Down with Monarchy!!
12/4/13 10:56![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
enders-shadow.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsI have no problem saying it.
Sorry ya limey wankers, but (and perhaps butt), Fuck the Queen!
I am going out on a limb here and disagreeing with the very notion of monarchy.
Now, if you are British, I have a feeling you disagree with me, quite strongly, about the problems that England having a queen has. Now while there are more countries than just England with a queen (or king) my recent conversation with a friend of a friend who happens to be a Brit.
I'm totally baffled, absolutely flabbergasted, as to how modern people, in a modern country are still perfectly content with their medieval ruling class monarchs continuing to sit on the throne.
Now, I know I know, the Queen, bless her heart, is just a figure-head. She's not a monarch in the way that monarchs USED to rule. She's not a member of an aristocracy that decides the fate of the country, NO! The queen is just our national celebrity, our figurehead.
About that. I've got to say, I'm slightly confused. So while my friend of a friend, insisted, quite vehemently, "the Queen does NOT have power in the political world. she rubber stamps whatever parliament does" meanwhile, a relatives boyfriend who is also a Brit told me once that, "oh of course the queen has power. everyone over there knows this. it's not something Americans are too savvy on, but we Brits all know she has power." He went on to give me an example of her power.
e.g. Let's say that for whatever reason, the house of commons and the house of lords decided to switch england from the pound to the euro. This would be massively unpopular and the queen could use her power to dissolve the government and call for new elections. This would give the people a chance to vote out the people doing what they dislike. The queen, according to my relatives boyfriend, can do what is RIGHT without worrying about what is POPULAR.
I found this line of reasoning odd, not the least of which this individuals previous argument FOR the queen was that she was popular. "We Brits love her. Can't we have what we want?" Well, I'm gonna continue to maintain that EITHER we should do what is right, because it is right, even when it's unpopular (including deposing a popular monarch, if monarchy is wrong) or we should simply do what is popular and not use being right as some magical reason to give power to an unelected monarch. Personally I maintain that what is right aught be done, regardless of popularity, regardless of consequence.
I fantasize that this puts me in the same ideological stance of Rorsarch and Socrates. They make an odd couple.
So I'm not going to claim to be any great expert on Britain or Monarchy or how the two interact over there. Maybe the queen has power, maybe not. (Here is a link suggesting the queen does have power. My Brit friend of a friend said it was a single piece of sensationalist journalism that I shouldn't put too much stock in)
So here's the thing, even if the queen is not an institutional force of power, I have a problem with vast sums of inherited wealth and power. Even the left-wingers I know, some of whom may be socialists and communists, oddly enough, have no problem with this family continuing its line of wealth, generation to generation, not laboring for it, but being handed it because of some accident of birth.
I'm aware that the queen has a positive effect. She is a source of national unity and pride; she can be a diplomat; she can bring in revenue from people buying knick-knacks with the queen or princes face on it. But all of the positive she can bring, are not exclusively things a monarch may do.
There is something terribly wrong in maintaining a system that says you are special because of your blood. This is not because I'm an American and I have some prejudice against monarchs. This is because I am a cosmpolitian philosopher who is peeved that the Queen and her kin get to live a life of luxury and comfort, even if everything they do is in the public eye, they will NEVER worry about medical bills or having enough money to eat. They will never face the hardships that MOST of humanity worries about. They are excluded and given BETTER TREATMENT because of their genetics. This is not right. This is incorrect. This needs to stop.
I'm certain it won't. Brits love their queen and to take something from somebody, when they love it deeply, is difficult at best, impossible at worst. But please, someone out there, help me understand.
Just why the hell does anybody support a monarchy anymore? The dark ages called and they want their system of government back.
Sorry ya limey wankers, but (and perhaps butt), Fuck the Queen!
I am going out on a limb here and disagreeing with the very notion of monarchy.
Now, if you are British, I have a feeling you disagree with me, quite strongly, about the problems that England having a queen has. Now while there are more countries than just England with a queen (or king) my recent conversation with a friend of a friend who happens to be a Brit.
I'm totally baffled, absolutely flabbergasted, as to how modern people, in a modern country are still perfectly content with their medieval ruling class monarchs continuing to sit on the throne.
Now, I know I know, the Queen, bless her heart, is just a figure-head. She's not a monarch in the way that monarchs USED to rule. She's not a member of an aristocracy that decides the fate of the country, NO! The queen is just our national celebrity, our figurehead.
About that. I've got to say, I'm slightly confused. So while my friend of a friend, insisted, quite vehemently, "the Queen does NOT have power in the political world. she rubber stamps whatever parliament does" meanwhile, a relatives boyfriend who is also a Brit told me once that, "oh of course the queen has power. everyone over there knows this. it's not something Americans are too savvy on, but we Brits all know she has power." He went on to give me an example of her power.
e.g. Let's say that for whatever reason, the house of commons and the house of lords decided to switch england from the pound to the euro. This would be massively unpopular and the queen could use her power to dissolve the government and call for new elections. This would give the people a chance to vote out the people doing what they dislike. The queen, according to my relatives boyfriend, can do what is RIGHT without worrying about what is POPULAR.
I found this line of reasoning odd, not the least of which this individuals previous argument FOR the queen was that she was popular. "We Brits love her. Can't we have what we want?" Well, I'm gonna continue to maintain that EITHER we should do what is right, because it is right, even when it's unpopular (including deposing a popular monarch, if monarchy is wrong) or we should simply do what is popular and not use being right as some magical reason to give power to an unelected monarch. Personally I maintain that what is right aught be done, regardless of popularity, regardless of consequence.
I fantasize that this puts me in the same ideological stance of Rorsarch and Socrates. They make an odd couple.
So I'm not going to claim to be any great expert on Britain or Monarchy or how the two interact over there. Maybe the queen has power, maybe not. (Here is a link suggesting the queen does have power. My Brit friend of a friend said it was a single piece of sensationalist journalism that I shouldn't put too much stock in)
So here's the thing, even if the queen is not an institutional force of power, I have a problem with vast sums of inherited wealth and power. Even the left-wingers I know, some of whom may be socialists and communists, oddly enough, have no problem with this family continuing its line of wealth, generation to generation, not laboring for it, but being handed it because of some accident of birth.
I'm aware that the queen has a positive effect. She is a source of national unity and pride; she can be a diplomat; she can bring in revenue from people buying knick-knacks with the queen or princes face on it. But all of the positive she can bring, are not exclusively things a monarch may do.
There is something terribly wrong in maintaining a system that says you are special because of your blood. This is not because I'm an American and I have some prejudice against monarchs. This is because I am a cosmpolitian philosopher who is peeved that the Queen and her kin get to live a life of luxury and comfort, even if everything they do is in the public eye, they will NEVER worry about medical bills or having enough money to eat. They will never face the hardships that MOST of humanity worries about. They are excluded and given BETTER TREATMENT because of their genetics. This is not right. This is incorrect. This needs to stop.
I'm certain it won't. Brits love their queen and to take something from somebody, when they love it deeply, is difficult at best, impossible at worst. But please, someone out there, help me understand.
Just why the hell does anybody support a monarchy anymore? The dark ages called and they want their system of government back.
(no subject)
Date: 12/4/13 15:33 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/4/13 15:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/4/13 01:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/4/13 15:50 (UTC)The way it is presently constituted, it isn't a mediæval system of government. Look up "Constitutional Monarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy)"
But please, someone out there, help me understand.
George W. Bush as head of state. The idiocy of the electorate. Short-term heads of state leading to discontinuity. The elected head of state having real and substantial power. The oligopolistic nature of elected heads of state.
Accident of birth is no good reason to be head of state, true…but there are
nofew, if any, good reasons to be head of state.Pragmatism. We've seen how the alternatives play out. SInce Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-und-Gotha succeeded to the throne on February 6th 1952, she has been contemporaneous with this list of US presidents:
Harry S Truman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman)
Dwight_D._Eisenhower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower)
John_F._Kennedy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy)
Lyndon_B._Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson)
Richard_Nixon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon)
Gerald_R._Ford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford)
Jimmy_Carter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter)
Ronald_Reagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan)
George_H._W._Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush)
Bill_Clinton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton)
George_W._Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush)
Barack_Obama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama)
Now, on a purely pragmatic level, which of these 12 POTUS have represented the USA as well as Her Maj has represented the UK? Which of them has had as spotless a private life? Which of them put their duty above party or partisan politics?
I rather think that in a civilised world no-one should have the life sentence of constitutional monarch: but given that we don't live in a civilised world, and the poor dears are bred (and traditionally inbred) for it…on a practical level it makes much more sense than electing folk. We do that for our politicians.
And lastly, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
(no subject)
Date: 12/4/13 16:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/4/13 16:27 (UTC)How do you square away:
"Accident of birth is no good reason to be head of state, true…but there are no few, if any, good reasons to be head of state."
and
"And lastly, if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
in the same response??
You admit it's not a good reason. You admit that there are few, if any, good reasons.
This is important.
I believe there is a good reason to be head of state. If you disagree that must be why we disagree about the queen.
I believe that you hit the nail on thead, when you agreed that accident of birth is no good reason to be head of state.
The rest naturally follows from that, yet you refuse to see it. I am Jack's total lack of surprise.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 12/4/13 16:47 (UTC)That's a strangely conservative viewpoint to come from you. Don't you think it's rather archaic to keep such a signifier of class difference as the nobility around?
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 12/4/13 16:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/4/13 16:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/4/13 17:28 (UTC)Qatar doesn't seems like such place though, they're evidently pretty liberal as far as that region goes, and improving. Oman maybe a little less so. Brunei seems to be very similar to Singapore.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 12/4/13 16:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/4/13 16:49 (UTC)But it is also agreed that the monarch will not exercise it in a way tha effectively overturns elections.
(no subject)
Date: 12/4/13 16:52 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 12/4/13 19:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/4/13 19:45 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/4/13 19:55 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/4/13 01:18 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 12/4/13 20:29 (UTC)We Americans should think twice about criticizing another country's choice of: a political system, whether their figurehead is a president or queen, how they dress, what they eat, or which hand they wipe their butt with.
(no subject)
Date: 12/4/13 20:44 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 12/4/13 20:39 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/4/13 01:37 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(frozen) (no subject)
From:(frozen) (no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 12/4/13 22:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/4/13 01:00 (UTC)Even if monarchy is not a cause of problems, and even if it does that while giving benefits, if those benefits are possible without monarchy,it would be better to have the benefits from a different route.
If it turns out that monarchy was best, I would support it. I believe it is not best. At best, it is tied for best. The fact that people are deemed special because of a blood-line is problematic. We shouldn't consider anyone a king or queen. We are all people and equality demands the abolition of a landed, moneyed, powerful ruling class that is blood based.
The only possible justification for a person having land/money/power is that they earned it.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 13/4/13 01:36 (UTC)She also has this power in Australia (delegated to the Governor General) who has used it only once, but that once shows why it is a great power.
We had a lower house controlled by the left and an upper house controlled by the right (it was actually 30 seats a piece, but due to internal party tensions the lefties weren't recognising one of their own, making it 30-29). This was one of our most radical governments ever and brought in what has become the backbone of the welfare state (UHC, sole parent pension, free university). However, the minority party, who was the majority in the upper house didn't like this so they blocked supply. Blocking supply is refusing to allow the government to access treasury funds to pay it's bills. They were able to hold the government to ransom and effectively deadlock the country.
In other words, exactly what has been going on the U.S. for the last few years.
In the normal run of things, two blocked supply motions would be enough for the government to call for an election (including a full senate election, not the normal half senate), but the government wouldn't do this (because of some quirks in the territories getting senators meaning they would actually have a majority for a short time). Parliament was in chaos, both parties were playing roulette with the national welfare for their own political games. So the GG dissolved parliament and sent us to an election.
There is a lot to be said for an executive branch that has *no* power *except* the ability to call elections. If we get a president that's all I would want them to be able to do (also, single 5 year terms, which would help to keep them non-partisan). Two houses of parliament do a good job, but there are times when it may be necessary for someone to step in and say "hang on, the whole lot of you are being shit for your own good, how about we kick this one back to the people".
(no subject)
Date: 14/4/13 01:08 (UTC)"They were able to hold the government to ransom and effectively deadlock the country.
In other words, exactly what has been going on the U.S. for the last few years"
Yes, but since we don't need anyone to "call" an election here, there's not a need for a Queen, via her GG, to call for an election. Every single member of the house was up for re-election in 2010/2012. It's possible to replace the entire lower house in one election, if the electorate were decided to do so. But instead, the repubs kept the house in 2012 because American voters dislike Obamacare, but like all of the parts its comprised of *facepalm*
We don't need a queen to call elections.
Since there is a Queen, it's good that she can be useful. There should not be a queen, and any problems that may arise because of there not being a queen, can be dealt with in other ways.
fuck monarchs.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 13/4/13 05:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/4/13 05:24 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 13/4/13 08:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/4/13 13:32 (UTC)I'm a New Zealander, and we happen to be a member of the commonwealth, and the most free country in the world:
http://www.cato.org/blog/creating-human-freedom-index
I agree that the Queen is a position of a bygone era, more suited to a time when the populace was uneducated, subservient and best for arming and shipping overseas to subjugate coloured people. Society is freer, more educated and more independent now, and we certainly don't do what we're told because someone has a crown.
Yet I have to take issue with a couple of points you've raised:
So here's the thing, even if the queen is not an institutional force of power, I have a problem with vast sums of inherited wealth and power.
Fair point. The thing is, America has replaced aristocracy with plutocracy. You have families (the Kennedys, the Rothschilds, the Romneys) who have attained great wealth and influence, and used this to build dynasties that have impacted on America's social and political climate for the benefit of their founders and their founders children's children's children.
Furthermore, the President is elevated by the media to a demi-godhead. It's not 'The bail-out built on compromise by key Democrat and Republican senators and signed into being by the office of the President'; it's 'Obama's Bail-out'. The President - Republican or Democrat - gets most of the focus, praise and blame, insults and death-threats...and yet your Founding Fathers designed your political system specifically so that power would not be concentrated into the hands of one man (who could become a tyrant, dictator or self-styled king). By making it impossible to run for President unless your campaign can collect many tens of millions of dollars, and reducing the outcome to the result of some soundbites and relative likeability of the candidates, you elevate them to a form of royalty.
There are various forms of deference to authority, but the most appalling of our day and age is the cult of personality. Both Prince William and Prince Harry are serving in their mum's defense force, so it could be argued they are serving their country. How is Paris Hilton's appearance fee at a club of $750,000 any better than any parade of the Queen's guard?
the Queen and her kin get to live a life of luxury and comfort, even if everything they do is in the public eye, they will NEVER worry about medical bills or having enough money to eat. They will never face the hardships that MOST of humanity worries about.
Neither do the 1%, frankly. The main difference between the plutocracy and the aristocracy is one has to wear a funny hat and be on the coins.
(no subject)
Date: 13/4/13 14:53 (UTC)DQ worthy?
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 14/4/13 19:59 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 15/4/13 15:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/4/13 18:34 (UTC)*Tips Hat*
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 18/4/13 05:01 (UTC)