EPT"I've been dreaming of a time when
The English are sick to death of Labour
And Tories, and spit upon the name of Oliver Cromwell
And denounce this royal line that still salute him
And will salute him forever"
+ Show Spoiler +
My Case Against The Monarchy - Page 2
| Blogs > Iyerbeth |
|
Erik.TheRed
United States1655 Posts
"I've been dreaming of a time when The English are sick to death of Labour And Tories, and spit upon the name of Oliver Cromwell And denounce this royal line that still salute him And will salute him forever" + Show Spoiler + | ||
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
Out of all the Monarchies present in Western Society the British one is probably the one that shouldn't get abolished because its a great international marketing tool due to the rich history of Britain. Moreover the Monarchy gives a sense of nationalistic pride, proof of Brittania rules the waves(or rather, did in the past). Everybody celebrates Queens day(now Kings day) in The Netherlands. You can't really measure something such as joy, happiness or even just general interest or other such metrics with numbers or quantify them into cash, people like the fairy tales etc. The press is all over the birth of Kate Middleton(and not just in Britain). You speak of little diplomatic or trade influence but it doesn't just happen formally, all those parties you speak off, (70k guests wasn't it?) while I am sure a lot of it is just people getting drunk there is no way to quantify what informal deals, networking or new relations are established. Bear in mind that some countries in this world value Monarchy highly, being able to only talk with a prince or the Queen can be huge. Who gets invited to royal parties?not only royal family but also fucking rich investors/people/oil barons you name it. It is their chance to get a taste of what money can't buy, royalty. On the other hand the Monarchy doesn't cost that much relatively speaking, hard money or even land is not the reason people are mad at them getting it, it is the idea behind it. They only get a very small fraction of money and frankly you could pull that away from other stuff easily(hello DoD). That it is a tradition doesn't mean it should stay one, a valid point however the fact that it is a tradition also means it has a cultural, historical and emotional value to some people, that is NOT an invalid point. You shouldn't keep things for the sake of tradition but if it has a signifcant cultural and historical value for the people then that is a validation of why it should exist. Oh yeah and Elizabeth may be immortal but shes still old as hell, not so healthy for her to travel all the time. You haven't really expressed any true harms of the Monarchy that are significant enough to offset the benefits. You have only pointed out why some arguments for the Monarchy are potentially flawed. There are lots of things flawed in this world but we do it because the benefits outweighs the costs. You aren't building a case against Monarchy, you are building a case against arguments for the Monarchy which are two different things(while one is part of the other). You bring rebuttal but little true harms although some of it admittedly is interwoven. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5078 Posts
The Tradition Argument Yes, fuck tradition, I wholeheartedly agree. Both of you do realize of course that the reason a tradition is a tradition is that it has worked well enough over such a long period of time as to be deeply ingrained in the consciousness of a people, that's why it is a tradition. Times do change of course and all that but tradition as Talin said very well is not inherently bad (or inherently good even if it has "worked well" enough long enough to become a tradition). Anyway most of our lives are ruled almost entirely by tradition and we don't even think about it. We use the word tradition too much, using it when we mean a particular kind of social values or societal opinions. Stop badmouthing tradition just because some things that are tradition are things you do not like! They are not the be-all, end-all of tradition. As for the Monarchy my case for it is cultural, the British monarchy is part of what makes Britain Britain and makes the British British. And not a small part. The analogy is not wholly apt or comprehensive but the Crown in Britain fulfills the same kind of national political mythology need that the Constitution / Founding Fathers do in the United States. The Crown is a living symbol of a common heritage and an avenue for the expressing of pride and love of country without having to talk shit on other countries to do so. People like to feel a connection to their ancestors, it's a very human thing to do. Being under the same crown for X hundred years and feeling a living connection to the ancient past because their heroic (of course!) forebears were under the same (or same-ish) institution, people love feeling that. The institution of the British monarchy is a vessel for national unity, stability, and self-confidence in many different ways. These things are not lacking in considerable value to a nation. EDIT: Also if I were shameless I'd steal everything kipsate wrote and act like I wrote it. | ||
|
Shottaz
United Kingdom414 Posts
I'm proud of them, I love our Queen. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On July 24 2013 08:46 Targe wrote: But I like 'Liz  This :-) Most British people I know are actually quite fond of their monarchy, so what's the harm ^^ And then, the most important thing : HOW WOULD HAVE QUEEN EXISTED/BEEN NAMED IF NOT FOR THE MONARCHY x) | ||
|
GeckoXp
Germany2016 Posts
On July 24 2013 07:10 Iyerbeth wrote: 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. Well, while I do see your point, it really is only a British and a short sighted view on things. What makes the royal family so much different from (to keep it British) wealthy families and persons like Mrs. Rowling? You could argue that she earned it, since she worked (which makes her different from the royal family today), but she'll probably pass her wealth on to her children. With money comes a certain power, or at least a better social status. Think about that in the context of the difference between the lower income classes and the upper class when it comes to social insurance, job chances, chances to go through a (possibly) expansive education system and so on and so forth. Her kids would not have done anything to earn the wealth she had, yet you can't possibly deny her the right to inherit her legacy. This example goes for a lot of people, the more money your parents have, the better the chances for their offsprings. Theoretically speaking, this can be transferred to the idea of "which nationality do you have" or re-phrased as "which welfare systems does a state provide", etc. pp. From an outsider's (German) perspective, it'd make a lot more sense to focus only on the political aspects. If you did that, Birdie's argument would come in - why do you think that's so bad compared to a lot of other systems? After following the debates of the Germans whether or not a politician is fit for his/her position, especially our "Bundespräsident / Head of State" I can't help but feel that other systems based on a more 'democratic approach' aren't so much better to be honest. They work somewhat, but all do have faults of their own. However, I do feel with you. I never understood why people, especially elderly females, are attracted so much to aristocracy. "Bow down peons, my penis works" :/ | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 24 2013 14:56 DeepElemBlues wrote: Both of you do realize of course that the reason a tradition is a tradition is that it has worked well enough over such a long period of time as to be deeply ingrained in the consciousness of a people, that's why it is a tradition. Despite that, tradition is a bad argument and you should know that. If indeed it works, then make the rational arguments, and don't slap a "it's tradition therefore it's good" sticker on it. If a tradition is good, then it bring up why. There clearly have been bad and good traditions and they shouldn't be immune to criticism because they've passed the test of time. People can be wrong for a long time. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5078 Posts
On July 24 2013 23:08 Djzapz wrote: Despite that, tradition is a bad argument and you should know that. If indeed it works, then make the rational arguments, and don't slap a "it's tradition therefore it's good" sticker on it. If a tradition is good, then it bring up why. There clearly have been bad and good traditions and they shouldn't be immune to criticism because they've passed the test of time. People can be wrong for a long time. Well since that is what I said and you did not quote that part for some reason I am not sure of the cause for your paragraph of chastisement  | ||
|
catplanetcatplanet
3825 Posts
That would be a fantastic movie | ||
|
Iyerbeth
England2410 Posts
Written at the end of this reply: I've been working on this post for quite a while and I still want to give a real response to Talin, Djzapz, Kipsate and DeepElemBlues but I don't want to do it half-heartedly and I need a break from the pc so I'm going to go start dinner and stuff so I'll do my best to get another reply up before I go to bed tonight. The biggest thing I've realised is that replies which included something like: On July 24 2013 14:41 Kipsate wrote: You aren't building a case against Monarchy, you are building a case against arguments for the Monarchy which are two different things(while one is part of the other). You bring rebuttal but little true harms although some of it admittedly is interwoven. On July 24 2013 14:02 Elegy wrote: Where are the arguments where you actually show that abolishing the monarchy would be of a strong benefit to the British people? Seems these are all just counterpoint. are quite correct. At best I've negated many of the more common pro-monarch positions, and whilst I do think I've highlighted some issues I can't really said to have made my case as strongly as I would have liked to without also expressing a less defensive position. As a result I'll be compiling a second blog as I get time with a look at some of the harm that the monarchy causes and the benefits of it's removal and I'll consider this the first of a 2 part work. Before I continue though, I did promise a response to the claim "the majority like them", which I'll also add to the OP. The 'Popular' Argument The Claim The majority of people like the Queen and/or the monarchy so they should be kept in place. This claim also exists as 97% (I may be slightly off on the number, I can't actually find a source for it) of people voted for pro-monarch parties in the last general election. Response The second part of the claim is less common (but I did hear it yesterday from a senior member of the BritishMonarchSociety) but far easier to deal with so I'll start there and then move on to the more comon, and more sensible variant. The fact that most people in the last general election voted for one of a small number of candidates standing who had a chance to win is not representative of the number of people who support the monarch. Pro-republican numbers always poll significantly higher than 3%, it is simply the case that there is currently no alternative to vote for, save for the Green Party in this regard. As to the majority supporting the monarch, it's worth noting that it depends significantly on where you ask and which question. Support for the monarch is highest amongst the elderly, where it reaches up to 88% according to the most pro-monarch trending recent poll I could find and that poll shows that overall 13% support a republic and 7% presumably didn't mind. At first glance then, it does look like this claim has merit, but there is more to be mentioned. First, that poll is taken with the context of the royal baby, and support traditionally rises everytime we have one of these affairs or another. There are also vast differences across the UK in their support of the monarchy, when the older generation is unfortunately no longer with us, and especially with Charles who is almost a case for a republic in his own right, those numbers will drop. The support in Scotland is traditionally lower also. Second though, the list of claims I have shown alone will show that most people's support is based on an long term misinformation campaign which has even managed to convince people that the monarchy doesn't cost money (or costs very little) which is demonstrably false already, but would be significantly clearer had the monarch not demanded the right to immunity from the freedom of information act and immunity to real accounting such as security costs, event costs and the public lands which are used to fund them which would massively increase the cost. The fact that so many of these claims are believed, it's no wonder they have support; they're money printing masters of diplomacy who are loved by all and far better than any politician to believe these claims! It's also worth noting though, that this post is illegal under British law. No, seriously, I'm not allowed to advocate for the replacement of my head of state - it is illegal under several acts of treason which still apply today which apply a life sentence. It wasn't until 2003 that it was finally judged to be in breach of the human rights act to punish peaceful means of protestation, though the law still remains should that act be repealed - something which is advocated by senior members of the current government! This case had to be brought by one of the largest newspapers in the UK because they had wanted to advocate for a republic, is it any wonder there is so little widespread opposition? Anything which causes alarm to the sovereign is still punishable by life in prison, though fortunately not death as it would have just 15 years ago. On July 24 2013 14:19 Tal wrote: This. People learn about the Queen in school and follow all the big weddings etc. It's incredible publicity, and we'd be insane to give it up. I'm in China and am having people ask me questions about the new baby prince. Good to be on the radar of our future target market. Also it's just a ceremonial position, so it doesn't really effect our democracy. I think I've covered the first part in my tourism section, but would you disagree? The ceremonial question does need covering though. The Ceremonial Argument The Claim The role of the monachy is basically just ceremonial and so there is no reason to remove them. Response The ceremonial only role of the monarchy is overstated, and often refers to little more than their laziness, covered earlier. To describe the royal family as still ceremonial is to ignore the real impacts they do have. For instance, as I write this I am 'a subject of her majesty', replace 'her majesty' with 'President Obama' or whoever your personal head of state is if you fail to see why that's offensive. The princess story may seem quaint to the outsider, but perhaps not so much as a reality. It's also worth noting, you're considered owing duty to the crown (and so liable for treason) if you have a British passport, so there is yet another case where the monarchy isn't just for show - I am forced to be labeled a traitor if I wish to leave the country legally for any reason. I become liable for treason laws if I dislike the monarchy by having a British passport, because it is issued in the monarchs 'protection'. As I have already mentioned in the 'They Don't Really Do Anything' section, they also have a dangerous veto which they can use against any law they feel will imapact them. Privy Council exists as a mechanism to get around parliamentary scrutiny, which one member resigned from citing it was being used in a way which "borders on conspiracy". This council is of course in addition to the weekly visits in which the Queen is consulted by the Prime Minister on legislation whereby she may warn him against proposals. We will, of course, never know which legislation has been warned against. In addition, the monarch still holds the power to choose a Prime Minister or to dissovle parliament. These are real things she can elect to do. 'But she'll never use those powers!' will come a chorus no doubt, as if leaving such power as a ceremonial role to never be used were in any way a sensible course of affairs. On July 24 2013 12:41 Jerubaal wrote: I think the most important reason to keep the monarchy is to remind the UK of its political history. The UK did not merely spring from the General Will of its people in a republican spirit. It developed in a particular manner according to unique political events and according to the character of its people. The monarchy, even in a vestigial state, should serve to remind Parliament and the body politic in general that they did not will themselves into existence and cannot similarly will the nation into whatever it wants. The U.K. evolved peacefully and successfully largely because of the gradual establishment of institutions, where so many other countries tried to simply will themselves into being and failed in various spectacular ways. The monarchy is a testament and a reminder to honor that process.. I would absolutely agree that the history of the country is important to remember, and is in a way it's own national treasure. I'm suggesting only that we keep it as history, evict the residents and open up the history of the country to it's people in a way that we have never had before. An opportunity to honour the past and enjoy learning of the history of the country doesn't need an exisiting monarch. On July 24 2013 08:51 Feartheguru wrote: The royal family owns huge plots of land whose rent is voluntarily contributed to the state. Overall, this income is far greater than their expenditures. So unless you steal all of their land there is nothing to gain by removing the monarchy. I believe I covered this in the crown estates section. Is there something you think I've missed? On July 24 2013 08:34 radscorpion9 wrote: About the finances argument, I was hoping you might add some information as to how much money the royal family earns. Because I was just reading some information from Wikipedia on the "Crown Estate", where they say that (Link): "In modern times, the profits surrendered from the Crown Estate have exceeded the Civil List and Grants-in-Aid. For example, the Crown Estate produced £200 million for the Treasury in the financial year 2007–8, whereas reported parliamentary funding for the monarch was £40 million during the same period." Source Also generally I think you make a good argument that the Queen really shouldn't have that veto power. Thus I agree that they shouldn't have that power anymore (and any other undemocratic ones) and that the royal family should become a cosmetic tourist attraction .The Crown Estates are sections of the country which are used to privately fund the next monarch. When they say the crown estate produced money for the treasury, they're refering to the money which should already belong to the country, were the money not also being siphoned to the monarch, and without a monarch all of the money from those buildings would belong to the state anyway. Unfrotuantely, this is another instance of obfuscation here in that it's impossible to tell which buildings they own and don't own, and they're immune from taxation on sales and purchases they make which would generate millions extra according to the BBC. We have learnt at least a few of the commercial business properties which the Duchy of Cornwall takes a cut from at least. In addition, if you die without a will in a duchy, the prince gets your stuff. Also, the amount given to the royal family is set to massively increase this year, as the amount of over spending they had been living off to show their pay cuts (which I covered in the financial argument) as we've now moved to the sovereign grant which will have to show a much higher sum given - though it will still hide the true costs of course. On July 24 2013 21:02 GeckoXp wrote: Well, while I do see your point, it really is only a British and a short sighted view on things. What makes the royal family so much different from (to keep it British) wealthy families and persons like Mrs. Rowling? You could argue that she earned it, since she worked (which makes her different from the royal family today), but she'll probably pass her wealth on to her children. With money comes a certain power, or at least a better social status. Think about that in the context of the difference between the lower income classes and the upper class when it comes to social insurance, job chances, chances to go through a (possibly) expansive education system and so on and so forth. Her kids would not have done anything to earn the wealth she had, yet you can't possibly deny her the right to inherit her legacy. This example goes for a lot of people, the more money your parents have, the better the chances for their offsprings. Theoretically speaking, this can be transferred to the idea of "which nationality do you have" or re-phrased as "which welfare systems does a state provide", etc. pp. From an outsider's (German) perspective, it'd make a lot more sense to focus only on the political aspects. If you did that, Birdie's argument would come in - why do you think that's so bad compared to a lot of other systems? After following the debates of the Germans whether or not a politician is fit for his/her position, especially our "Bundespräsident / Head of State" I can't help but feel that other systems based on a more 'democratic approach' aren't so much better to be honest. They work somewhat, but all do have faults of their own. However, I do feel with you. I never understood why people, especially elderly females, are attracted so much to aristocracy. "Bow down peons, my penis works" :/ Well, for the first part I would absolutely support the abolishment of inheritence, but that would require a far longer post than I have time for now to explain in a convincing way but I might actually take up the task when I have some free time as I've enjoyed having something to write about in this thread. I will cover your second part in my now intended second blog on this matter though, as I don't think I've shown clearly enough why it's bad.As to the final part, I think our society teaches it's daughter too readily to princesses, to look good and not earn their future with the potential that they really do posess. It's only natural that this leads to romantic royal stories, and a hope for a Will and Kate affair. Amusingly, that example betrays the aristocracy further, in their description of Kate as 'common'. I still want to give a real response to Talin, Djzapz, Kipsate and DeepElemBlues but I don't want to do it half-heartedly and I need a break from the pc so I'm going to go start dinner and stuff so I'll do my best to get a reply up before I go to bed tonight. | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
I feel like a lot of the arguments in favour of the monarchy (which the OP did a lovely job dismantling) are basically arguments of the form "well, it doesn't seem to hurt anyone, and it does give us some economic benefits, so why get rid of it?" To me, this is totally missing the point. But even if we consider that, there are people who have been denied citizenship (in Canada, at least) for refusing to swear to the Queen, even if they are totally okay with every other aspect of the oath/citizenship requirements. While this is certainly Canada's right in light of its own sovereignty, what kind of fucking sense does it make to deny citizenship because someone takes oaths seriously and doesn't want to swear one to someone who literally only has power because of the legacy of a dynasty of imperialism? What's more, whether or not the British monarchy as it currently exists today is harmful or not does nothing to relieve the notion that according absolute power to someone for no other reason than because their ancestors were royalty (at a time when royalty was actually the general mode of governance) is a completely irrational course of action. There are no actual reasons to prefer nepotism in general to non-nepotism in general, because nepotism separates executive power from ability/support/everything other than parentage. I just can't think of a single good argument as to why anyone would want nepotistic rule to be preserved, even if the monarchs we have right now are fairly benign. The fact is that elevating a random woman who wasn't even born in this continent (i.e. North America) to the status of supreme ruler flies in the face of pretty much everything my nation claims to stand for. I don't really notice the monarchy much in day to day life, but I don't see any reason why I should be expected to be loyal to the Queen, nor why I should be required to be loyal to her, particularly when I had absolutely no say whatsoever in her coronation. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
On July 24 2013 13:25 Djzapz wrote: We have better ways to remember things x_x... I think that argument is just very cheesy and it sounds like something I'd hear on a cheap soap. That's because you're a radical who doesn't believe in institutions, only in your ability to self-create, which only lasts until the next radical comes along to enforce his vision of self-creation. @lyerbeth- Memory is awful. Strictly speaking, you don't remember anything, you've only been told about it, and you likely wouldn't know or care very much if there wasn't still a monarchy. This blog is living proof that without an institution your "memory" lasts as long as it takes you to think of a scenario more to your liking. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 25 2013 00:01 DeepElemBlues wrote: Well since that is what I said and you did not quote that part for some reason I am not sure of the cause for your paragraph of chastisement Well fine then, but when I said "fuck tradition", I was just saying that by itself, it doesn't make much of a case. On July 25 2013 03:07 Jerubaal wrote: That's because you're a radical who doesn't believe in institutions, only in your ability to self-create, which only lasts until the next radical comes along to enforce his vision of self-creation. What the fuck????????????? | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
On July 24 2013 23:08 Djzapz wrote: Despite that, tradition is a bad argument and you should know that. If indeed it works, then make the rational arguments, and don't slap a "it's tradition therefore it's good" sticker on it. If a tradition is good, then it bring up why. There clearly have been bad and good traditions and they shouldn't be immune to criticism because they've passed the test of time. People can be wrong for a long time. 1. It would be inconvenient as fuck to have to argue something on rational grounds every time somebody brought it up. 2. Not everything can be expressed rationally. 3. Not everyone (and by not everyone, I mean almost everyone) can understand many things, even at a base political level, rationally. 4. There's no such thing as "getting rid of tradition", you just want to remove someone else's traditions in favor of your own. On July 25 2013 00:04 catplanetcatplanet wrote: read title as my cats against the monarchy That would be a fantastic movie So you're stories aren't intentionally humorous, that's just how you see the world? :p | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 25 2013 03:34 Jerubaal wrote: 1. It would be inconvenient as fuck to have to argue something on rational grounds every time somebody brought it up. 2. Not everything can be expressed rationally. 3. Not everyone (and by not everyone, I mean almost everyone) can understand many things, even at a base political level, rationally. 4. There's no such thing as "getting rid of tradition", you just want to remove someone else's traditions in favor of your own. Your cheap rhetoric is tedious. People are arguing for what they believe. I don't give much of a crap about tradition, so naturally it doesn't really strike me as a useful argument. As for saying I'm a radical (sigh...) who doesn't believe in institutions (laughable) and only in my ability to self create (pitiful regurgitation of some philosophy thing you read and did not understand), maybe you should consider that I acknowledge the existence and importance of my history, but I'm not shallow enough that I would need a living reminder of it. I literally happen to teach a university-level class on Canada's political history and I don't need the queen to stand on my shoulder while I teach my students. I and they understand that the current state of affairs is entirely dependent on what happened before. Self-creation... seriously. What do they teach kids these days x_x | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
Tradition and custom are almost universally irrational, impractical and inconvenient, but people cling to them and they persist nonetheless. The deeper roots it has, the harder it is to weed out, even if you're actively trying to. You're the one trying to convince people to change their minds. Your own opinion on tradition shouldn't matter to you. What should matter to you is how people on the other side of the fence (in this case about British monarchy) feel about tradition, and why. The fact they cling to it is what stands in your way. Saying you don't give a crap about it shows you're refusing to acknowledge it and address it, which is a strong indication that you don't even understand it. That approach will only make your opinion less relevant to people whose opinion you're trying to influence. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 25 2013 04:13 Talin wrote: It is not cheap rhetoric. Society is not a rational construct, and humans are not rational beings. Tradition and custom are almost universally irrational, impractical and inconvenient, but people cling to them and they persist nonetheless. The deeper roots it has, the harder it is to weed out, even if you're actively trying to. You're the one trying to convince people to change their minds. Your own opinion on tradition shouldn't matter to you. What should matter to you is how people on the other side of the fence (in this case about British monarchy) feel about tradition, and why. The fact they cling to it is what stands in your way. Saying you don't give a crap about it shows you're refusing to acknowledge it and address it, which is a strong indication that you don't even understand it. That approach will only make your opinion less relevant to people whose opinion you're trying to influence. If you actually walk back and look at my first post, you'll see that I'm essentially defending the british monarchy from OP with arguments that have value to me. If people want to make arguments from tradition, I personally consider it child's play. That said, I'm a Canadian, I don't care about what the Britons do, nor do they stand in my way when they disagree. | ||
|
targ
Malaysia445 Posts
Some arguments against his point are that he has not established a reason to get rid of the monarchy, just countered reasons for supporting it. I believe that his argument is sufficient, as the idea of the state elevating one family over another runs counter to our modern values of equality before the law for all, hence as long as the reasons for supporting such injustice are refuted, there is no longer any justification for keeping that injustice. If one says that private citizens can pass vast amounts of wealth down too, that is true, but that is their free will, it's not coming out of tax money. I don't care how rich they are as long as they are equal before the law, which monarchs clearly are not. | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
On July 25 2013 04:13 Talin wrote: It is not cheap rhetoric. Society is not a rational construct, and humans are not rational beings. This is nonsense. Whether or not society in its current incarnation is wholly rational is irrelevant. Everyone in the entire world wants society to become more rational rather than less. Why? Because irrational society is literally senseless; anything and everything can happen in a society that isn't rational. You're conflating the notion that human beings/societies sometimes do irrational things with society/humans being altogether not rational. That's just not true. Human beings are largely very reasonable; we don't do things for random, inconceivable reasons. We do them for reasons that we believe to be logically justified, or else we wouldn't do those things. How do we argue against contemporary human rights abuses (same-sex marriage, ending segregation, freedom of speech, political resistance, etc. etc.)? By saying that these abuses don't make sense. Freedom of speech is defended precisely because the position that some people should have free speech while others don't (i.e. governments vs the public) is totally arbitrary. People pick up on this shit all the time, because people hate stuff that's exposed as being arbitrary, because if people can't depend on their world to generally make sense, then they might as well abandon all hope. Tradition and custom are almost universally irrational, impractical and inconvenient, but people cling to them and they persist nonetheless. The deeper roots it has, the harder it is to weed out, even if you're actively trying to. Traditions and customs are in no way "almost universally irrational, impractical, and inconvenient." No. That just isn't true. Traditions and customs have survived precisely because they brought something to culture that helped it (or else nobody would bother having those traditions/customs to start with). Monarchies aren't irrational in concept; the idea behind them is to consolidate power in one ruler who earned their power from something (usually battle or divine mandate) and who had the talent/knowledge/ontological character to wisely govern the baser peasants. Even though monarchies have always been unjust, they were at least mildly appealing forms of government centuries ago, when the slowness of communication, uneducated populace, logistical difficulties of empire-wide voting, and infusion of religion into politics made things like democracy blasphemous at worst and a practical impossibility to execute on a large scale at best. These aren't great reasons, but at least they're reasons. Nowadays, though, there is no excuse to have a monarchy in a developed Western nation. It's completely, totally, and utterly an infringement on the rights of citizens to free themselves from swearing fealty to a fucking nepotistic ruler. It's one thing to swear allegiance to your nation, but another thing entirely to swear your allegiance to a random person who has no real connection to your or anyone in your nation, but who just happens to have the right alleles. You're the one trying to convince people to change their minds. Your own opinion on tradition shouldn't matter to you. What should matter to you is how people on the other side of the fence (in this case about British monarchy) feel about tradition, and why. You can't convince people to drop traditions, because people have a right to hold to those traditions. That said, nobody should be forced to buy into these traditions, even if they're just "ceremonial," or whatever. If we went back to the old days in which only men were allowed to stand for office, and decided that we'd keep the tradition of, I don't know, only using men (in ceremonial capacity) during state ceremonies (even though women would still be permitted to run for office and hold office, etc.) people would have fucking conniptions. The fact they cling to it is what stands in your way. Saying you don't give a crap about it shows you're refusing to acknowledge it and address it, which is a strong indication that you don't even understand it. That approach will only make your opinion less relevant to people whose opinion you're trying to influence. It's not my job to show someone why their tradition is patently unjust and an affront to liberty; it's their job to show me why it's in any way fair for me to be expected to swear "to the Queen and her successors" in order to be a citizen of the country I was born in, when no King or Queen was ever born in Canada and has never lived permanently in Canada. I'm a Canadian to the core, and I couldn't give less of a shit about the Queen and her successors. | ||
|
Burrfoot
United States1176 Posts
| ||
| ||
