one, it gives less of a dependency on religion for social cohesion, they often make excellent diplomats because they can set aside their political beliefs more easily, not being part of any party. And I'm not sure about most other countries, but the Netherlands make a good amount of money off of them, mostly from Germany as they're the closest thing they have to a monarch (much like most Dutch themselves stem from the east German Saxons, so does the monarchy stem from Germans, albeit the Nassau region), hell, Germany has more tabloids about our royal family then we do.
Also, if you really want to abolish these symbolic monarchies on the grounds that it's not fair, you might as well abolish all family inheritance laws, give everyone the same amount of money when they're born and access to the exact same goods.
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.
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
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 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
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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 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.
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.
I don't agree that either form of inherited privilege is particularly beneficial to society or desirable, you're assuming I'm inconsistent in railing at the monarchy and giving a pass to other things, when I'm rather scathing of both.
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 11:59 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.
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?
In a perfect world, 100%, in a broken one, 0%, you'd have to be a supernatural being to be able to determine where on that chart we are and give a absolute answer. What we do know however is that our current system does not work, and it simply leads to plutocracy, so clearly we're doing something wrong and it deserves to be questioned.
Really, my main gripe with this whole idiocy is Americans trying to judge Europeans for a system of laws, that in a slightly altered version, they suffer much more from.
On April 19 2013 13:52 Wombat_NI wrote: I don't agree that either form of inherited privilege is particularly beneficial to society or desirable, you're assuming I'm inconsistent in railing at the monarchy and giving a pass to other things, when I'm rather scathing of both.
Fair enough, in an ideal world I'd favor the dissolution of royal houses as well, but in the one we live in they simply serve far more practical purposes then their costs, much like your initial statement I replied to, I havn't seen any argument that justifies completely removing them right now, perhaps if we ever reach the good ol' Gene Roddenberry-esque technocrat utopia, we can discuss this again.
Seems kinda harsh to have 100% death duties. If I do well I'm going to make damn sure my kids are taken care of when I'm gone, it's part and parcel of being a father, imo. And a strange thing to say, Wombat - any kind of taxation is an attempt to redistribute wealth, and death duties are a form of taking from the richer and using it to help provide for the poorer.
Personally, I'm not sure where I stand on death duties. On the one hand, that money could be seen as earned, why should some of it go towards the state simply because I died? My kids should inherit and decide what to do with it, surely? And it comes to some situations where the beneficiaries need to sell things like property or heirlooms to pay for the valued death duty. On the other, plenty of people simply end up inheriting the money through no ability of their own. Death duties are simply a way of making sure they are still helping those less fortunate than themselves.
But I don't think the death duties in the US are a cause of the current gross inequality of wealth. That's far more due to ridiculously low taxation and high spending enjoyed by the US (No taxes! But....we want roads, and Medicare, and Medicaid, and schools, and...), the low taxation on shares and stocks and the pathetically low minimum wages (what is it a minimum of? Because it certainly isn't the minimum amount necessary for a decent standard of living...). If you pay CEOs millions for failing companies and the cleaners get laid off from a decent wage then re-hired, part-time, with no healthcare, at minimum wage, then of course you end up with wealth inequality. Wages have stagnated while upper management and shareholders enjoy record dividends.
My point was more that rather than complain about the privileged and the opportunities open to them and resent that (as many do), it is more pressing to improve things for those who aren't privileged. Inheritance tax is part of that for sure, but equally so is taxing people a fair amount while they are alive.
On April 19 2013 15:14 BioTech wrote: Alas the United States has become an oligarchy which is far worse than any monarchy...
Witness the Wall St bail-out in the wake of the GFC.
Not one of these white collar crooks has face any charges...jail time seemingly out of the question.
Oligarchy :^(
Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning "few", and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning "to rule or to command")[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, or military control
A real monarchy is an oligarchy. You are probably looking for the word plutocracy.
While the USA *might* have been founded on ''the principles of freedom, republicanism, rule of law, gun ownership, and equality for all peoples.''. It is pretty bad at some of the above. There are a lot of countries I would much rather live in Canada, Sweden, Finland, Netherlands etc etc etc
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.
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.
Do you live in the US? I don't, but I do know a few well informed people who do and from what I know multinational companies don't have a hard time buying the politics
Oil companies - The global warming issues, Arms industry, Private prisons... I can think of a few more.
I am not saying that only the US has issues, but it shouldn't be THE ideal. You guys have a couple of countries to look up to yourselves...
Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning "few", and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning "to rule or to command")[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, or military control
A real monarchy is an oligarchy. You are probably looking for the word plutocracy.
Sorry but this is not true. Monarchy and oligarchy are two very different things, and i too agree that USA seems like an oligarchy.
I never really saw the need for a monarchy. It's a silly relic of the past. And I'm all for democracy, not for gaining status at birth.
However I like one idea about it, that it keeps nationalism away from politics. I could hate the current prime minister and still be loyal to my country since the queen, who hasn't much real political power, is the ruler.
I'm not a big fan of the monarchy actually ruling anything, but as a symbol I'm not fussed, which is a pretty common opinion I think. A British friend of mine said it best, the Monarchy only has power until they actually trying doing anything with it.
I find a "symbolic" Monarchy really, really terrible. From an ideological standpoint just as terrible as an actual Monarchy... You basically still accept that there is this "leader-class" and the "common-people" for no reason other than having an Ancestor which somehow made enough people believe that his blood was special (and slaughtering his way to power before that)...
By the way, I wouldn't want to be the king of Sweden - he may be above the law in some ways, but he does not have religious freedom. I don't view him as above anyone else, he's just another human at a specific position.
On April 19 2013 20:21 Maxie wrote: By the way, I wouldn't want to be the king of Sweden - he may be above the law in some ways, but he does not have religious freedom. I don't view him as above anyone else, he's just another human at a specific position.
Well, you do get to hang out in strip clubs with mob bosses and grope random women, which could be fun I guess.
It's kind of a funny limbo for the royal family, the live completely outside the law. They don't get to vote and their religion is decided for them from birth, yet they also have complete immunity from any criminal charges. I've lost count of how many times our cretinous wannabe-racer prince has been caught speeding or drunk driving, or both. And every time, the cops just have to let him go, they can't even stop him from continuing to drive even if he's inebriated.
On April 19 2013 20:11 Velr wrote: I find a "symbolic" Monarchy really, really terrible. From an ideological standpoint just as terrible as an actual Monarchy... You basically still accept that there is this "leader-class" and the "common-people" for no reason other than having an Ancestor which somehow made enough people believe that his blood was special (and slaughtering his way to power before that)...
Today's monarchs are more like presidents in countries where presidents are just symbolic head's of state. Those are also often just put there and citizens pay for their living expenses.
On April 19 2013 20:21 Maxie wrote: By the way, I wouldn't want to be the king of Sweden - he may be above the law in some ways, but he does not have religious freedom. I don't view him as above anyone else, he's just another human at a specific position.
Well, you do get to hang out in strip clubs with mob bosses and grope random women, which could be fun I guess.
It's kind of a funny limbo for the royal family, the live completely outside the law. They don't get to vote and their religion is decided for them from birth, yet they also have complete immunity from any criminal charges. I've lost count of how many times our cretinous wannabe-racer prince has been caught speeding or drunk driving, or both. And every time, the cops just have to let him go, they can't even stop him from continuing to drive even if he's inebriated.
Well that is actually pretty bad, why was this not changed in recent history ?
I like the concept of the nominal head of the state not being elected.
It means there is a gathering figure, that doesn`t have to go thrugh all the political system of begging rich people for money, lyeing to voters, and then having to come up with some bullshit reason why s/he can not deliver on any of the promises.
Elected heades of state mean, that only a certain kind of person, can get elected, that can go thrugh the grinder of political system. With monarchy, it is pure random, you can get a crappy monarch, that can not do shit, and would probably just resign anyway, an okayinsh one, that can do all the official stuff, parades, celebrations and such, withot fear of actually communicating with people, like the currently, always victimised and living in a sterilised intraction enviroment politicans, and hence, without having half of country activly disliking that person, or you can get a very decent person, that can have enought moral autority to have certan amount of soft power thrugh advocacy.
IMO, monarchy is a pure win, and i`m perfectly fine with spending 10-20 dollars of my taxes yearly to have monarchy.
On April 19 2013 20:21 Maxie wrote: By the way, I wouldn't want to be the king of Sweden - he may be above the law in some ways, but he does not have religious freedom. I don't view him as above anyone else, he's just another human at a specific position.
Well, you do get to hang out in strip clubs with mob bosses and grope random women, which could be fun I guess.
It's kind of a funny limbo for the royal family, the live completely outside the law. They don't get to vote and their religion is decided for them from birth, yet they also have complete immunity from any criminal charges. I've lost count of how many times our cretinous wannabe-racer prince has been caught speeding or drunk driving, or both. And every time, the cops just have to let him go, they can't even stop him from continuing to drive even if he's inebriated.
Well that is actually pretty bad, why was this not changed in recent history ?
As I sort of suggested earlier, many countries have this idea of Sweden as a very progressive and egalitarian society. That is very flattering, but unfortunately not entirely true. Try to wrap your mind around the idea that our king was the de facto head of the state with very real political influence until 1975, and that the king's totalitarian rule was inviolable until 1809.
I really think people ignore or just don't realize just how much money from tourism for example a monarchy such as the UK's brings in. On a personal note I don't know why I am such a strong royalist but one only has to witness the spectacle that happens when a royal visits a Australian city. see
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.
I'm pretty sure that at the founding of Congress, the founding fathers did not want to leave the monarchy. It wasn't until later in the war when king George was being such a dick that that changed. In the beginning, the thirteen colonies wanted a diplomatic solution to their problems much like Canada got later on.
On April 19 2013 21:04 naastyOne wrote: I like the concept of the nominal head of the state not being elected.
It means there is a gathering figure, that doesn`t have to go thrugh all the political system of begging rich people for money, lyeing to voters, and then having to come up with some bullshit reason why s/he can not deliver on any of the promises.
Elected heades of state mean, that only a certain kind of person, can get elected, that can go thrugh the grinder of political system. With monarchy, it is pure random, you can get a crappy monarch, that can not do shit, and would probably just resign anyway, an okayinsh one, that can do all the official stuff, parades, celebrations and such, withot fear of actually communicating with people, like the currently, always victimised and living in a sterilised intraction enviroment politicans, and hence, without having half of country activly disliking that person, or you can get a very decent person, that can have enought moral autority to have certan amount of soft power thrugh advocacy.
IMO, monarchy is a pure win, and i`m perfectly fine with spending 10-20 dollars of my taxes yearly to have monarchy.
You can get that also without monarchy. A lot of European countries has basically purely symbolical presidents that are quite often not elected, at least not directly and are supposed to be apolitical.
On April 19 2013 21:04 naastyOne wrote: I like the concept of the nominal head of the state not being elected.
It means there is a gathering figure, that doesn`t have to go thrugh all the political system of begging rich people for money, lyeing to voters, and then having to come up with some bullshit reason why s/he can not deliver on any of the promises.
Elected heades of state mean, that only a certain kind of person, can get elected, that can go thrugh the grinder of political system. With monarchy, it is pure random, you can get a crappy monarch, that can not do shit, and would probably just resign anyway, an okayinsh one, that can do all the official stuff, parades, celebrations and such, withot fear of actually communicating with people, like the currently, always victimised and living in a sterilised intraction enviroment politicans, and hence, without having half of country activly disliking that person, or you can get a very decent person, that can have enought moral autority to have certan amount of soft power thrugh advocacy.
IMO, monarchy is a pure win, and i`m perfectly fine with spending 10-20 dollars of my taxes yearly to have monarchy.
You can get that also without monarchy. A lot of European countries has basically purely symbolical presidents that are quite often not elected, at least not directly and are supposed to be apolitical.
You actually missed the point about monarchs personality having much bigger varriance, did you not?
On April 19 2013 21:51 cozzE wrote: Royalism is the epitome of stupidity. Seriously.
Just because you say so?
On April 19 2013 21:51 cozzE wrote: It baffles the mind that people are pro-monarchy in the Western world.. guess the extreme religious right-wing or laziness does that.
And let me guess, despite your less than impressive demonstrated intelectual capacity, you still get to vote. That, is epitome of stupidity, to give power to influence society, to person that jumps to idiotic conclusions without even trying to figure out the reasoning of another side, by just dissmising it as stupid, since more often than not, calling something stupid just shows your lack of understanding, and desire to learn, prefering to stick to dogmatic prejudice.
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.
On April 19 2013 23:11 sc2superfan101 wrote: At least in terms of survival, Republics have a long way to go before they can truly say to be more efficacious than monarchies.
That's not really a fair comparison though. Human beings have a long way to go before we can say we are more efficacious than dinosaurs in terms of survival, but I would contend that we've already exceeded them in many ways. The idea of the modern republic(post greek/roman republics) is fairly young and still in development.
On April 19 2013 23:11 sc2superfan101 wrote: At least in terms of survival, Republics have a long way to go before they can truly say to be more efficacious than monarchies.
That's not really a fair comparison though. Human beings have a long way to go before we can say we are more efficacious than dinosaurs in terms of survival, but I would contend that we've already exceeded them in many ways. The idea of the modern republic(post greek/roman republics) is fairly young and still in development.
That's a good point, but I still contend that there is some argument to be had over the long-term benefits of having a democratic Republic over a monarchy. Obviously I prefer the former, but that's more because in theory the democratic Republic can function better in the modern world. But I wonder if democratic Republics, in the long run, will turn out to actually be more beneficial to the well-being and safety of the average citizen.
The OP is incredibly dumb, just phenomenally stupid. You do realise than none of the European monarchies have any power at all right, like absolutely none whatsoever to do anything related to politics.
All they are is a hereditary rich family who bring in money to the country, an awful lot like the hereditary rich families America is full of, only ours actually give money back to the people.
On April 19 2013 20:11 Velr wrote: I find a "symbolic" Monarchy really, really terrible. From an ideological standpoint just as terrible as an actual Monarchy... You basically still accept that there is this "leader-class" and the "common-people" for no reason other than having an Ancestor which somehow made enough people believe that his blood was special (and slaughtering his way to power before that)...
Today's monarchs are more like presidents in countries where presidents are just symbolic head's of state. Those are also often just put there and citizens pay for their living expenses.
yeah. The point is to have someone who's not part of any parties, who doesn't have a clash of conflicts somewhere "in there" who's able to publicly call politicians dickheads if they're being dickheads (especially when on purpose), no matter of their party or standpoint. I like the german version better for it's symbolics but it's more likely to be flawed than the pseudo-monarchies in europe. Someone like a "king" or "queen" who has all his powers taken away from him or her, who isn't in any kind of party is more likely neutral when settleling disputes then an ex-politician.
On April 19 2013 23:11 sc2superfan101 wrote: At least in terms of survival, Republics have a long way to go before they can truly say to be more efficacious than monarchies.
That's not really a fair comparison though. Human beings have a long way to go before we can say we are more efficacious than dinosaurs in terms of survival, but I would contend that we've already exceeded them in many ways. The idea of the modern republic(post greek/roman republics) is fairly young and still in development.
That's a good point, but I still contend that there is some argument to be had over the long-term benefits of having a democratic Republic over a monarchy. Obviously I prefer the former, but that's more because in theory the democratic Republic can function better in the modern world. But I wonder if democratic Republics, in the long run, will turn out to actually be more beneficial to the well-being and safety of the average citizen.
On that, I have no idea, and I doubt any of us will live long enough to find out. Ultimately demoracy might be a more vulnerable system because it has more variables. One of the basic points required for a democracy to function is to have a population that is at least moderately politically literate. It takes more people who aren't dumb or ignorant, basically. Otherwise they will just end up voting for whoever is the best demagogue, or backed by the most powerful special interests. A corporate oligarchy, in effect.
The increased political apathy, especially among young people, could become a serious problem if in the long run it turns that you no longer have to convince voters with your policies and merits, but rather with flash and ingratiating rethoric. Maybe I'm naive, but I think innate human intelligence will allow us to have functioning democracies in the future.
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.
On April 19 2013 23:47 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote: The OP is incredibly dumb, just phenomenally stupid. You do realise than none of the European monarchies have any power at all right, like absolutely none whatsoever to do anything related to politics.
All they are is a hereditary rich family who bring in money to the country, an awful lot like the hereditary rich families America is full of, only ours actually give money back to the people.
So many people posting their opinions with little or no knowlege on the subject, including the OP.
Those saying 'the taxpayer picks up the bill for their party lifestyle,' are so far from the truth it's hard to comprehend.
(in the UK) The monarchy is profitable for the taxpayers. The royal family pay more in tax than they receive. Abolishing the monarchy would make no real difference to the average citizen, since they cost us nothing and have absolutely no power in politics.
Their 'party lifestyle,' consists of more dedicated hardwork than 99% of state employed diplomats. Prince Philip, who is 90 years old, in 2011 had over 450 royal appointments. They work almost every day until the day they die with the worlds eyes upon them. They might live in some fancy palaces and have some nice stuff, but I wouldn't personally trade places with them.
There are some great arguments against monarchy, most of them in this thread are irrelevant, wrong or downright stupid.
Its not about political apathy its more that the young generation cant pull up any relevant numbers in many countries. pensioners are voting leaders, young people just cant bring up the pure numbers to even compete. In some countries more true then in others. And older people generally want constancy and thats what they voting for.
Btw, monarchy is a luxury you want to afford or not. There is no power behind monarchy in Europe. Families born to rule...well thats what I see in USA much more then in EU. Even biggest retards with the right family Name can be President.
On April 19 2013 23:47 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote: The OP is incredibly dumb, just phenomenally stupid. You do realise than none of the European monarchies have any power at all right, like absolutely none whatsoever to do anything related to politics.
All they are is a hereditary rich family who bring in money to the country, an awful lot like the hereditary rich families America is full of, only ours actually give money back to the people.
Lichtenstein!
it's not often that lichtenstein pops up in general conversation. well done guys!
On April 20 2013 00:14 tadL wrote: Its not about political apathy its more that the young generation cant pull up any relevant numbers in many countries. pensioners are voting leaders, young people just cant bring up the pure numbers to even compete. In some countries more true then in others. And older people generally want constancy and thats what they voting for.
Btw, monarchy is a luxury you want to afford or not. There is no power behind monarchy in Europe. Families born to rule...well thats what I see in USA much more then in EU. Even biggest retards with the right family Name can be President.
And the reason young people are outnumbered at the voting both is...?
This was very confusing, I'm not sure what the point was.
On April 19 2013 21:04 naastyOne wrote: I like the concept of the nominal head of the state not being elected.
It means there is a gathering figure, that doesn`t have to go thrugh all the political system of begging rich people for money, lyeing to voters, and then having to come up with some bullshit reason why s/he can not deliver on any of the promises.
Elected heades of state mean, that only a certain kind of person, can get elected, that can go thrugh the grinder of political system. With monarchy, it is pure random, you can get a crappy monarch, that can not do shit, and would probably just resign anyway, an okayinsh one, that can do all the official stuff, parades, celebrations and such, withot fear of actually communicating with people, like the currently, always victimised and living in a sterilised intraction enviroment politicans, and hence, without having half of country activly disliking that person, or you can get a very decent person, that can have enought moral autority to have certan amount of soft power thrugh advocacy.
IMO, monarchy is a pure win, and i`m perfectly fine with spending 10-20 dollars of my taxes yearly to have monarchy.
You can get that also without monarchy. A lot of European countries has basically purely symbolical presidents that are quite often not elected, at least not directly and are supposed to be apolitical.
You actually missed the point about monarchs personality having much bigger varriance, did you not?
I did not, I considered it to be a con of the monarchy. In the system I am describing the person selected for presidency is someone who is liked by the public and already demonstrated qualities to be a good president (ideally). In monarchy you get random genetic mix and you are stuck with it.
The reason Brits and several other countries stick with monarchs is the oldest reason in the world: it works well enough not to worry about. Citizens of countries across the world have lots and lots of problems with how their countries are run. If a monarch doesn't cause many problems which actually affect people's lives (and most of the objections to monarchies are undeniably abstract - not that this makes them wrong) then there is no momentum for replacing them. Even people who oppose them by and large have it as a much lower priority than stuff which causes real life problems (education policy or whatever) and since large populations can't deal with all their problems simultaneously they simply ignore the less urgent issues. I don't blame them, frankly.
On April 19 2013 23:11 sc2superfan101 wrote: At least in terms of survival, Republics have a long way to go before they can truly say to be more efficacious than monarchies.
That's not really a fair comparison though. Human beings have a long way to go before we can say we are more efficacious than dinosaurs in terms of survival, but I would contend that we've already exceeded them in many ways. The idea of the modern republic(post greek/roman republics) is fairly young and still in development.
That's a good point, but I still contend that there is some argument to be had over the long-term benefits of having a democratic Republic over a monarchy. Obviously I prefer the former, but that's more because in theory the democratic Republic can function better in the modern world. But I wonder if democratic Republics, in the long run, will turn out to actually be more beneficial to the well-being and safety of the average citizen.
Considering that all first world countries that are monarchies are constitutional monarchies and in reality democracies I would say experimental data seem to suggest that for one reason or another democracies are a good choice If you actually want to differentiate between democratic republics, democratic monarchies and parliamentary democracies I think there is not much to say as differences between them are overshadowed by other differences in justice systems, ... . One of them is probably better than the others, and my guess would be that parliamentary democracies are that one, but I think in current practice there are so many more important things that decide about well-being of a nation that this will need to be left for future generations to decide.
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.
Why wouldn't we want to have a monarchy here? it's rare, it's cool, it's great publicity and tourism, it's part of our county'ies thousand year old history. The royal represent the country within foreign relations and such.
On April 19 2013 23:47 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote: The OP is incredibly dumb, just phenomenally stupid. You do realise than none of the European monarchies have any power at all right, like absolutely none whatsoever to do anything related to politics.
All they are is a hereditary rich family who bring in money to the country, an awful lot like the hereditary rich families America is full of, only ours actually give money back to the people.
Lichtenstein!
Also Monaco ? I think that proves Europe is actually ruled by aristocrats and we all love it.
The notion is actually funny, as Europe has extremely long history of violently disposing of aristocrats. Some countries have national identity nearly built around that.
On April 19 2013 23:11 sc2superfan101 wrote: At least in terms of survival, Republics have a long way to go before they can truly say to be more efficacious than monarchies.
That's not really a fair comparison though. Human beings have a long way to go before we can say we are more efficacious than dinosaurs in terms of survival, but I would contend that we've already exceeded them in many ways. The idea of the modern republic(post greek/roman republics) is fairly young and still in development.
That's a good point, but I still contend that there is some argument to be had over the long-term benefits of having a democratic Republic over a monarchy. Obviously I prefer the former, but that's more because in theory the democratic Republic can function better in the modern world. But I wonder if democratic Republics, in the long run, will turn out to actually be more beneficial to the well-being and safety of the average citizen.
Considering that all first world countries that are monarchies are constitutional monarchies and in reality democracies I would say experimental data seem to suggest that for one reason or another democracies are a good choice If you actually want to differentiate between democratic republics, democratic monarchies and parliamentary democracies I think there is not much to say as differences between them are overshadowed by other differences in justice systems, ... . One of them is probably better than the others, and my guess would be that parliamentary republics are that one, but I think in current practice there are so many more important things that decide about well-being of a nation that this will need to be left for future generations to decide.
I was more talking about actual monarchies versus practical democracies.
On April 19 2013 23:11 sc2superfan101 wrote: At least in terms of survival, Republics have a long way to go before they can truly say to be more efficacious than monarchies.
That's not really a fair comparison though. Human beings have a long way to go before we can say we are more efficacious than dinosaurs in terms of survival, but I would contend that we've already exceeded them in many ways. The idea of the modern republic(post greek/roman republics) is fairly young and still in development.
That's a good point, but I still contend that there is some argument to be had over the long-term benefits of having a democratic Republic over a monarchy. Obviously I prefer the former, but that's more because in theory the democratic Republic can function better in the modern world. But I wonder if democratic Republics, in the long run, will turn out to actually be more beneficial to the well-being and safety of the average citizen.
Considering that all first world countries that are monarchies are constitutional monarchies and in reality democracies I would say experimental data seem to suggest that for one reason or another democracies are a good choice If you actually want to differentiate between democratic republics, democratic monarchies and parliamentary democracies I think there is not much to say as differences between them are overshadowed by other differences in justice systems, ... . One of them is probably better than the others, and my guess would be that parliamentary republics are that one, but I think in current practice there are so many more important things that decide about well-being of a nation that this will need to be left for future generations to decide.
I was more talking about actual monarchies versus practical democracies.
In that case you can probably theoretically argue for the virtues of monarchy, but you won't find any between first world countries. And that is in my opinion quite telling.
A monarch + Prime minister is in general a lot less expensive than a president, plus they are great diplomats/representatives of the Danish people, especially in Asia were they are worth their own weight in gold in terms of branding "fairy tale" Denmark.
With the current political situation in Denmark, I would rather trust our queen than any of the politicians because as we all know, all politicians are lying deceitful bastards. :D
In theory our monarch has to approve/sign all laws, but in practice, everything passed in the parliament gets auto-signed.
Stossel said it best for me regarding a monarchy: "I might not mind presidents behaving like kings -- if they at least made the tough decisions that the government needs to make..." I'd be okay with a monarch if the monarch that ruled were perfectly good. I've too much of a fear that those blessed with "royalty" could too easily gain more and more power and retain tyrannies.
I've always wanted to entertain the idea of a classical republic. But for an entire nation, I don't see it working out well; it's just an idea for the small community I happen to live in. I have to stick to libertarian-conservative principles in general.
Decent enough OP, by the way. I see a little too much bias, but your polls are solid and you explain your opinions to some length.
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'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.
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
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.
This, just in Denmark also. We have modern monarchs.
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 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.
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 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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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...
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.
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 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 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 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 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.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
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?"
Because when a society can point to a group of people, no matter how small, and say "you are negligible", it becomes incredibly easy to then take all of their things, use them for labor, and then kill them off in droves, which is precisely what happened.
Scot stuck in the UK (atleast for the time being...)
Elizabeth and the rest of her family of parasites are depressingly popular the further south you head in the UK.
There's something about putting a golden hat on someone with an ancestry of murderous dictators that makes certain people go weak at the knees, compelling them to bow
On April 19 2013 05:38 Kukaracha wrote: Strong republican here.
Though the French approach to republicanism is too latin in my eyes. I'd very much appreciate some nordic rigour... as the Republic is a sacred, superhuman entity that transcends the individual will, and our only hope and goal is to serve it as we would serve mankind itself.
Let impure blood water our furrows!
I've always suspected we were on the wrong side of history in the Napoleonic wars...
On April 20 2013 02:39 Asymmetric wrote: Scot stuck in the UK (atleast for the time being...)
Elizabeth and the rest of her family of parasites are depressingly popular the further south you head in the UK.
There's something about putting a golden hat on someone with an ancestry of murderous dictators that makes certain people go weak at the knees, compelling them to bow
On April 19 2013 05:38 Kukaracha wrote: Strong republican here.
Though the French approach to republicanism is too latin in my eyes. I'd very much appreciate some nordic rigour... as the Republic is a sacred, superhuman entity that transcends the individual will, and our only hope and goal is to serve it as we would serve mankind itself.
Let impure blood water our furrows!
I've always suspected we were on the wrong side of history in the Napoleonic wars...
On April 20 2013 02:39 Asymmetric wrote: Scot stuck in the UK (atleast for the time being...)
Elizabeth and the rest of her family of parasites are depressingly popular the further south you head in the UK.
There's something about putting a golden hat on someone with an ancestry of murderous dictators that makes certain people go weak at the knees, compelling them to bow
Well at least you have Prince Charlie to look forward to when Lizzy bites the dust. Oh wait...
On April 20 2013 02:39 Asymmetric wrote: Scot stuck in the UK (atleast for the time being...)
Elizabeth and the rest of her family of parasites are depressingly popular the further south you head in the UK.
There's something about putting a golden hat on someone with an ancestry of murderous dictators that makes certain people go weak at the knees, compelling them to bow
On April 19 2013 05:38 Kukaracha wrote: Strong republican here.
Though the French approach to republicanism is too latin in my eyes. I'd very much appreciate some nordic rigour... as the Republic is a sacred, superhuman entity that transcends the individual will, and our only hope and goal is to serve it as we would serve mankind itself.
Let impure blood water our furrows!
I've always suspected we were on the wrong side of history in the Napoleonic wars...
What do you mean by this?
Let impure blood water our furrows!
Is the translated English lyrics to La Marseillaise, the French National Anthem, which was written during the wars of revolution against monarchies across Europe.
I am postulating that Scotland, Europe and the World may have been better off had Napoleon actually emerged victorious against Tsarist Russia, The British Empire, Prussia, Austro-Hungary and 30 or so other European nations France was locked in war against.
It's a big if of course. Napoleon was a blatant megalomaniac but at least the man got to where he was on talent and merit and was largely responsible for shaping much of modern Europe's civil institutions. He was certainly no Hitler and no worst than that generation of rulers.
Hell the American's supported him from the sidelines and if there's one thing Hollywood has ever taught me it's that US = Good guys. And with that faultless logic I rest my case.
On April 20 2013 02:39 Asymmetric wrote: Scot stuck in the UK (atleast for the time being...)
Elizabeth and the rest of her family of parasites are depressingly popular the further south you head in the UK.
There's something about putting a golden hat on someone with an ancestry of murderous dictators that makes certain people go weak at the knees, compelling them to bow
On April 19 2013 05:38 Kukaracha wrote: Strong republican here.
Though the French approach to republicanism is too latin in my eyes. I'd very much appreciate some nordic rigour... as the Republic is a sacred, superhuman entity that transcends the individual will, and our only hope and goal is to serve it as we would serve mankind itself.
Let impure blood water our furrows!
I've always suspected we were on the wrong side of history in the Napoleonic wars...
What do you mean by this?
That Scotland, Europe and the World may have been better off had Napoleon actually emerged victorious against Tsarist Russia, The British Empire, Prussia, Austro-Hungary and 30 or so other European nations France was locked in war against.
It's a big if of course. Napoleon was a blatant megalomaniac but at least the man got to where he was on talent and merit and was largely responsible for shaping much of modern Europe's civil institutions.. He was certainly no Hitler.
Hell the American's supported him from the sidelines and if there's one thing Hollywood has ever taught me it's that US = Good guys.
Haha fair enough. Though I must say you've discounted the tragic storm that would have shredded Napoleon's fleet had he attempted to cross the English Channel!
On April 20 2013 02:39 Asymmetric wrote: Scot stuck in the UK (atleast for the time being...)
Elizabeth and the rest of her family of parasites are depressingly popular the further south you head in the UK.
There's something about putting a golden hat on someone with an ancestry of murderous dictators that makes certain people go weak at the knees, compelling them to bow
Well at least you have Prince Charlie to look forward to when Lizzy bites the dust. Oh wait...
Fancy pushing our monarchy under the bus saying as you're game to do it for yours?
Ideally a routemaster bus (see below). Two iconic but otherwise outdated British institutions coming together, almost poetic.
On April 20 2013 02:39 Asymmetric wrote: Scot stuck in the UK (atleast for the time being...)
Elizabeth and the rest of her family of parasites are depressingly popular the further south you head in the UK.
There's something about putting a golden hat on someone with an ancestry of murderous dictators that makes certain people go weak at the knees, compelling them to bow
Well at least you have Prince Charlie to look forward to when Lizzy bites the dust. Oh wait...
Fancy pushing our monarchy under the bus saying as you're game to do it for yours?
Ideally a routemaster bus (see below). Two iconic but otherwise outdated British institutions coming together, almost poetic.
Can I hide out at your place until the heat dies off? I don't eat much and my bodily odour issues are quite managable.
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.
True, Goering was the man really in charge of the Four Year Plan. Hitler really was not a fan of the pogroms as well. They were costing German insurance companies a lot of money in claims. He was angry with Goebbels about that. As far as the short-sighted nature of National Socialist economics, I'm sincerely interested in some sources if you wouldn't mind listing them. I have read a great deal about Goering, but unfortunately it rarely goes into great detail regarding his economic policies, except for his acquisition of several industrial concerns (something which I think Hitler absolutely should not have allowed, and should have stripped him of the rank of Reichsmarshall for that).
The Anschluss was not even on Hitler's radar for a long time. It was something of an afterthought at the time, but he did it due to the enormous enthusiasm there for National Socialism. And taking Sudetenland was largely motivated by oppression of the German majority-minority there. Same reason he took back West Prussia from the poles. Women in Danzig and all along the Polish corridor were being raped and murdered by the Polish military. This mostly per David Irving. Especially with regard to the German territory the Poles had occupied post-1918, Hitler was extremely interested in a joint war using the German and Austrian militaries in a short war against Poland to help the military commands, as well as the national sentiments of the two nations, to fuse together. Which he accomplished, although things got out of hand when Churchill started landing troops.
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?"
Because when a society can point to a group of people, no matter how small, and say "you are negligible", it becomes incredibly easy to then take all of their things, use them for labor, and then kill them off in droves, which is precisely what happened.
Well, what period of time are we talking about here? You seem to be locked into 1941-1943, and I'm talking about 1933-1939. There are HUGE differences in policy, made possible thanks to the intervention of England and France.
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.
True, Goering was the man really in charge of the Four Year Plan. Hitler really was not a fan of the pogroms as well. They were costing German insurance companies a lot of money in claims. He was angry with Goebbels about that. As far as the short-sighted nature of National Socialist economics, I'm sincerely interested in some sources if you wouldn't mind listing them. I have read a great deal about Goering, but unfortunately it rarely goes into great detail regarding his economic policies, except for his acquisition of several industrial concerns (something which I think Hitler absolutely should not have allowed, and should have stripped him of the rank of Reichsmarshall for that).
The Anschluss was not even on Hitler's radar for a long time. It was something of an afterthought at the time, but he did it due to the enormous enthusiasm there for National Socialism. And taking Sudetenland was largely motivated by oppression of the German majority-minority there. Same reason he took back West Prussia from the poles. Women in Danzig and all along the Polish corridor were being raped and murdered by the Polish military. This mostly per David Irving. Especially with regard to the German territory the Poles had occupied post-1918, Hitler was extremely interested in a joint war using the German and Austrian militaries in a short war against Poland to help the military commands, as well as the national sentiments of the two nations, to fuse together. Which he accomplished, although things got out of hand when Churchill started landing troops.
That is some impressive revisionism of history. Hitler was not a victim of circumstance.
When Bavarian beer halls rang with his speeches long before he ever tasted power he spoke of Lebensraum
Never ending expansion for the Aryan Race was his goal from the beginning and he never hid it.
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.
True, Goering was the man really in charge of the Four Year Plan. Hitler really was not a fan of the pogroms as well. They were costing German insurance companies a lot of money in claims. He was angry with Goebbels about that. As far as the short-sighted nature of National Socialist economics, I'm sincerely interested in some sources if you wouldn't mind listing them. I have read a great deal about Goering, but unfortunately it rarely goes into great detail regarding his economic policies, except for his acquisition of several industrial concerns (something which I think Hitler absolutely should not have allowed, and should have stripped him of the rank of Reichsmarshall for that).
The Anschluss was not even on Hitler's radar for a long time. It was something of an afterthought at the time, but he did it due to the enormous enthusiasm there for National Socialism. And taking Sudetenland was largely motivated by oppression of the German majority-minority there. Same reason he took back West Prussia from the poles. Women in Danzig and all along the Polish corridor were being raped and murdered by the Polish military. This mostly per David Irving. Especially with regard to the German territory the Poles had occupied post-1918, Hitler was extremely interested in a joint war using the German and Austrian militaries in a short war against Poland to help the military commands, as well as the national sentiments of the two nations, to fuse together. Which he accomplished, although things got out of hand when Churchill started landing troops.
That is some impressive revisionism of history. Hitler was not a victim of circumstance.
When Bavarian beer halls rang with his speeches long before he ever tasted power he spoke of Lebensraum
Never ending expansion for the Aryan Race was his goal from the beginning and he never hid it.
Of course, but only as the population would support the territory gains. His only major territorial ambition was Czechoslovakia and western Poland. That would have given the German population enough territory for a couple of centuries. All other territorial concerns would be for future generations, as far as Hitler was concerned. The circumstances of the war once it got out of hand made it so that Hitler had to secure a lot of strategic positions, so he ended up taking over a lot of territory that he never initially planned for. There are a few speeches and conversations where Hitler explicity says that what became World War II was far beyond anything he had imagined, as he had hoped to spend most of his time not as a war leader, but as a peacetime leader working to build up Germany domestically. All through Mein Kampf and especially his "Secret Book" England is seen as Germany's natural ally.
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.
True, Goering was the man really in charge of the Four Year Plan. Hitler really was not a fan of the pogroms as well. They were costing German insurance companies a lot of money in claims. He was angry with Goebbels about that. As far as the short-sighted nature of National Socialist economics, I'm sincerely interested in some sources if you wouldn't mind listing them. I have read a great deal about Goering, but unfortunately it rarely goes into great detail regarding his economic policies, except for his acquisition of several industrial concerns (something which I think Hitler absolutely should not have allowed, and should have stripped him of the rank of Reichsmarshall for that).
The Anschluss was not even on Hitler's radar for a long time. It was something of an afterthought at the time, but he did it due to the enormous enthusiasm there for National Socialism. And taking Sudetenland was largely motivated by oppression of the German majority-minority there. Same reason he took back West Prussia from the poles. Women in Danzig and all along the Polish corridor were being raped and murdered by the Polish military. This mostly per David Irving. Especially with regard to the German territory the Poles had occupied post-1918, Hitler was extremely interested in a joint war using the German and Austrian militaries in a short war against Poland to help the military commands, as well as the national sentiments of the two nations, to fuse together. Which he accomplished, although things got out of hand when Churchill started landing troops.
That is some impressive revisionism of history. Hitler was not a victim of circumstance.
When Bavarian beer halls rang with his speeches long before he ever tasted power he spoke of Lebensraum
Never ending expansion for the Aryan Race was his goal from the beginning and he never hid it.
Of course, but only as the population would support the territory gains. His only major territorial ambition was Czechoslovakia and western Poland. That would have given the German population enough territory for a couple of centuries. All other territorial concerns would be for future generations, as far as Hitler was concerned. The circumstances of the war once it got out of hand made it so that Hitler had to secure a lot of strategic positions, so he ended up taking over a lot of territory that he never initially planned for. There are a few speeches and conversations where Hitler explicity says that what became World War II was far beyond anything he had imagined, as he had hoped to spend most of his time not as a war leader, but as a peacetime leader working to build up Germany domestically. All through Mein Kampf and especially his "Secret Book" England is seen as Germany's natural ally.
And the Greater German Reich was just an afterthought? I'm enthralled by your revisionism.
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.
True, Goering was the man really in charge of the Four Year Plan. Hitler really was not a fan of the pogroms as well. They were costing German insurance companies a lot of money in claims. He was angry with Goebbels about that. As far as the short-sighted nature of National Socialist economics, I'm sincerely interested in some sources if you wouldn't mind listing them. I have read a great deal about Goering, but unfortunately it rarely goes into great detail regarding his economic policies, except for his acquisition of several industrial concerns (something which I think Hitler absolutely should not have allowed, and should have stripped him of the rank of Reichsmarshall for that).
The Anschluss was not even on Hitler's radar for a long time. It was something of an afterthought at the time, but he did it due to the enormous enthusiasm there for National Socialism. And taking Sudetenland was largely motivated by oppression of the German majority-minority there. Same reason he took back West Prussia from the poles. Women in Danzig and all along the Polish corridor were being raped and murdered by the Polish military. This mostly per David Irving. Especially with regard to the German territory the Poles had occupied post-1918, Hitler was extremely interested in a joint war using the German and Austrian militaries in a short war against Poland to help the military commands, as well as the national sentiments of the two nations, to fuse together. Which he accomplished, although things got out of hand when Churchill started landing troops.
That is some impressive revisionism of history. Hitler was not a victim of circumstance.
When Bavarian beer halls rang with his speeches long before he ever tasted power he spoke of Lebensraum
Never ending expansion for the Aryan Race was his goal from the beginning and he never hid it.
Of course, but only as the population would support the territory gains. His only major territorial ambition was Czechoslovakia and western Poland. That would have given the German population enough territory for a couple of centuries. All other territorial concerns would be for future generations, as far as Hitler was concerned. The circumstances of the war once it got out of hand made it so that Hitler had to secure a lot of strategic positions, so he ended up taking over a lot of territory that he never initially planned for. There are a few speeches and conversations where Hitler explicity says that what became World War II was far beyond anything he had imagined, as he had hoped to spend most of his time not as a war leader, but as a peacetime leader working to build up Germany domestically. All through Mein Kampf and especially his "Secret Book" England is seen as Germany's natural ally.
And the Greater German Reich was just an afterthought? I'm enthralled by your revisionism.
It's often overlooked that Hitler was not just a political leader. He was also a philosopher. He had a vision for the next 1000 years. And never in his writing did he target western Europe, except for reclaiming the Rhineland, the Ruhr, and Alsace-Lorraine. South Tyrol he was willing to let the Italians keep. His immediate territorial goal for his lifetime was western Poland and German Czechoslovakia ("Hitler's Secret Book"). In the decades and centuries to come, he would have liked to see a German empire expand to the east, while in the process eliminating Bolshevism. Stalin short-circuited this vision by massing troops and tank divisions in eastern Poland, prompting Hitler to respond. (closed-door meeting in 1944 I think with Carl Mannerheim, president of Finland, of which an audio tape exists)
Guys, I'm not making this stuff up, it comes from Hitler's own mouth in private conversations, as well as war documents, and his own writings on the Third Reich.
On April 20 2013 04:51 Quincel wrote: I'm more impressed by the idea that conquering 'only' Czechslovakia and half of Poland would have been somehow 'OK'.
The territory he wanted back was German anyway up until Versailles gave it to the Poles. It used to be West Prussia. Just taking back stolen land.
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.
True, Goering was the man really in charge of the Four Year Plan. Hitler really was not a fan of the pogroms as well. They were costing German insurance companies a lot of money in claims. He was angry with Goebbels about that. As far as the short-sighted nature of National Socialist economics, I'm sincerely interested in some sources if you wouldn't mind listing them. I have read a great deal about Goering, but unfortunately it rarely goes into great detail regarding his economic policies, except for his acquisition of several industrial concerns (something which I think Hitler absolutely should not have allowed, and should have stripped him of the rank of Reichsmarshall for that).
The Anschluss was not even on Hitler's radar for a long time. It was something of an afterthought at the time, but he did it due to the enormous enthusiasm there for National Socialism. And taking Sudetenland was largely motivated by oppression of the German majority-minority there. Same reason he took back West Prussia from the poles. Women in Danzig and all along the Polish corridor were being raped and murdered by the Polish military. This mostly per David Irving. Especially with regard to the German territory the Poles had occupied post-1918, Hitler was extremely interested in a joint war using the German and Austrian militaries in a short war against Poland to help the military commands, as well as the national sentiments of the two nations, to fuse together. Which he accomplished, although things got out of hand when Churchill started landing troops.
That is some impressive revisionism of history. Hitler was not a victim of circumstance.
When Bavarian beer halls rang with his speeches long before he ever tasted power he spoke of Lebensraum
Never ending expansion for the Aryan Race was his goal from the beginning and he never hid it.
Of course, but only as the population would support the territory gains. His only major territorial ambition was Czechoslovakia and western Poland. That would have given the German population enough territory for a couple of centuries. All other territorial concerns would be for future generations, as far as Hitler was concerned. The circumstances of the war once it got out of hand made it so that Hitler had to secure a lot of strategic positions, so he ended up taking over a lot of territory that he never initially planned for. There are a few speeches and conversations where Hitler explicity says that what became World War II was far beyond anything he had imagined, as he had hoped to spend most of his time not as a war leader, but as a peacetime leader working to build up Germany domestically. All through Mein Kampf and especially his "Secret Book" England is seen as Germany's natural ally.
And the Greater German Reich was just an afterthought? I'm enthralled by your revisionism.
It's often overlooked that Hitler was not just a political leader. He was also a philosopher. He had a vision for the next 1000 years. And never in his writing did he target western Europe, except for reclaiming the Rhineland, the Ruhr, and Alsace-Lorraine. South Tyrol he was willing to let the Italians keep. His immediate territorial goal for his lifetime was western Poland and German Czechoslovakia ("Hitler's Secret Book"). In the decades and centuries to come, he would have liked to see a German empire expand to the east, while in the process eliminating Bolshevism. Stalin short-circuited this vision by massing troops and tank divisions in eastern Poland, prompting Hitler to respond. (closed-door meeting in 1944 I think with Carl Mannerheim, president of Finland, of which an audio tape exists)
Guys, I'm not making this stuff up, it comes from Hitler's own mouth in private conversations, as well as war documents, and his own writings on the Third Reich.
You may not be making this up but David Irwing, Pat Buchanan and all the other revisionist are making it up and you're just lapping it up hook, line, and sinker. This idea that Hitler was somehow a misunderstood genius who if only left alone would have created the great Germanian Utopia and everything that went wrong in the 30's and 40's is to be blamed on Churchill and Stalin is ridiculous and has been proven wrong and rejected many many times. If Hitler really only wanted a little piece of Poland and nothing else (and as others have pointed it out even if this were true how does that make it okay?) then why was Barberossa being planned even before Hitler invaded Poland? And Hitler has always said that his main goal in life was to defeat Bolshevism. How do you propose he do that without invading Russia? And of course dont' forget that Germany desperately needed the oil fields and other resources in the Ural. But please tell me how none of these things were his fault again?
Quite honestly I highly suspect arguing with you is quite pointless as I imagine you have heard all these arguments before and I'm sure you have 1000 refutations that are all in Hitler's secret writings that the mainstream historians just choose to ignore in order to placate the Illuminati order of Jewish conspirators.
On April 20 2013 04:51 Quincel wrote: I'm more impressed by the idea that conquering 'only' Czechslovakia and half of Poland would have been somehow 'OK'.
The territory he wanted back was German anyway up until Versailles gave it to the Poles. It used to be West Prussia. Just taking back stolen land.
Yeah just like Alsace-Lorraine I bet the german minority there needed to be protected from the french military raping their women
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 will not comment on Mussolini as I know little of Italy from that time period. Hitler on the other hand did nothing special, he continued projects already started and later basically caused his country to go bankrupt, he had to start the war as without plundering other countries Germany was on quick way to bankruptcy. Such an economic genius.
Dane here. I am pretty sure that the Queen is a net positive because of creation of tourism and goodwill internationally. Having the oldest unbroken royal family in the world and a relatively popular current and upcoming ruler, makes it kind of bad to remove it right now.
On the other hand, our constitution is extremely outdated and if people read it without knowing our history, they would think that we are a dictatorial monarchy since the constitution is giving the regent a lot of power over the political proces.
It is not a problem since in 1920 when the king fired a socialistic/center government. The government had been serving during WW1. When the loss for Germany was inevitable, Denmark made a claim on the northern part of Germany lost during 1864. The socialistic/center government made some calls on who could vote and the opposition was pretty angry about some of these. The vote happened and the result was relatively clear. The northern part became danish and the southern part was german with about 4 to 1 in favour of germans. The danish opposition wanted the land Denmark didn't win in the elections in to become an international zone, since Flensbourg was a very important city in that zone. The king fired the prime minister after the biggest company owners in the country and the opposition had asked him to do so, while appointing a government lead by the opposition. After that, the workers prepared for a strike and because of the very widespread opposition towards the kings actions the king gave it up and a new election was held. At that election the opposition crushed the government the king turned down and they all lived happily ever after. The end.
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.
True, Goering was the man really in charge of the Four Year Plan. Hitler really was not a fan of the pogroms as well. They were costing German insurance companies a lot of money in claims. He was angry with Goebbels about that. As far as the short-sighted nature of National Socialist economics, I'm sincerely interested in some sources if you wouldn't mind listing them. I have read a great deal about Goering, but unfortunately it rarely goes into great detail regarding his economic policies, except for his acquisition of several industrial concerns (something which I think Hitler absolutely should not have allowed, and should have stripped him of the rank of Reichsmarshall for that).
The Anschluss was not even on Hitler's radar for a long time. It was something of an afterthought at the time, but he did it due to the enormous enthusiasm there for National Socialism. And taking Sudetenland was largely motivated by oppression of the German majority-minority there. Same reason he took back West Prussia from the poles. Women in Danzig and all along the Polish corridor were being raped and murdered by the Polish military. This mostly per David Irving. Especially with regard to the German territory the Poles had occupied post-1918, Hitler was extremely interested in a joint war using the German and Austrian militaries in a short war against Poland to help the military commands, as well as the national sentiments of the two nations, to fuse together. Which he accomplished, although things got out of hand when Churchill started landing troops.
That is some impressive revisionism of history. Hitler was not a victim of circumstance.
When Bavarian beer halls rang with his speeches long before he ever tasted power he spoke of Lebensraum
Never ending expansion for the Aryan Race was his goal from the beginning and he never hid it.
Of course, but only as the population would support the territory gains. His only major territorial ambition was Czechoslovakia and western Poland. That would have given the German population enough territory for a couple of centuries. All other territorial concerns would be for future generations, as far as Hitler was concerned. The circumstances of the war once it got out of hand made it so that Hitler had to secure a lot of strategic positions, so he ended up taking over a lot of territory that he never initially planned for. There are a few speeches and conversations where Hitler explicity says that what became World War II was far beyond anything he had imagined, as he had hoped to spend most of his time not as a war leader, but as a peacetime leader working to build up Germany domestically. All through Mein Kampf and especially his "Secret Book" England is seen as Germany's natural ally.
And the Greater German Reich was just an afterthought? I'm enthralled by your revisionism.
It's often overlooked that Hitler was not just a political leader. He was also a philosopher. He had a vision for the next 1000 years. And never in his writing did he target western Europe, except for reclaiming the Rhineland, the Ruhr, and Alsace-Lorraine. South Tyrol he was willing to let the Italians keep. His immediate territorial goal for his lifetime was western Poland and German Czechoslovakia ("Hitler's Secret Book"). In the decades and centuries to come, he would have liked to see a German empire expand to the east, while in the process eliminating Bolshevism. Stalin short-circuited this vision by massing troops and tank divisions in eastern Poland, prompting Hitler to respond. (closed-door meeting in 1944 I think with Carl Mannerheim, president of Finland, of which an audio tape exists)
Guys, I'm not making this stuff up, it comes from Hitler's own mouth in private conversations, as well as war documents, and his own writings on the Third Reich.
You are making a lot of stuff up. Hitler was planning invasion of USSR quite in advance, it was not spur of a moment thing, that is utterly nonsensical. You are really having some rather faulty view of history.
On April 20 2013 03:27 Wombat_NI wrote: Sure McBengt, how are you with kids btw?
I generally prefer them with some garlic and a touch of basil, why?
Hm, I approve of your Monarch-pushing policy, but on the other hand don't really like the possibility of Mini-wombat devouring
Do they drink milk? In that case they are quite safe, I'm lactose intolerant, as it were.
He's been clinging on to my partners innards, too terrified to enter a world where baby-eating Swedes with a penchant for vehicular regicide dwell. His reticence to emerge should be lessened a bit now though
On April 20 2013 04:51 Quincel wrote: I'm more impressed by the idea that conquering 'only' Czechslovakia and half of Poland would have been somehow 'OK'.
The territory he wanted back was German anyway up until Versailles gave it to the Poles. It used to be West Prussia. Just taking back stolen land.
And it was Polish before Germany, Russia and Austria destroyed Poland. And what about Czechoslovakia it was also German ? No it wasn't.
On April 20 2013 03:27 Wombat_NI wrote: Sure McBengt, how are you with kids btw?
I generally prefer them with some garlic and a touch of basil, why?
Hm, I approve of your Monarch-pushing policy, but on the other hand don't really like the possibility of Mini-wombat devouring
Do they drink milk? In that case they are quite safe, I'm lactose intolerant, as it were.
He's been clinging on to my partners innards, too terrified to enter a world where baby-eating Swedes with a penchant for vehicular regicide dwell. His reticence to emerge should be lessened a bit now though
Vehicular manslaughter, I insist. Clearly, it was an accident.
I shall endeavour to curb my cannibalistic predisposition, in the interest of hastening the emergence of aforementioned infant of the man-wombat variety. A radiant specimen, I am sure, with his mother's eyes and his father's fur.
On April 20 2013 05:59 radiatoren wrote: Dane here. I am pretty sure that the Queen is a net positive because of creation of tourism and goodwill internationally. Having the oldest unbroken royal family in the world and a relatively popular current and upcoming ruler, makes it kind of bad to remove it right now.
Don't the Imperial house of Japan claim to be descendants of 660BC Emperor Jimmu?
Semantics anyway. Tradition has always been a dubious reason to keep something intact.
The Queen (and soon King) has no power over the state. And it makes for a nice show plus probably some positive benefits for international relationships, tourism, job opportunities, etc. I have no problems with it.
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 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 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 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 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.
Well at least in Canada that would be the case. The last time the Governor General (just the representative, not even the Royalty itself) contradicted our prime minister was 1926 with the King-Byng Wingding. If it ever happened again, someone else would wrap themselves in the flag and win an election touting Canadian autonomy. Basically there's no point to getting rid of it because it doesn't affect us. If it did affect us, we would immediately kick out the last remnant of the monarchy. Because that has not happened, we just carry on.
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.
True, Goering was the man really in charge of the Four Year Plan. Hitler really was not a fan of the pogroms as well. They were costing German insurance companies a lot of money in claims. He was angry with Goebbels about that. As far as the short-sighted nature of National Socialist economics, I'm sincerely interested in some sources if you wouldn't mind listing them. I have read a great deal about Goering, but unfortunately it rarely goes into great detail regarding his economic policies, except for his acquisition of several industrial concerns (something which I think Hitler absolutely should not have allowed, and should have stripped him of the rank of Reichsmarshall for that).
The Anschluss was not even on Hitler's radar for a long time. It was something of an afterthought at the time, but he did it due to the enormous enthusiasm there for National Socialism. And taking Sudetenland was largely motivated by oppression of the German majority-minority there. Same reason he took back West Prussia from the poles. Women in Danzig and all along the Polish corridor were being raped and murdered by the Polish military. This mostly per David Irving. Especially with regard to the German territory the Poles had occupied post-1918, Hitler was extremely interested in a joint war using the German and Austrian militaries in a short war against Poland to help the military commands, as well as the national sentiments of the two nations, to fuse together. Which he accomplished, although things got out of hand when Churchill started landing troops.
That is some impressive revisionism of history. Hitler was not a victim of circumstance.
When Bavarian beer halls rang with his speeches long before he ever tasted power he spoke of Lebensraum
Never ending expansion for the Aryan Race was his goal from the beginning and he never hid it.
Of course, but only as the population would support the territory gains. His only major territorial ambition was Czechoslovakia and western Poland. That would have given the German population enough territory for a couple of centuries. All other territorial concerns would be for future generations, as far as Hitler was concerned. The circumstances of the war once it got out of hand made it so that Hitler had to secure a lot of strategic positions, so he ended up taking over a lot of territory that he never initially planned for. There are a few speeches and conversations where Hitler explicity says that what became World War II was far beyond anything he had imagined, as he had hoped to spend most of his time not as a war leader, but as a peacetime leader working to build up Germany domestically. All through Mein Kampf and especially his "Secret Book" England is seen as Germany's natural ally.
And the Greater German Reich was just an afterthought? I'm enthralled by your revisionism.
It's often overlooked that Hitler was not just a political leader. He was also a philosopher. He had a vision for the next 1000 years. And never in his writing did he target western Europe, except for reclaiming the Rhineland, the Ruhr, and Alsace-Lorraine. South Tyrol he was willing to let the Italians keep. His immediate territorial goal for his lifetime was western Poland and German Czechoslovakia ("Hitler's Secret Book"). In the decades and centuries to come, he would have liked to see a German empire expand to the east, while in the process eliminating Bolshevism. Stalin short-circuited this vision by massing troops and tank divisions in eastern Poland, prompting Hitler to respond. (closed-door meeting in 1944 I think with Carl Mannerheim, president of Finland, of which an audio tape exists)
Guys, I'm not making this stuff up, it comes from Hitler's own mouth in private conversations, as well as war documents, and his own writings on the Third Reich.
You may not be making this up but David Irwing, Pat Buchanan and all the other revisionist are making it up and you're just lapping it up hook, line, and sinker. This idea that Hitler was somehow a misunderstood genius who if only left alone would have created the great Germanian Utopia and everything that went wrong in the 30's and 40's is to be blamed on Churchill and Stalin is ridiculous and has been proven wrong and rejected many many times. If Hitler really only wanted a little piece of Poland and nothing else (and as others have pointed it out even if this were true how does that make it okay?) then why was Barberossa being planned even before Hitler invaded Poland? And Hitler has always said that his main goal in life was to defeat Bolshevism. How do you propose he do that without invading Russia? And of course dont' forget that Germany desperately needed the oil fields and other resources in the Ural. But please tell me how none of these things were his fault again?
Quite honestly I highly suspect arguing with you is quite pointless as I imagine you have heard all these arguments before and I'm sure you have 1000 refutations that are all in Hitler's secret writings that the mainstream historians just choose to ignore in order to placate the Illuminati order of Jewish conspirators.
Hitler's battle with Bolshevism was primarily fought in Germany. He wanted to smash it there, and he succeeded, to the benefit of the world, in my opinion. Russia would have had to come much, much later than he had anticipated, probably after he was dead and a new Fuehrer was at the helm. Hitler had no intention at the start of the war to open up two fronts. He knew from experience how badly that can end up. He spends a great deal of time addressing this in his second book. His blitzkrieg into Russia was something he desperately wanted to avoid, but clear aggression from Stalin forced his hand. Again I refer you to his conversation with Mannerheim.
As far as invading Poland being "okay," I think the rescue of Danzig justifies it perfectly. If your people are being oppressed just on the other side of a political border, and you have the military means to stop it and bring that territory under control, you do it. And per his agreement with Stalin, Hitler let him take the rest of Poland.
Re: Barbarossa being planned in advance - Every military power must have contigency plans. I don't fault anyone for having strategies worked for any situation. It's just responsible military leadership so that reaction time can be minimized. The Wehrmacht had strategies devised for an invasion of Ireland. They never did. The USA most likely has army, navy, and air force files on Chinese targets. If they didn't, they would be derelict in their duties.
So yes, I have read a fair bit of David Irving. Also Ernst Zundel. Would you mind telling me who your sources are that have proven them wrong? It would be intellectually irresponsible if I didn't investigate the information you use to arrive at your opinion.
And the reason I brought the subject up is because Fascism is somewhat similar to a monarchy in that power is concentrated at the very top.
I normally avoid these threads like the plague but the OP is just so full of lies and factual misrepresentation that I felt the necessity of speaking out. Talking politics rationally and on an informed manner is cool. Talking politics based on personal dogmas and misinformation is another alternative, but don’t expect people to take you too seriously.
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.
From where are you getting your history?! How is it that these countries have a strong republic tradition? The Czechs had a monarchy from the the XII century all the way to WWI and after a bit went straight into communism until 1989! Similar thing with Poland. Really, it makes me wonder if you are just making everything up as you go.
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.
Now that paragraph I dont know if its the result of some wierd chauvinsim or just bad education. The vast majortity , and I mean maybe all except 5 countires, of Latin America were based under the ideas of equality, freedom, and republicanism. They may have skipped the "ideal of gun owndership" but who the hell thinks that is an ideal. Even your beloved founding fathers saw it just as a mechanisim to enable the right of self-defense agaisnt the colonial powers. But that is not the worst part of that paragraph, the most cringe-worthy thing is the fact that you think that european MP's just suddenly find themselves in Parliament. These guys ARE elected! And guess what? Every European has as much say as to what happens on the European Parliament as you have on what happens on the American Congress. Also, sorry to say, but it was actually France and GB--and not the US-- the first democratic countries in any substantial way. Saying that being ruled by unelected elites is a part of their culture is insulting and factually wrong. Maybe if I tell you that 170k frenchman died fighitng for democracy during the french revolution you will see what I mean.
Finally, with the risk of being too political, have you ever considered that "being ruled by unelected elites" is a part of the US reality? According to the Economic Mobility Project the US has a similar income mobility elasticity as developing countries; and you know the Roosevelts, Kennedys, and the Bush make pretty good candidiates for any definition of "ruling family" you may come up with.
You have no obligation to be informed about the things you talk about; but sometimes you will come out as insulting and silly if you just state opinions as matters of facts.
On April 20 2013 00:48 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote: [quote]
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.
True, Goering was the man really in charge of the Four Year Plan. Hitler really was not a fan of the pogroms as well. They were costing German insurance companies a lot of money in claims. He was angry with Goebbels about that. As far as the short-sighted nature of National Socialist economics, I'm sincerely interested in some sources if you wouldn't mind listing them. I have read a great deal about Goering, but unfortunately it rarely goes into great detail regarding his economic policies, except for his acquisition of several industrial concerns (something which I think Hitler absolutely should not have allowed, and should have stripped him of the rank of Reichsmarshall for that).
The Anschluss was not even on Hitler's radar for a long time. It was something of an afterthought at the time, but he did it due to the enormous enthusiasm there for National Socialism. And taking Sudetenland was largely motivated by oppression of the German majority-minority there. Same reason he took back West Prussia from the poles. Women in Danzig and all along the Polish corridor were being raped and murdered by the Polish military. This mostly per David Irving. Especially with regard to the German territory the Poles had occupied post-1918, Hitler was extremely interested in a joint war using the German and Austrian militaries in a short war against Poland to help the military commands, as well as the national sentiments of the two nations, to fuse together. Which he accomplished, although things got out of hand when Churchill started landing troops.
That is some impressive revisionism of history. Hitler was not a victim of circumstance.
When Bavarian beer halls rang with his speeches long before he ever tasted power he spoke of Lebensraum
Never ending expansion for the Aryan Race was his goal from the beginning and he never hid it.
Of course, but only as the population would support the territory gains. His only major territorial ambition was Czechoslovakia and western Poland. That would have given the German population enough territory for a couple of centuries. All other territorial concerns would be for future generations, as far as Hitler was concerned. The circumstances of the war once it got out of hand made it so that Hitler had to secure a lot of strategic positions, so he ended up taking over a lot of territory that he never initially planned for. There are a few speeches and conversations where Hitler explicity says that what became World War II was far beyond anything he had imagined, as he had hoped to spend most of his time not as a war leader, but as a peacetime leader working to build up Germany domestically. All through Mein Kampf and especially his "Secret Book" England is seen as Germany's natural ally.
And the Greater German Reich was just an afterthought? I'm enthralled by your revisionism.
It's often overlooked that Hitler was not just a political leader. He was also a philosopher. He had a vision for the next 1000 years. And never in his writing did he target western Europe, except for reclaiming the Rhineland, the Ruhr, and Alsace-Lorraine. South Tyrol he was willing to let the Italians keep. His immediate territorial goal for his lifetime was western Poland and German Czechoslovakia ("Hitler's Secret Book"). In the decades and centuries to come, he would have liked to see a German empire expand to the east, while in the process eliminating Bolshevism. Stalin short-circuited this vision by massing troops and tank divisions in eastern Poland, prompting Hitler to respond. (closed-door meeting in 1944 I think with Carl Mannerheim, president of Finland, of which an audio tape exists)
Guys, I'm not making this stuff up, it comes from Hitler's own mouth in private conversations, as well as war documents, and his own writings on the Third Reich.
You may not be making this up but David Irwing, Pat Buchanan and all the other revisionist are making it up and you're just lapping it up hook, line, and sinker. This idea that Hitler was somehow a misunderstood genius who if only left alone would have created the great Germanian Utopia and everything that went wrong in the 30's and 40's is to be blamed on Churchill and Stalin is ridiculous and has been proven wrong and rejected many many times. If Hitler really only wanted a little piece of Poland and nothing else (and as others have pointed it out even if this were true how does that make it okay?) then why was Barberossa being planned even before Hitler invaded Poland? And Hitler has always said that his main goal in life was to defeat Bolshevism. How do you propose he do that without invading Russia? And of course dont' forget that Germany desperately needed the oil fields and other resources in the Ural. But please tell me how none of these things were his fault again?
Quite honestly I highly suspect arguing with you is quite pointless as I imagine you have heard all these arguments before and I'm sure you have 1000 refutations that are all in Hitler's secret writings that the mainstream historians just choose to ignore in order to placate the Illuminati order of Jewish conspirators.
Hitler's battle with Bolshevism was primarily fought in Germany. He wanted to smash it there, and he succeeded, to the benefit of the world, in my opinion. Russia would have had to come much, much later than he had anticipated, probably after he was dead and a new Fuehrer was at the helm. Hitler had no intention at the start of the war to open up two fronts. He knew from experience how badly that can end up. He spends a great deal of time addressing this in his second book. His blitzkrieg into Russia was something he desperately wanted to avoid, but clear aggression from Stalin forced his hand. Again I refer you to his conversation with Mannerheim.
As far as invading Poland being "okay," I think the rescue of Danzig justifies it perfectly. If your people are being oppressed just on the other side of a political border, and you have the military means to stop it and bring that territory under control, you do it. And per his agreement with Stalin, Hitler let him take the rest of Poland.
Re: Barbarossa being planned in advance - Every military power must have contigency plans. I don't fault anyone for having strategies worked for any situation. It's just responsible military leadership so that reaction time can be minimized. The Wehrmacht had strategies devised for an invasion of Ireland. They never did. The USA most likely has army, navy, and air force files on Chinese targets. If they didn't, they would be derelict in their duties.
So yes, I have read a fair bit of David Irving. Also Ernst Zundel. Would you mind telling me who your sources are that have proven them wrong? It would be intellectually irresponsible if I didn't investigate the information you use to arrive at your opinion.
And the reason I brought the subject up is because Fascism is somewhat similar to a monarchy in that power is concentrated at the very top.
First Hitler took much more from Poland that was historically part of Germany. So no Stalin did not take the rest.
Operation Barbarossa was not a contigency plan. Contigency against attack does not look like that. Germany was fully prepared for an invasion of USSR, you cannot do that in few weeks (less than that) that Hitler would have had if his actions were based on Soviet army movements. It was the other way around, Soviet armies were moving to prepare for German attack they very well suspected was coming.
Contigency plans are based on reactions to events. No such thing happened in this case. And your sources are laughable revisionist nonsense.
There books are laughable bullshit that is not in any way relevant among Historians. It is not necessary to read Holocaust deniers yourself to find out that they are horribly wrong.
On April 20 2013 05:59 radiatoren wrote: Dane here. I am pretty sure that the Queen is a net positive because of creation of tourism and goodwill internationally. Having the oldest unbroken royal family in the world and a relatively popular current and upcoming ruler, makes it kind of bad to remove it right now.
Don't the Imperial house of Japan claim to be descendants of 660BC Emperor Jimmu?
Semantics anyway. Tradition has always been a dubious reason to keep something intact.
On April 20 2013 04:51 Quincel wrote: I'm more impressed by the idea that conquering 'only' Czechslovakia and half of Poland would have been somehow 'OK'.
The territory he wanted back was German anyway up until Versailles gave it to the Poles. It used to be West Prussia. Just taking back stolen land.
And it was Polish before Germany, Russia and Austria destroyed Poland. And what about Czechoslovakia it was also German ? No it wasn't.
Prussia wasnt a part of Poland since the 16th century when german nobles inherited the remaining lands of the Teutonic Order in eastern Prussia.
these discussions lead nowhwere. Poland was reshaped so often and didnt exists for such long times that you can argue any way you want depending on how far back in time you want to go.
And Czechoslowakia was for the longest time a very important part of the Holy Roman Empire and later it was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. That doesnt mean that it was predominantly german but minorities existed and they were abused to make silly claims on land.
However you want to spin it, millions of people lost their homes or lives in WW2 all over europe
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.
True, Goering was the man really in charge of the Four Year Plan. Hitler really was not a fan of the pogroms as well. They were costing German insurance companies a lot of money in claims. He was angry with Goebbels about that. As far as the short-sighted nature of National Socialist economics, I'm sincerely interested in some sources if you wouldn't mind listing them. I have read a great deal about Goering, but unfortunately it rarely goes into great detail regarding his economic policies, except for his acquisition of several industrial concerns (something which I think Hitler absolutely should not have allowed, and should have stripped him of the rank of Reichsmarshall for that).
The Anschluss was not even on Hitler's radar for a long time. It was something of an afterthought at the time, but he did it due to the enormous enthusiasm there for National Socialism. And taking Sudetenland was largely motivated by oppression of the German majority-minority there. Same reason he took back West Prussia from the poles. Women in Danzig and all along the Polish corridor were being raped and murdered by the Polish military. This mostly per David Irving. Especially with regard to the German territory the Poles had occupied post-1918, Hitler was extremely interested in a joint war using the German and Austrian militaries in a short war against Poland to help the military commands, as well as the national sentiments of the two nations, to fuse together. Which he accomplished, although things got out of hand when Churchill started landing troops.
The book Hitler by Ian Kershaw is where I got most of my information, it's a long book but definitely worth a read. Other than that Stalingrad by Anthony Beever and a lot of reading online.
On the topic of the thread, I voted slightly in favour of monarchy, I don't revere them or anything and don't know anyone who does (for instance I didn't watch the royal wedding or the jubilee or any of that) but I can see the benefit of a system where you have a head of state who is constant over decades and doesn't have to pander to public opinion and can give advice to the current Prime Minister, they can take part in ceremonial duties while the PM does the actual work
And then there's the added benefits of tourism, them being a "cultural export" and the tax money from their lands basically covers their cost of living (the final cost is about 69 pence per year for each person in the country, basically nothing) and all of the charitable work that they do.
Plus the fact that constitutional monarchies usually work out to be the most democratic form of government.
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.
Before I start part 2, I just need to correct a slight error in my post. I had written that the civil list had been frozen at £7.9m since 2010. This was a typo, the civil list had been officially frozen since 2001 but the explanation that it wasn't a real pay freeze, with year on year rises (save for the two exceptions explained), remains accurate.
The Crown Estates Argument
The Claim
This claim typically refers to the idea that taking the lands (and the revenues they generate) from the monarchy is either wrong and/or will be an expensive and protracted process. Sometimes this also includes the idea that taking their property and wealth in general has similar problems.
Response
So, my response to this might be a bit coarse, as it'd be 'why not?'. They've leeched from us for long enough and been well compensated, there's no reason at all the country shouldn't just sieze their stuff and kick them out of their homes and let them live like everyone else. I appreciate though that not everyone is going to share that view, so I'll include a more reasonable reply which is more typical of a republican position.
So in a less terse response, the most important point that needs to be made is that the royal estates are not the property of the queen, and certainly not of the Windsor family. The crown estate was established for the state at a time when the monarch actually funded the affairs of state. At the time this was exchanged from one state branch to another (the government) the funding of the state passed over aswell. This estate belongs to the British state, not to the monarch and absolutely not to one family. The fact that they're now getting 15% of the income from it in a move of political spin from the 'benign' palace shows simply how important it is to get rid of them. There is literally no claim to be made by the Windsor family to the money, so it is in no way theft to not give them all that land and property when they leave.
Now, I wouldn't expect you to take my word for it so how about we use the explanation by the Crown Estate itself to judge:
The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch.
The Government also does not own The Crown Estate. It is managed by an independent organisation - established by statute - headed by a Board (also known as The Crown Estate Commissioners), and the surplus revenue from the estate is paid each year to the Treasury for the benefit of all UK taxpayers.
To explain further, one analogy that could be used is that The Crown Estate is the property equivalent of the Crown jewels - part of the national heritage and held by Her Majesty The Queen as sovereign, but not available for her private use.
This position is affirmed elsewhere on the site with the explicit statement that "No, this [claim that the estate is the queen's property] is misleading." Getting rid of the monarch merely means the Crown Estate continues paying its income to the treasury, and the Windors lose nothing - by virtue of never having it. And yes, that also means the crown jewels belong to the people of Britain, and not the Windsors.
It's also worth noting therefore that the myth that this income makes up for the cost of the monarch and should be considered as a surplus to the taxpayer on behalf of having a monarchy, it outright shattered. It's unsurprisingly believed by some people since Charles especially has spent the past 20 years trying to convince the public otherwise (source), but it is an outright fabrication and a money grab.
Unfortunately though, this claim is far from done. Were I to leave it here, the claims 'What of the duchies!?' would inevitably follow from the more informed monarchists on the site who I imagine would never let me get away so easily. Fortunately I can refer to The Official Site of the British Monarchy which explains with regard to Cornwall at least:
Under the 1337 charter, as confirmed by subsequent legislation, The Prince of Wales does not own the Duchy's capital assets, and is not entitled to the proceeds or profit on their sale, and only receives the annual income which they generate (which is voluntarily subject to income tax).
He is in effect a trustee, and is not entitled to the proceeds of disposals of assets. The Prince must pass on the estate intact, so that it continues to provide an income from its assets for future Dukes of Cornwall.
It's also worth noting that in court the Duchy has also been recognised as a public body. (Source).
There is no legitimate claim by the Windsor's to any of these lands, except those few homes which belong to their personal private estates. The crown lands belong to the state, as they always have, and there would be no theft of property needed to remove them from their current position.
The International Diplomacy Argument
The Claim
According to this claim, the work that the royals put in to international diplomacy is invaluable, securing trade and diplomatic ties.
Response
The first and most obvious point to bring up here is that the vast majority of diplomatic work is done, unsurprisingly, by trained diplomats. Especially unsurprising since the queen actually appoints diplomats to do that work (there were around 2000 diplomats last year -source). Between 1952 and May 2011 the Queen has undertaken 108 state visits (source). That's less than 2 a year! She must be rushed off her feet with all this diplomacy; being given gifts, seeing children dance and shaking people's hands once or twice a year.
Of course though, it isn't just the Queen. According to the official monarch website they do perform 2000 "official engagements" a year total for everything (diplomatic or otherwise, including all UK events) when you take the whole royal family in to account . They're pretty good at partying though, with 70,000 guests a year attending their parties. (Sources).
In addition to their lack of diplomatic work, the work they do actually do could quite easily be done by other people without any particular worry. The head of the state being sent to give a readied and choreographed talk and meeting is going to be regarded as highly whoever that head of state is, provided they don't screw it up (say, by dressing up as a nazi [source] or being generally offensive... [source]) or anything. Can you image the complaints if this claim were true "Oh, the US is only sending their president to shake hands, not a monarch. Obviously they don't care about diplomacy"?
The idea that a royal family is needed for diplomacy is kinda silly, and we're all fortunate they don't do much of it.
The Tradition Argument
The Claim
Britain has traditionally been a monarchy and it would be a great heritage loss. This claim sometimes includes the loss of traditional ceremony associated with the monarchy.
Response
Even at the best of time "it's tradition!" is a bad reason to keep doing something. There's also no reason to chuck out all the traditional ceremony of the guard or the head of state sending letters to people. It's actually hard to think of anything important that would be lost in terms of "tradition", and it's certainly not a reason to keep an undemocratic system in place.
The Hard Working/Charitable Argument
The Claim
Somewhat tied to the diplomats claim, the royals are said to be very hard working individuals. They have hundreds of appointments a year, and also raise considerable money for charity.
Response
Ideally I'd just quote former deputy private secretary to the prince of Wales, Mark Bolland from the documentary "Janet Saves the Monarchy":
"the Windsors are very good at working three days a week, five months of a year and making it look as though they work hard"
and with the sources from the diplomat question be done with this one, but for the sake of completion I'll keep to the same standard as other questions.
So, first, if we're going to judge who should be head of state by how hard someone works, then probably most politicians and certainly every manual labourer in the country is a better choice than any of the royal family. Presumably though, the argument goes that the monarch are also hard working, so deserve their unquestioned, hereditary and anti-democratic position at the top of class society. It's worth noting that an alternative without the baggage would be quite capable (and expected) to work hard.
As I have already somewhat shown though, the work of the royal family on the whole is minimal and even by their own most exaggerated definition, catch all of anything they did definition used by their own sources, at best the entire royal family contributes 5 undefined engagements a day to the UK, which do include parties and attending dinners. Not exactly what I'd call hard working.
As to the charity claim it is true that, of the millions of pounds they're unduly given on behalf of the British tax payers to a single family rather than to helping they people of Britain, they do give some to charity. But what of the work they do? Well, even their own website struggles to come up with anything but lending their name and celebrity status to a charity - something we hardly need the monarchy for.
The Trained From Birth Argument
The Claim
The monarch has been trained from birth to be the head of state and so is the best trained for the job.
Response
I need to start this response with a quick preface. Fortunately, in my experience, this is a position that most monarchists don't actually hold. I wouldn't have even brought it up here if it wasn't used as a reason earlier in this thread and I hadn't heard it before as I think it would have been unfair to suggest this is a common argument of the opposition. It's not a common reason and I'm not trying to strawman the majority of the opposition who will generally attempt more sensible issues, like the others I've addressed in these posts.
Ok, so...yeah. First, and most obviously, we could train anyone from birth to be the head of state if that's really what you value as a job qualification (Britain's Next Tot Monarch?). The idea that someone must be trained from birth, or that it's somehow advantageous is laughable, especially when you consider how many people have been trained for jobs since they were old enough to understand the concept and do remarkably well. For examples see every single other job on the planet. Inventors and decent politicians for instance don't need to be trained from birth to fill the role. Many other countries in fact do quite well with a head of state who is someone who has actually been judged to be a good fit for the position, rather than just hoping that telling them from birth to be good at it is sufficient. There is no other job in the world this argument would be accepted for, it is utterly ridiculous.
And of course, you still have to explain Philip.
The President Blair/Cameron Argument
The Claim
If we get rid of the monarchy we'll have a US style president who runs the country and it'll be political and short sighted. A neutral monarch who doesn't have to worry about being held accountable at elections can focus on being the head of state to a far greater capacity than an elected president.
Response
There is no reason (nor suggestion that I'm aware of) that the replacement head of state need be a political figure. We already have the speaker of the house as a neutral political figure, there is no reason at all that we shouldn't be able to establish something similar. Additionally there's no reason that the president needs to be head of parliament or to expand the powers of the head of state beyond a ceremonial role, ensuring that parliament acts only within constitutional boundaries and representing the UK when necessary.
Well, that's all of the ones I can think of. If you think I've misrepresented the monarchist position anywhere, or missed an argument which somehow makes up this terrible and anti-democratic system then let me know and I'll do my best to cover that one too. As I'm sure you can imagine, this has taken hours to research, write up and source correctly so if I've missed something obvious it's not intentional.
On April 20 2013 08:45 Paramo wrote: Maybe if I tell you that 170k frenchman died fighitng for democracy during the french revolution you will see what I mean.
LOL.... yeah the French Revolution and it's aftermath were just paradigms of democracy. The Committee of Public Safety was an amazing example of democracy, as was the Directory. And who can forget that shining beacon of democratic hope: Napoleon Bonaparte?
On April 20 2013 23:15 Steveling wrote: I came to post something, saw that people are actually praising hitler and mussolini. Yeah, I'll stay out.
Really? I'll definitely enjoy reading those posts. Even so there are probably only a small minority of people who do that, you don't need to stay out on account of a few people!
I think the most interesting part of this thread, is that nearly a quarter of people think the ideal government is one where there is *no* government. Anarchists unite!! Maybe not now, but in the future, I hope that vision becomes a reality, unless its horribly unpractical and leads to lots of destruction/chaos. Also thank you Lyerbeth for that crazy informative post. I hope it gets reposted so no one forgets your hard work!
On April 20 2013 04:51 Quincel wrote: I'm more impressed by the idea that conquering 'only' Czechslovakia and half of Poland would have been somehow 'OK'.
The territory he wanted back was German anyway up until Versailles gave it to the Poles. It used to be West Prussia. Just taking back stolen land.
And it was Polish before Germany, Russia and Austria destroyed Poland. And what about Czechoslovakia it was also German ? No it wasn't.
Prussia wasnt a part of Poland since the 16th century when german nobles inherited the remaining lands of the Teutonic Order in eastern Prussia.
these discussions lead nowhwere. Poland was reshaped so often and didnt exists for such long times that you can argue any way you want depending on how far back in time you want to go.
And Czechoslowakia was for the longest time a very important part of the Holy Roman Empire and later it was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. That doesnt mean that it was predominantly german but minorities existed and they were abused to make silly claims on land.
However you want to spin it, millions of people lost their homes or lives in WW2 all over europe
Germany did not only take Eastern Prussia. So no, what Germany took was not "stolen" land. And my point was that the history of the region is so complex that going back in time and pointing "this was ours" is useless, which is what the poster I responded to was doing. As I can just respond that even what Germany lost after WW2 to Poland was just a land that Germans stole from Poland as it was Polish in 10th-11th century.
Bohemia was part of Holy Roman Empire (which is not the same as Germany so don't see your point), Slovakia was not. Austro-Hungary was also not part of Germany so again what is there to contradict my statement ? German minorities were abused after WW2, which is not surprising, not really before so please.
The only person spinning anything is the guy I respond to. And maybe you if you want to imply anything of the sort that Germany was not responsible for those millions of people losing their lives and homes.
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.
True, Goering was the man really in charge of the Four Year Plan. Hitler really was not a fan of the pogroms as well. They were costing German insurance companies a lot of money in claims. He was angry with Goebbels about that. As far as the short-sighted nature of National Socialist economics, I'm sincerely interested in some sources if you wouldn't mind listing them. I have read a great deal about Goering, but unfortunately it rarely goes into great detail regarding his economic policies, except for his acquisition of several industrial concerns (something which I think Hitler absolutely should not have allowed, and should have stripped him of the rank of Reichsmarshall for that).
The Anschluss was not even on Hitler's radar for a long time. It was something of an afterthought at the time, but he did it due to the enormous enthusiasm there for National Socialism. And taking Sudetenland was largely motivated by oppression of the German majority-minority there. Same reason he took back West Prussia from the poles. Women in Danzig and all along the Polish corridor were being raped and murdered by the Polish military. This mostly per David Irving. Especially with regard to the German territory the Poles had occupied post-1918, Hitler was extremely interested in a joint war using the German and Austrian militaries in a short war against Poland to help the military commands, as well as the national sentiments of the two nations, to fuse together. Which he accomplished, although things got out of hand when Churchill started landing troops.
The book Hitler by Ian Kershaw is where I got most of my information, it's a long book but definitely worth a read. Other than that Stalingrad by Anthony Beever and a lot of reading online.
On the topic of the thread, I voted slightly in favour of monarchy, I don't revere them or anything and don't know anyone who does (for instance I didn't watch the royal wedding or the jubilee or any of that) but I can see the benefit of a system where you have a head of state who is constant over decades and doesn't have to pander to public opinion and can give advice to the current Prime Minister, they can take part in ceremonial duties while the PM does the actual work
And then there's the added benefits of tourism, them being a "cultural export" and the tax money from their lands basically covers their cost of living (the final cost is about 69 pence per year for each person in the country, basically nothing) and all of the charitable work that they do.
Plus the fact that constitutional monarchies usually work out to be the most democratic form of government.
I think I saw that list sometime ago on wiki, can you post a link ? Anyway that list seems strange when France is below SK or Japan, or US for that matter. Would be interested to see what they actually measure.
On April 20 2013 08:45 Paramo wrote: Maybe if I tell you that 170k frenchman died fighitng for democracy during the french revolution you will see what I mean.
LOL.... yeah the French Revolution and it's aftermath were just paradigms of democracy. The Committee of Public Safety was an amazing example of democracy, as was the Directory. And who can forget that shining beacon of democratic hope: Napoleon Bonaparte?
Well those guys fighting were probably fighting for democracy or at least for better living conditions without being playthings of aristocracy. That the whole revolution ended the way revolutions nearly always tend(ed) to end is different matter. And I still think French revolution, its end non-withstanding, was still a big step in getting rid of absolutist regimes everywhere on the continent or at least forcing those regimes to become much less dystopian with a threat of revolution.
On April 20 2013 23:15 Steveling wrote: I came to post something, saw that people are actually praising hitler and mussolini. Yeah, I'll stay out.
Really? I'll definitely enjoy reading those posts. Even so there are probably only a small minority of people who do that, you don't need to stay out on account of a few people!
I think the most interesting part of this thread, is that nearly a quarter of people think the ideal government is one where there is *no* government. Anarchists unite!! Maybe not now, but in the future, I hope that vision becomes a reality, unless its horribly unpractical and leads to lots of destruction/chaos. Also thank you Lyerbeth for that crazy informative post. I hope it gets reposted so no one forgets your hard work!
Consider age profile of this site, then consider that most of those people will change their views between 18-30 and no, it will not happen. However young people deny that their views will change, they will, happened for last few thousand years, will happen again.
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.
True, Goering was the man really in charge of the Four Year Plan. Hitler really was not a fan of the pogroms as well. They were costing German insurance companies a lot of money in claims. He was angry with Goebbels about that. As far as the short-sighted nature of National Socialist economics, I'm sincerely interested in some sources if you wouldn't mind listing them. I have read a great deal about Goering, but unfortunately it rarely goes into great detail regarding his economic policies, except for his acquisition of several industrial concerns (something which I think Hitler absolutely should not have allowed, and should have stripped him of the rank of Reichsmarshall for that).
The Anschluss was not even on Hitler's radar for a long time. It was something of an afterthought at the time, but he did it due to the enormous enthusiasm there for National Socialism. And taking Sudetenland was largely motivated by oppression of the German majority-minority there. Same reason he took back West Prussia from the poles. Women in Danzig and all along the Polish corridor were being raped and murdered by the Polish military. This mostly per David Irving. Especially with regard to the German territory the Poles had occupied post-1918, Hitler was extremely interested in a joint war using the German and Austrian militaries in a short war against Poland to help the military commands, as well as the national sentiments of the two nations, to fuse together. Which he accomplished, although things got out of hand when Churchill started landing troops.
The book Hitler by Ian Kershaw is where I got most of my information, it's a long book but definitely worth a read. Other than that Stalingrad by Anthony Beever and a lot of reading online.
On the topic of the thread, I voted slightly in favour of monarchy, I don't revere them or anything and don't know anyone who does (for instance I didn't watch the royal wedding or the jubilee or any of that) but I can see the benefit of a system where you have a head of state who is constant over decades and doesn't have to pander to public opinion and can give advice to the current Prime Minister, they can take part in ceremonial duties while the PM does the actual work
And then there's the added benefits of tourism, them being a "cultural export" and the tax money from their lands basically covers their cost of living (the final cost is about 69 pence per year for each person in the country, basically nothing) and all of the charitable work that they do.
Plus the fact that constitutional monarchies usually work out to be the most democratic form of government.
I think I saw that list sometime ago on wiki, can you post a link ? Anyway that list seems strange when France is below SK or Japan, or US for that matter. Would be interested to see what they actually measure.
[B] As described in the report,[1] the democracy index is a weighted average based on the answers of 60 questions, each one with either two or three permitted alternative answers. Most answers are "experts' assessments"; the report does not indicate what kinds of experts, nor their number, nor whether the experts are employees of the Economist Intelligence Unit or independent scholars, nor the nationalities of the experts. Some answers are provided by public-opinion surveys from the respective countries. In the case of countries for which survey results are missing, survey results for similar countries and expert assessments are used in order to fill in gaps.
On April 20 2013 08:45 Paramo wrote: Maybe if I tell you that 170k frenchman died fighitng for democracy during the french revolution you will see what I mean.
LOL.... yeah the French Revolution and it's aftermath were just paradigms of democracy. The Committee of Public Safety was an amazing example of democracy, as was the Directory. And who can forget that shining beacon of democratic hope: Napoleon Bonaparte?
Well those guys fighting were probably fighting for democracy or at least for better living conditions without being playthings of aristocracy. That the whole revolution ended the way revolutions nearly always tend(ed) to end is different matter. And I still think French revolution, its end non-withstanding, was still a big step in getting rid of absolutist regimes everywhere on the continent or at least forcing those regimes to become much less dystopian with a threat of revolution.
I don't think they were dying for democracy as much as they were using democracy as an excuse to channel their rage at historical mistreatment, ironically culminating in a far more brutal and heinous mistreatment, and ended up slaughtering the very people who were trying to help them, like Marie Antoinette. The way the Revolution ended was the only possible outcome to the way it was conducted, which was without any semblance of rationality or sober self-control. It did away with a monarch only to install an even more dystopian and dominating government, one with absolutely no controls on it's power other than violence and further revolution. In fact, the French Revolution is probably the greatest argument for monarchism that could ever exist.
On April 20 2013 08:45 Paramo wrote: Maybe if I tell you that 170k frenchman died fighitng for democracy during the french revolution you will see what I mean.
LOL.... yeah the French Revolution and it's aftermath were just paradigms of democracy. The Committee of Public Safety was an amazing example of democracy, as was the Directory. And who can forget that shining beacon of democratic hope: Napoleon Bonaparte?
Well those guys fighting were probably fighting for democracy or at least for better living conditions without being playthings of aristocracy. That the whole revolution ended the way revolutions nearly always tend(ed) to end is different matter. And I still think French revolution, its end non-withstanding, was still a big step in getting rid of absolutist regimes everywhere on the continent or at least forcing those regimes to become much less dystopian with a threat of revolution.
I don't think they were dying for democracy as much as they were using democracy as an excuse to channel their rage at historical mistreatment, ironically culminating in a far more brutal and heinous mistreatment, and ended up slaughtering the very people who were trying to help them, like Marie Antoinette. The way the Revolution ended was the only possible outcome to the way it was conducted, which was without any semblance of rationality or sober self-control. It did away with a monarch only to install an even more dystopian and dominating government, one with absolutely no controls on it's power other than violence and further revolution. In fact, the French Revolution is probably the greatest argument for monarchism that could ever exist.
Either you literally trust every word Edmund Burke says or your perspective on the whole matter is entirely ahistorical. Which is it?
On April 20 2013 08:45 Paramo wrote: Maybe if I tell you that 170k frenchman died fighitng for democracy during the french revolution you will see what I mean.
LOL.... yeah the French Revolution and it's aftermath were just paradigms of democracy. The Committee of Public Safety was an amazing example of democracy, as was the Directory. And who can forget that shining beacon of democratic hope: Napoleon Bonaparte?
Well those guys fighting were probably fighting for democracy or at least for better living conditions without being playthings of aristocracy. That the whole revolution ended the way revolutions nearly always tend(ed) to end is different matter. And I still think French revolution, its end non-withstanding, was still a big step in getting rid of absolutist regimes everywhere on the continent or at least forcing those regimes to become much less dystopian with a threat of revolution.
I don't think they were dying for democracy as much as they were using democracy as an excuse to channel their rage at historical mistreatment, ironically culminating in a far more brutal and heinous mistreatment, and ended up slaughtering the very people who were trying to help them, like Marie Antoinette. The way the Revolution ended was the only possible outcome to the way it was conducted, which was without any semblance of rationality or sober self-control. It did away with a monarch only to install an even more dystopian and dominating government, one with absolutely no controls on it's power other than violence and further revolution. In fact, the French Revolution is probably the greatest argument for monarchism that could ever exist.
Either you literally trust every word Edmund Burke says or your perspective on the whole matter is entirely ahistorical. Which is it?
So what exactly is historically inaccurate about what I've said?
On April 20 2013 08:45 Paramo wrote: Maybe if I tell you that 170k frenchman died fighitng for democracy during the french revolution you will see what I mean.
LOL.... yeah the French Revolution and it's aftermath were just paradigms of democracy. The Committee of Public Safety was an amazing example of democracy, as was the Directory. And who can forget that shining beacon of democratic hope: Napoleon Bonaparte?
Well those guys fighting were probably fighting for democracy or at least for better living conditions without being playthings of aristocracy. That the whole revolution ended the way revolutions nearly always tend(ed) to end is different matter. And I still think French revolution, its end non-withstanding, was still a big step in getting rid of absolutist regimes everywhere on the continent or at least forcing those regimes to become much less dystopian with a threat of revolution.
I don't think they were dying for democracy as much as they were using democracy as an excuse to channel their rage at historical mistreatment, ironically culminating in a far more brutal and heinous mistreatment, and ended up slaughtering the very people who were trying to help them, like Marie Antoinette. The way the Revolution ended was the only possible outcome to the way it was conducted, which was without any semblance of rationality or sober self-control. It did away with a monarch only to install an even more dystopian and dominating government, one with absolutely no controls on it's power other than violence and further revolution. In fact, the French Revolution is probably the greatest argument for monarchism that could ever exist.
Either you literally trust every word Edmund Burke says or your perspective on the whole matter is entirely ahistorical. Which is it?
So what exactly is historically inaccurate about what I've said?
Well, insofar as direct historical reference, you aren't wrong. It is the judgement that follows alongside it that is rooted in only one side of the story. Lines like "In fact, the French Revolution is probably the greatest argument for monarchism that could ever exist." approach the matter as though we can excise it from the course of history and hold it aloft for all to see, when in fact, the bloody nonsense that came alongside the French Revolution *might* have been "necessary". Now, I use that word with misgiving, because I don't mean in an explicit sense that violence was unavoidable, rather that the tumult that followed alongside France's cry for revolution is perhaps justifiable in a historical sense. It is easy to look back and say "well they should have all been more level-headed about it.", when in fact, making such a judgement requires intimate and total knowledge of the zeitgeist that gave birth to the revolution, knowledge that is contemporarily almost impossible to come upon.
Furthermore, your indictment of the whole process bears a striking similarity to the writings of Edmund Burke (the OG conservative), so much so that a reader can but assume that you've basically decided to "trust" in that perspective on the French Revolution. I'm not saying that that is necessarily wrong, only that when ones' view of historical truth lines up almost perfectly with a polemic figure of the time, something is likely amiss.
On April 21 2013 02:02 Subversive wrote: Why don't you tell us where you really stand OP? It's totally unclear. I felt you didn't put enough personal opinion into this thread.
@mcc try and reply in 1 post, posting 4 replies in a row isn't ideal.
I probably should, it is just hassle Plus when the person answers he has to edit my post to remove the other answers. No good solution
On April 20 2013 08:45 Paramo wrote: Maybe if I tell you that 170k frenchman died fighitng for democracy during the french revolution you will see what I mean.
LOL.... yeah the French Revolution and it's aftermath were just paradigms of democracy. The Committee of Public Safety was an amazing example of democracy, as was the Directory. And who can forget that shining beacon of democratic hope: Napoleon Bonaparte?
Well those guys fighting were probably fighting for democracy or at least for better living conditions without being playthings of aristocracy. That the whole revolution ended the way revolutions nearly always tend(ed) to end is different matter. And I still think French revolution, its end non-withstanding, was still a big step in getting rid of absolutist regimes everywhere on the continent or at least forcing those regimes to become much less dystopian with a threat of revolution.
I don't think they were dying for democracy as much as they were using democracy as an excuse to channel their rage at historical mistreatment, ironically culminating in a far more brutal and heinous mistreatment, and ended up slaughtering the very people who were trying to help them, like Marie Antoinette. The way the Revolution ended was the only possible outcome to the way it was conducted, which was without any semblance of rationality or sober self-control. It did away with a monarch only to install an even more dystopian and dominating government, one with absolutely no controls on it's power other than violence and further revolution. In fact, the French Revolution is probably the greatest argument for monarchism that could ever exist.
In all popular revolutions on such a scale, most people who fight are quite decent people whose limits were reached by mistreatment of those in power and they actually want some kind of democracy and in general just not being exploited to such degree. The lack of semblance of rationality and self-control is always the case with revolutions, that is human nature. And people who love power like it that way as that is when they can use the masses to their advantage. French revolution was "necessary" with massacre of the aristocracy. Those in power in other countries noticed and in time realized that if they do not want to be killed themselves they need to allow changes. The massacres afterwards were not, it was hijacked by people who were no different than those that just got killed. The same goes for Russian revolution. And of course that aftermaths of revolutions are worse than state beforehand, does not change their inevitability and responsibility of those that allowed them to happen. I think you imagine those revolutions in very naive way. Like it was some big planned military operation. They are what happens when you push people too far, how does rationality go into this. Especially in those times, with people living in conditions no modern revolutionary knows and level of education so low. Of course the masses will follow on misjudged motivations.
How is French revolution argument for monarchism ? French revolution shows that monarchism has oppressed the people to such degree that they thought that risking their lives in revolting against it was necessary. Any system that leads to masses of people to revolt violently is broken. It shows the value of democracy and education if anything.
Frankly my opinion on democracy is very cynical. I think one of two biggest reasons for democracy is to give those lusting for power (psychopaths most of them) arena where they can get what they want without violent coups,revolutions, .... . They can play their political election games and decent people can live in peace, just paying taxes necessary to pay for those political games to continue. That is not entirety of my view on democracy, I am not that cynical, but it is big part of it.
Peddling ideology is fine, but we should stick to contemporary events, when most people are in possession of some fundamental facts.
Incidentally, I'm in a rush to finish a chapter in my dissertation on the Hungarian Uprising of 1956 at the moment, so I won't be doing much historical commentary. As everyone is aware though, 1956 was perhaps the most truly 'popular uprising' in contemporary history. Yet even there it isn't as simple as oppressed people having reached a boiling point under a despotic regime.
In looking at what happened in Poland and Hungary in 1956, I am more struck by its adherence to some recognised principles of the Ancient World, rather than to any rubric of modern ideological propaganda. The more typical prognosis of revolutions still follows the patterns of Thucydides and Aristotle: Lower orders are never capable of either starting or maintaining Revolutions against the Upper Orders of their own initiative. The conditions for Revolution appear when the elite is divided against itself, in which case one faction of the elite (the Greeks called such people demagogues) appeals to the lower orders via promises and concessions, in order to mobilise them against their political opponents. This was the principle demonstrated in the Ancient World by Cleisthenes and the Gracchi, in 1956 by the 'Reform Communists' led by Nagy and Kádár, and in the French Revolution, by the Duke of Orleans and the countless lesser Aristocrats who supported it. Where the elite succeed in maintaining control of the 'revolution', you can have an orderly constitutional transition, possibly under a form of Popular Dictatorship. Where the elite loses control of the 'revolution', as happened during the French Revolution, all chaos breaks loose for a while, until a new ruling class emerges, usually by cobbling together elements drawn from both the Old and New elites.
The reign of Louis XVI was the most liberal monarchical period, perhaps in the history of France up until 1848. This is because by the late-18th century, the walls of formalism erected during le Grand Siecle, separating the social classes had to a great extent evaporated. That, and not exacerbated oppression, created the conditions which permitted the Revolution to succeed.
On April 21 2013 04:48 MoltkeWarding wrote: Peddling ideology is fine, but we should stick to contemporary events, when most people are in possession of some fundamental facts.
Incidentally, I'm in a rush to finish a chapter in my dissertation on the Hungarian Uprising of 1956 at the moment, so I won't be doing much historical commentary. As everyone is aware though, 1956 was perhaps the most truly 'popular uprising' in contemporary history. Yet even there it isn't as simple as oppressed people having reached a boiling point under a despotic regime.
In looking at what happened in Poland and Hungary in 1956, I am more struck by its adherence to some recognised principles of the Ancient World, rather than to any rubric of modern ideological propaganda. The more typical prognosis of revolutions still follows the patterns of Thucydides and Aristotle: Lower orders are never capable of either starting or maintaining Revolutions against the Upper Orders of their own initiative. The conditions for Revolution appear when the elite is divided against itself, in which case one faction of the elite (the Greeks called such people demagogues) appeals to the lower orders via promises and concessions, in order to mobilise them against their political opponents. This was the principle demonstrated in the Ancient World by Cleisthenes and the Gracchi, in 1956 by the 'Reform Communists' led by Nagy and Kádár, and in the French Revolution, by the Duke of Orleans and the countless lesser Aristocrats who supported it. Where the elite succeed in maintaining control of the 'revolution', you can have an orderly constitutional transition, possibly under a form of Popular Dictatorship. Where the elite loses control of the 'revolution', as happened during the French Revolution, all chaos breaks loose for a while, until a new ruling class emerges, usually by cobbling together elements drawn from both the Old and New elites.
The reign of Louis XVI was the most liberal monarchical period, perhaps in the history of France up until 1848. This is because by the late-18th century, the walls of formalism erected during le Grand Siecle, separating the social classes had to a great extent evaporated. That, and not exacerbated oppression, created the conditions which permitted the Revolution to succeed.
I was of course simplifying, it is forum post, hard to write all the details. Frankly your own description is similarly missing a lot of details. I think the proper statement would be "Lower orders are never capable of either starting or maintaining Revolutions against the Upper Orders without capable leadership". If what you call "lower orders" (which gets more vague as time goes on) have potential to generate such leadership they absolutely do not need "upper orders". The more modern the times the less upper orders are necessary, but also the less is the distinction between those two groups clear. The "upper order" has better training and education to take over the leadership of such movements.
You also ignore that to be able to demagogue-away masses, you need to actually play on things that would motivate them. If people are wealthy enough, not suffering and their lives are stable, good luck finding enough to motivate them to risk their lives. You can still go the ideology route and use religion or nationalism ..., but even that gets harder and harder. So the revolutions still need the "oppressed masses". Yes, the actual detailed mechanism is much more complex than what I (and you) described.
This brings us to your point about France being at its most liberal at the time of French Revolution. Just because things are getting better does not mean that everything is great. Of course people's lives were probably better than during 100 year war, but there was plenty of local revolts all over medieval times. It is not like French Revolution was first time people in France revolted.
But yes, destruction of class differences and existence of middle class and education and technological progress make revolution more likely to succeed as they increase the abilities of revolutionaries to organize the movement better. That is why the revolts in medieval ages were not so successful.
EDIT: What I wanted to point out in the second to last paragraph was that people were at the boiling point all the time in medieval period and all the time until probably early 1900s. But revolutions start where enough people reach that point at the same time and some other conditions appear (the leadership, opportunity,..).
the french revolution was of course important, not because it actually established functional democracy in the immediate aftermath, but because of the revolutionary spirit of remaking society by the people it unleashed. it plays together with enlightenment principles of rationally organizing society for some purpose, rather than being a slave to the past.
so it's done more for the subsequent development of liberal ideas (specifically an abstract representation of the person, vs traditional hierarchy. monarchy is not a constructed ideology like liberalism is), while the material basis of future revolutions is established elsewhere.
monarchy is not a very interesting system. makes for nice drama(Game of Thrones etc), because it taps into whatever routine that makes aristocracy shiny and interesting, but at the end of the day no material difference from a pack of baboons led by the one with the biggest butt or something.
I have one argument for Monarchy, but I'm not exactly sure how to word it because it's more of a thought. I kind of feel that the royal family is responsible for the "moral leadership" of a country. They deal with times of crisis with speeches, visiting disaster areas, comforting the affected. During times of celebration they are there to be in the middle of the pomp and circumstance.
They essentially pull the responsibility of a father/mother figure away from the political leader, which in my opinion is something a politician should never have to do. Politicians are there to busy themselves with lawmaking and debates, not holding a nation's hand.
Furthermore, a nation's sense of pride and patriotism is better spent in a monarch than in a president in my opinion. It stops the president from using/abusing certain events for (re-)election purposes and doesn't force him/her to be an ideal citizen and role model.
I felt to register after longetime lurking, after reading Op.
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,
So much wrongness in the very first sentence. Trying to state some facts here for you:
Czech Republic: Former Kingdom of Boehmia and Maehria, other parts belonged to the Kingdom of Hungaria, Part of the Holy Roman Empire and later on Austria - Hungarian Empire, Capital Prague is the City with the first German speaking University founded in the 13. century.
Poland: Kingdom in Medieval times, splitted between German and Russian Interests. An actual Polish Kingdom with a Polish Crown only lastet for about 150 years split over the last 700 years, Polish areas were mostly lead by german stemming nobles since the middle ages.
Republic in czechia from 1918 to 1939, and from 1993 (1989-1993 Republic of Czecho-Slovakia) to now. In Poland from 1918 - 1936 , and from 1998 to now.
Thats for sure a "Very strong republican history".
On April 20 2013 01:57 Iyerbeth wrote: [spoiler=For Length] 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.
In many of those countries, the monarchy, even if they don't use this power, control the army. The lastest attempt of coup on Spain (1981) was stopped thanks to our king, rejecting to seize that power to gain control of the country and condeming it. There are different cases for everything, Spain for example, withouth our king, we wouldn't have a democracy nowadays. And while i think it's an institution that should dissappear over time, many people is still thankful enough about it, except younger generations.
You also speak about the training from birth and you claim that a regular joe ambassador has the same image than a king. That's not true, specially when acting as diplomats with dictatorships, that they can go with a more neutral approach to be regarded differently. Hell, our king said something along the lines "are you going to shut up ?" to Chavez once when he was talking crazyness, and he just closed his mouth A regular diplomat never will have the same power by presence and title.
the stable monarchies also have a strong liberal tradition in their politics. if you replace say, the north korean dictator guy with a king, that monarchy would not be very stable.
i guess an argument would be that, an awareness that it is the 'soft' tradition and ideals that keep stability rather than a formalistic, written system makes people more conscious of their active role in maintaining and upholding their political ideals. much like how a written constitution can sometimes give you clarence thomas while british jurisprudence doesn't have that kind of nonsense.
On April 19 2013 08:05 DeepElemBlues wrote: I really find those kinds of things hard to believe considering 1: The Tea Party 2: Obama's OFA organization 3: you can set up just about any kind of PAC you want these days and raise money for it without limit 4: referendums are used very frequently in the US at the state level 5: I'd have to look at how these things were measured by these studies, but quite frankly I think the facts of political participation in the US contradict them.
"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 usa is no different realy, the usa is also ruled by an unelected elite and while the idea of beeing born into power and nobility might seem foreign to you, manny americans are born into power as well, for instance the rockefeller clan or the bush clan, or other rich clans. They might not have the nobility but that doesnt realy matter. The nobility is just a token, its the power that matters and in that regard the usa is no different.
Its also worth noting that officially the monarch has no power in the netherlands, its just a symbolic function. Our system can be described as a constitutional monarchy (wich i could not find as option in the opening post) where the administration/government is 100% responsible for everything the queen says and does, the queen therefor has to follow all directions and recommandations given to her by the administration/government and is not allowed to voice her own opinnion basicly. She does off course have some influence due to the network of her family wich dates back centurys.But this influence is rather limited and officially there is none. Maybe it can be compared with the influence lobby groups have on the usa government, though i doubt the influence of our queen can even be compared to that (i think the lobby groups in the usa have far more influence on usa politics then the queen has on the politics of the netherlands) There has been 1 big scandal in the netherlands in the 70,s. Where prince bernhard (may he rest in piece) took a bribe from lockheed of about 4m$ i believe to influence the dutch government into buying lockheed fighter jets. This then became public and an investigation was done and the prince was punished. The prince got stripped of pretty much all his priviliges due to this and he was more or less publicly humiliated. They definatly dont stand above the law.
Personally i dont like the influence lobby groups have on national politics and as such i am not to happy with the netherlands beeing a monarchy,what we should not forget though is that if we remove the monarchy, the influence will stay. The influence is a result of the important position the royal family had in the past 100,s of years and the network and wealth they aquired in thoose years. This can not be erased by erasing the monarchy and the monarchy has a few important benefits for the netherlands as a whole. As such i do support the monarchy we have in the netherlands, i think her majesty queen beatrix specially did a verry good job in supporting dutch interest all over the world in manny cases.
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,
So much wrongness in the very first sentence. Trying to state some facts here for you:
Czech Republic: Former Kingdom of Boehmia and Maehria, other parts belonged to the Kingdom of Hungaria, Part of the Holy Roman Empire and later on Austria - Hungarian Empire, Capital Prague is the City with the first German speaking University founded in the 13. century.
Poland: Kingdom in Medieval times, splitted between German and Russian Interests. An actual Polish Kingdom with a Polish Crown only lastet for about 150 years split over the last 700 years, Polish areas were mostly lead by german stemming nobles since the middle ages.
Republic in czechia from 1918 to 1939, and from 1993 (1989-1993 Republic of Czecho-Slovakia) to now. In Poland from 1918 - 1936 , and from 1998 to now.
Thats for sure a "Very strong republican history".
So much wrong, basically every sentence is either wrong or misleading.
It was Republic of Czechoslovakia from 1918-1939, after that in exile, then from 1945-1949, after that still republic, but communist one. Poland was also republic fro 1989, not 1998. Poland was also first country in Europe to have a constitution (modern democratic one) in 1791, second in the world after US.
And yes Czechoslovakia has strong republican (democratic would be better) history, he did not claim long, just strong. Also thank you for reminding us that we were conquered and dominated by Germans for hundreds of years. Also note that Charles University was not a German one when it was founded, it was multi-national one as it was founded before we were incorporated into Austria. But yes it was first one in Central Europe, tough luck for nationalist Germans who would like to claim it for themselves.
Polish Kingdom was founded around year 1000 and existed until 1795, that is much more than 150 years you claim. Polish lands were not lead by German-based nobles, Poland was in alliance with Lithuania and was except for short time in 18th century lead by Polish and Lithuanian kings. You know absolutely nothing about history of Poland.
On April 21 2013 08:22 Holo82 wrote: I felt to register after longetime lurking, after reading Op.
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,
So much wrongness in the very first sentence. Trying to state some facts here for you:
Czech Republic: Former Kingdom of Boehmia and Maehria, other parts belonged to the Kingdom of Hungaria, Part of the Holy Roman Empire and later on Austria - Hungarian Empire, Capital Prague is the City with the first German speaking University founded in the 13. century.
Poland: Kingdom in Medieval times, splitted between German and Russian Interests. An actual Polish Kingdom with a Polish Crown only lastet for about 150 years split over the last 700 years, Polish areas were mostly lead by german stemming nobles since the middle ages.
Republic in czechia from 1918 to 1939, and from 1993 (1989-1993 Republic of Czecho-Slovakia) to now. In Poland from 1918 - 1936 , and from 1998 to now.
Thats for sure a "Very strong republican history".
So much wrong, basically every sentence is either wrong or misleading.
It was Republic of Czechoslovakia from 1918-1939, after that in exile, then from 1945-1949, after that still republic, but communist one. Poland was also republic fro 1989, not 1998. Poland was also first country in Europe to have a constitution (modern democratic one) in 1791, second in the world after US.
And yes Czechoslovakia has strong republican (democratic would be better) history, he did not claim long, just strong. Also thank you for reminding us that we were conquered and dominated by Germans for hundreds of years. Also note that Charles University was not a German one when it was founded, it was multi-national one as it was founded before we were incorporated into Austria. But yes it was first one in Central Europe, tough luck for nationalist Germans who would like to claim it for themselves.
Polish Kingdom was founded around year 1000 and existed until 1795, that is much more than 150 years you claim. Polish lands were not lead by German-based nobles, Poland was in alliance with Lithuania and was except for short time in 18th century lead by Polish and Lithuanian kings. You know absolutely nothing about history of Poland.
EDIT: should be 1945-48
If we're going to be pedantic, half of your statements are either wrong or deceptive.
-Holo did not claim that the Kingdom of Poland only existed for 150 years, he claimed, although awkwardly, that it only possessed a Polish dynasty for 150 years. -It was the Czecho-slovak/Czechoslovak Republic up until 1938 -Second Czecho-Slovak Republic October 38-March 39 -Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia/Slovak Republic thereafter -The Czech National Congress was not the legal successor of the Second Czecho-Slovak Republic, as it was not set up until 7 months after the dissolution of Czecho-Slovakia, and no one recognised it until 1941. -The Polish Constitution, like the American Constitution was based on Montesquieuian precepts of a mixed government and separation of powers. It was not 'Democratic.' -The Saxon dynasty was not the only non-Polish, non-Lithuanian dynasty to ascend to the Polish throne in history, although it was the only instance of a dynastic union between the Polish crown and any German prince. -If Prague of 1348 is seen as a bi-national town, and its university seen as a multi-national establishment, and the HRE is seen as a Medieval-Roman entity rather than the predecessor state of the modern Germanies, then in all fairness the status of the Kingdom of Bohemia as a member of the HRE of the German Nation, where it possessed greater legal autonomy and more rights than any other integral unit, cannot be viewed as a period of German domination, nor could the Habsburg crown lands be connected with the German national identity until the official Germanisation decrees of Joseph II. The period between the Czech National Awakening and the establishment of a Czechoslovak state was less than a century, and not 'many centuries.' If on the other hand you want to anachronistically project national identity into periods when it was relatively unimportant, then you must accept that Prague was already by the 14th century a largely Germanised town, and remained a predominantly German town until the 19th century.
P.S. I thought the first 'Central European' University was the Jagiellonian University in Krakow, but I suppose you would refer to that as Eastern Europe. What mcc means by calling the Charles University the first 'Central European' University, is to say that it was the first University established within the confines of the HRE, which is in his mind synonymous with 'Central Europe.' In other words, he's telling us that the Charles University was the first university in Germany, and it was non-German.
i think unitary republic is so much better, no more it depends on what state you live in. Just what the federal law is, is the law of the land, also taxes are easier to understand.
On April 21 2013 08:22 Holo82 wrote: I felt to register after longetime lurking, after reading Op.
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,
So much wrongness in the very first sentence. Trying to state some facts here for you:
Czech Republic: Former Kingdom of Boehmia and Maehria, other parts belonged to the Kingdom of Hungaria, Part of the Holy Roman Empire and later on Austria - Hungarian Empire, Capital Prague is the City with the first German speaking University founded in the 13. century.
Poland: Kingdom in Medieval times, splitted between German and Russian Interests. An actual Polish Kingdom with a Polish Crown only lastet for about 150 years split over the last 700 years, Polish areas were mostly lead by german stemming nobles since the middle ages.
Republic in czechia from 1918 to 1939, and from 1993 (1989-1993 Republic of Czecho-Slovakia) to now. In Poland from 1918 - 1936 , and from 1998 to now.
Thats for sure a "Very strong republican history".
So much wrong, basically every sentence is either wrong or misleading.
It was Republic of Czechoslovakia from 1918-1939, after that in exile, then from 1945-1949, after that still republic, but communist one. Poland was also republic fro 1989, not 1998. Poland was also first country in Europe to have a constitution (modern democratic one) in 1791, second in the world after US.
And yes Czechoslovakia has strong republican (democratic would be better) history, he did not claim long, just strong. Also thank you for reminding us that we were conquered and dominated by Germans for hundreds of years. Also note that Charles University was not a German one when it was founded, it was multi-national one as it was founded before we were incorporated into Austria. But yes it was first one in Central Europe, tough luck for nationalist Germans who would like to claim it for themselves.
Polish Kingdom was founded around year 1000 and existed until 1795, that is much more than 150 years you claim. Polish lands were not lead by German-based nobles, Poland was in alliance with Lithuania and was except for short time in 18th century lead by Polish and Lithuanian kings. You know absolutely nothing about history of Poland.
EDIT: should be 1945-48
If we're going to be pedantic, half of your statements are either wrong or deceptive.
-Holo did not claim that the Kingdom of Poland only existed for 150 years, he claimed, although awkwardly, that it only possessed a Polish dynasty for 150 years.
And he was wrong.
On April 24 2013 07:30 MoltkeWarding wrote: -It was the Czecho-slovak/Czechoslovak Republic up until 1938 -Second Czecho-Slovak Republic October 38-March 39 -Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia/Slovak Republic thereafter -The Czech National Congress was not the legal successor of the Second Czecho-Slovak Republic, as it was not set up until 7 months after the dissolution of Czecho-Slovakia, and no one recognised it until 1941.
It was still Czechoslovak Republic until 1939, I have no idea what do you think I said wrong ? I did not mean to imply that exile government was continuation of Czechoslovak Republic, otherwise I would just say it was Czechoslovak Republic from 1918-1948. I specifically excluded that period, but probably bad wording on my part.
On April 24 2013 07:30 MoltkeWarding wrote: -The Polish Constitution, like the American Constitution was based on Montesquieuian precepts of a mixed government and separation of powers. It was not 'Democratic.'
Well I consider American one democratic, if you want to quibble over details of republic vs democracy we can do that, but does not change the point I was making one bit.
On April 24 2013 07:30 MoltkeWarding wrote: -The Saxon dynasty was not the only non-Polish, non-Lithuanian dynasty to ascend to the Polish throne in history, although it was the only instance of a dynastic union between the Polish crown and any German prince.
True, there were some others, still his estimate and claim that German nobles ruled Polish lands is wrong.
On April 24 2013 07:30 MoltkeWarding wrote: -If Prague of 1348 is seen as a bi-national town, and its university seen as a multi-national establishment, and the HRE is seen as a Medieval-Roman entity rather than the predecessor state of the modern Germanies, then in all fairness the status of the Kingdom of Bohemia as a member of the HRE of the German Nation, where it possessed greater legal autonomy and more rights than any other integral unit, cannot be viewed as a period of German domination, nor could the Habsburg crown lands be connected with the German national identity until the official Germanisation decrees of Joseph II. The period between the Czech National Awakening and the establishment of a Czechoslovak state was less than a century, and not 'many centuries.' If on the other hand you want to anachronistically project national identity into periods when it was relatively unimportant, then you must accept that Prague was already by the 14th century a largely Germanised town, and remained a predominantly German town until the 19th century.
P.S. I thought the first 'Central European' University was the Jagiellonian University in Krakow, but I suppose you would refer to that as Eastern Europe. What mcc means by calling the Charles University the first 'Central European' University, is to say that it was the first University established within the confines of the HRE, which is in his mind synonymous with 'Central Europe.' In other words, he's telling us that the Charles University was the first university in Germany, and it was non-German.
Nah, I was just reacting to his blatant nationalism with exaggeration. Your description is mostly on point if we ignore the P.S.. There were periods though where Prague was not predominantly German town in that timeframe. And I would actually never call it predominantly German at all, but that is neither here nor there.
And no, Jagiellonian University is also in Central Europe, but it was not first as it was founded later than Charles University. And no HRE is not synonymous with Central Europe in my mind. Central Europe is much broader term. And it was never in Germany, many territories that were part of HRE were not in Germany. Unless in your mind HRE = Germany, yet you just before claimed how that term is not really applicable in those times. Stop explaining what I am saying if you have no clue what I am actually saying.
EPT
... but "equality for all peoples" is just hilarious. It BECAME that... but it wasn't founded on it, not in practice at least.
![[image loading]](http://mail.esdnl.ca/~craig_halliday/5%20year%20plan.bmp)
![[image loading]](http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NjUyWDEzMDA=/$(KGrHqV,!lUE5ZEJnmW5BOY,e!(nNQ~~60_35.JPG)
![[image loading]](http://img.izismile.com/img/img3/20100505/640/swedish_king_who_640_03.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://blogs.reuters.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/routemaster_s.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/C1bc7dg.jpg)
