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 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)
Date: 12/4/13 16:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/4/13 16:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/4/13 17:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/4/13 17:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/4/13 18:00 (UTC)And the fairy tale of "you can become rich too" is just that. Yes, we have success stories of people bootstrapping. That's hardly a defense.
"Well, you know this wonderful life we have established and make sure our lineage will have for generations to come? Well, let's give the poor little folk a dream of joining us. It is rather nice that we get to live like this forever. I suppose we can let a small percentage of them live the good life too. Tell the rest of them, if they just work harder, then they can be like us. OH let the good times roll (for us)"
(no subject)
Date: 12/4/13 18:20 (UTC)The question was about Americans, as was the answer: ergo your quibble seems rather off point.
Please give an example of a just and fair egalitarian society. Plato's Republic? More's Utopia?
(no subject)
Date: 12/4/13 18:38 (UTC)aristocratsbureaucrats.(no subject)
Date: 12/4/13 18:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/4/13 19:06 (UTC)http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)
From which I append these links:
http://ftp.iza.org/dp1938.pdf (http://ftp.iza.org/dp1938.pdf)
http://www.pewstates.org/projects/economic-mobility-project-328061 (http://www.pewstates.org/projects/economic-mobility-project-328061)
And there are more…
I wonder if it is something to do with Anglo-Saxon cultures, language, and strong future tenses.
http://www.mtmlinguasoft.com/could-the-future-tense-affect-your-current-behavior/ (http://www.mtmlinguasoft.com/could-the-future-tense-affect-your-current-behavior/)
But there you go.
(no subject)
Date: 12/4/13 18:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/4/13 18:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/4/13 19:11 (UTC)Is it better for them to be "Sir William Gates" ? How does that help matters? That solidifies and reifies the so-called superiority of the arisotocrats. It's them just blowing each other; "oh, youre rich too?! Well, we are in the same club then...."
(no subject)
Date: 12/4/13 19:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/4/13 01:28 (UTC)It's hard to understand this indifference to class inequality; it's a matter of principle.
Yes, Bill Gates is richer than me. He is not better because of that, and he shouldn't be granted a title; one that, if we were to be Confucian about words, means he IS of better character.
Detour: Confucious was concerned with the rectification of names. A Prince needs to not be the son of a man who is ruling as king, but needs to be a True Son of a True King. He would be virtuous and noble; a prince who behaves badly is no prince at all.
The background of the titled power of kings and knights is a slap in the face to the poor.
(no subject)
Date: 12/4/13 20:21 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/4/13 21:28 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/4/13 17:01 (UTC)I've seen worse perversions of democracy and modernism.
(no subject)
Date: 12/4/13 17:03 (UTC)So perhaps I'm not entirely disinterested here.
But, as I may have mentioned, I'm a pragmatist: I have no consistent ideological reasons for supporting the monarchy, but then again I've never claimed to be hamstrung by ideology or philosophical consistency, as it is my opinion that all such systems, including the most rigorous (mathematics and formal logic) are prone to paradox - and furthermore this opinion is provable. :)
(no subject)
Date: 12/4/13 21:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/4/13 21:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/4/13 00:13 (UTC)Or is that jerking off? I always get those two confused.
(no subject)
Date: 13/4/13 05:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/4/13 13:20 (UTC)