EPTRepublicanism and Monarchism - Page 9
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5078 Posts
| ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On April 19 2013 07:50 DeepElemBlues wrote: 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. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
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. 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. | ||
Falling
Canada11202 Posts
On April 19 2013 08:07 DeepElemBlues wrote: 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. 54-40 or Fight! | ||
|
StickyFlower
Sweden68 Posts
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. + Show Spoiler + Or maybe you are a spoiled brat living off your family wealth unkowing of the real world :D | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23089 Posts
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. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On April 19 2013 08:36 Wombat_NI wrote: 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. Your choice which is better. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23089 Posts
| ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
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." -Justice Brandeis | ||
|
ninini
Sweden1204 Posts
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 | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
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. | ||
|
ControlMonkey
Australia3109 Posts
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. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 19 2013 09:31 Kimaker wrote: 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 | ||
|
Frankenberry
Denmark302 Posts
| ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
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. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23089 Posts
| ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
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). | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On April 19 2013 09:45 oneofthem wrote: 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. | ||
bkrow
Australia8532 Posts
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. | ||
| ||
