Monarchy, Yay or Nay?
- Thread starter Arachon
- Start date
I usually was against the monarchy (In Canada) but then I read a quote of the Queen when she was in her twenties about how she intended to serve her commonwealth with pride and honour, with dignity and respect, and she seemed very strong willed. I was really kind of inspired by her will. I felt pretty badly about the way I had viewed the monarchy before, that it's just a figurehead position and all that. I then read on and learned that she refused to cancel a trip down the St. Lawrence river even though Quebec separtists had planned too assasinate her. That's pretty courageous. I got a sense of what the monarchy means, that having an ultimate ruler with little power is perhaps a good thing. People got a bit huffy during the strife in parliament in December when the Governor General had to make a huge decision for the first time in 80 years or something, because she wasn't elected, she was chosen by the Queen. However, she made the best decision I think, to let everyone cool down and not have anything to worry about over Christmas, and no one really minded anymore, except the emotional people. I really do think of the Queen as our Queen, and I was surprised when I listened to her address on New Years Day because she spoke in a British accent, and I had never thought of her as British before. I still don't, accent or not. So that's what I think of the monarchy.
A monarchy can act as a temporary replacement to government should that government suffer collapse.
However, I don't think democracy is the greatest system since it usually ends up leading to a totalitarian government once the majority all has something to go behind that can supress and make suffer the minorities. A monarchy works so long as the society does not suffer radical change. A monarchy requires a leader than can have a single system and single belief that accounts for all their people at the time. Time is an enemy to monarchies. However, there have been good monarchs.
All I'm saying is that a single form of government really isn't any better than another, they just change with the times.
However, I don't think democracy is the greatest system since it usually ends up leading to a totalitarian government once the majority all has something to go behind that can supress and make suffer the minorities. A monarchy works so long as the society does not suffer radical change. A monarchy requires a leader than can have a single system and single belief that accounts for all their people at the time. Time is an enemy to monarchies. However, there have been good monarchs.
All I'm saying is that a single form of government really isn't any better than another, they just change with the times.
I took an American Constitution class once, and it described the five "head of" powers our president had. I see that many other countries have divided these powers up: i.e. Prime minister is head of government, monarch is head of state, etc. I think monarchy is appropriate for head of state (official ceremonies, honors, etc.) but that should be it.
But there you are wrong, despite popular belief, society is NOT retarded, it just tends to not agree with you.FarleShadow said:
I also used to think that everyone was retarded, then I started discussing things with people, I realised that most people DO have a motive, and as much as I may not like their motive, it would be damn arrogant to think that everyone except be is retarded.
Monarchies are a pointless form of government. Excluding non-governing monarchies which have democratic parliaments, pretty much every ruling monarchy in the world is corrupt or useless. The power to govern and represent an entire country is a responsibility which simply cannot be left to one man/family.
My disdain for monarchies runs deeper since I think it laughable that an accident of birth means you are supported in the millions of pounds (as in Britain), solely by the taxes of other people. Position should be earned, not born into.
My disdain for monarchies runs deeper since I think it laughable that an accident of birth means you are supported in the millions of pounds (as in Britain), solely by the taxes of other people. Position should be earned, not born into.
In Norway, the king has the power to veto legislation and rulings, which is nice to have as a failsafe if something goes horribly wrong in the election of ruling parties, like having an election stolen of fixed.
If he had any real executive power, I would be more cautious about liking it.
If he had any real executive power, I would be more cautious about liking it.
Personally I think a mixture of monarchy and repulicism would work the best.
Having a system similar to the one in the UK with a house of lords and a house of commons would work the best.
This prevents any one political power gaining absolute control over how the country is run and "keeps the bastards honest".
Having a system similar to the one in the UK with a house of lords and a house of commons would work the best.
This prevents any one political power gaining absolute control over how the country is run and "keeps the bastards honest".
Just keep in mind that your Sweden has taxes at levels even Canadians are afraid of, and some portion goes into the royal family's coffers. Other than that, I think it's appreciable to preserve a culture, especially the long-lasting traditions in Europe. So yeah, keep the royals, keep the republic, don't piss of guys named Caesar, and I think it's a system with merit.
I'm ambivalent about the constitutional monarchy. I think I simply prefer the status quo, since every alternative is prolly going to suck.
You could elect your head of state, but you may still end up with a retard. Every moron alive is allowed a vote afteral.
In a monarchy the head of state wouldn't want to fuck up too badly, because the future of the kids would depend on it.
The thing is I don't trust anyone with power, so this blend we got of democracy + members of parliament who don't listen to their voters + a queen with alot of informal power, may be the best compromise.
You could elect your head of state, but you may still end up with a retard. Every moron alive is allowed a vote afteral.
In a monarchy the head of state wouldn't want to fuck up too badly, because the future of the kids would depend on it.
The thing is I don't trust anyone with power, so this blend we got of democracy + members of parliament who don't listen to their voters + a queen with alot of informal power, may be the best compromise.
I think when the Monarchy is constitutional as here in the UK it works quite well with Democracy as the democratically elected party exercises control over all major matters, whilst the Queen could in theory not accept a Prime Minister I doubt shes dumb enough to do that simply because she doesn't like them since they won the election. The Monarchy here whilst costing alot does attract quite a lot of tourism from around the world and is used as a diplomatic tool to host foreign leaders and ambassadors, visit other countries and all the other duties that come with being a Monarch. Whilst I would certainly not complain if I had their life style, in the setup that the monarchy exists now they basically belong to the country and not the other way like it used to be centuries ago so basically have their lives dictated to them a little with the duties etc they have to perform.
HA! Far from it, the British system is a joke, rife with corruption. The latest Government have led the way towards a totalitarian regime. The Government want to get rid of the House of Lords!ZeroFTW said:
Our politicians are far from honest. They have just blocked a Freedom of Information request for the minutes of the cabinet meeting over the invasion of Iraq. They have scrapped independent inquires, the government have to give say so for them to be released. There has been no independent inquiry, or one that was not hindered, on the following; Dr David Kelly's murder, Jean Charles de Menezes' Murder, The July 7th attacks, The Iraq war, The Afghanistan war, Extraordinary renditions, allegations of torture, actual torture.
The government tried to ban the public from seeing MP's expenses. This morning they admitted handing over two suspect in Iraq for extraordinary rendition by the US. A judge recently denied an inquiry where a man was tortured to death by UK soldiers, arguing that EU human Rights didn't apply because it happened in Iraq. I don't know what happened to the Geneva Convention!
The UK democratic system is a conundrum though, elected officials will often do what they think is best for them, their part and their image yet unelected peers are a good way of barring that. However, unelected peers are not exactly democratic.
In the UK we have a real problem with both elected and non-elected officials. Many peers are corrupt and take money as advisers for companies with a vested interest in certain legislation being passed, or not. A bit like Senators they are VERY corrupt. The same is true of elected officials.
There are much better ways to ensure a democratic system than a
I'll just give a quick rundown.
Monarchy in any kind of autocratic sense can be at best, a benevolent dictatorship and at worst, tyranny. No arguments in favour of tyranny here, for the most part it is something that people find intuitively wrong.
As for benevolent dictators, hereditary or otherwise, I've seen some people speak up in favour of these. I can really understand this viewpoint but for me, it isn't just enough for a country to prosper. It is a truly great thing when that country prospers as a result of the effort and direction of its citizens. Any dictator, however benevolent, if he is in control of the moral aims and values of any particular society; this amounts to paternalism. I personally don't want a country's goals, moral labour, legislation etc. directed by any particular individual, I want to direct these things myself along with my fellow citizens. Decisions are just inherently better when you make them yourself, human nature tells us this.
So that covers monarchs with any real power.
Then comes the old saying "Do you know how stupid the average person is? Well, half of them are even dumber than that!" As for those who use the counter-argument that the people are stupid and don't know what's good for them, I would respond that that assertion makes no difference. The decisions aren't good because they are the right thing (although I'm not sure how you could define 'the right thing' and which values you'd use); they are good because we, the citizens, made them.
Democracy isn't about making good decisions, democracy is about representation. Anybody who doens't realise that hasn't given it enough thought. What people in the western world value above all else isn't a better climate, or a national healthcare system (although a lot might, I'll come to this), its freedom, or liberty. Democracy is the best form of government because it maximises the freedom of the individual. Any other moral goals, such as a national health service or the war on terror, are pursued because they maximise freedom (e.g. a sick person possesses less positive freedom, as does a country plagued by terrorists).
As for people that think the system is broken somehow and came about by fluke or accident, I think they are failing to be impartial and approaching the debate with the wrong premises. To try to provide ridiculous legislation or events or monarchs as counter-examples is to go about the debate in the wrong way. You need to begin with the premise that the system works and then seek to explain how it works through things like moral values or pragmatism or intuition. In my opinion, and this is quite controversial, countries get the governments they deserve. America deserved George Bush, and what better way to deserve a government than by electing it?
Finally on to puppet monarchs such as the British Royal Family. I'll deal with these by way of example.
My personal opinion on this is that they have been reduced to a laughing stock, the fodder of the British tabloid press, with no legislative influence - indeed, very little influence whatsoever. Technically, they have serious power and authority in government, but if they ever tried to exercise it in any meaningful way they would be immediately deposed in short order, and I think they know this hence they haven't given it a shot for the last century or so.
However, even the diehard pragmatist would struggle to argue against their presence since their benefit to the British taxpayer far outweighs their cost. The cost very little in terms of national budget and they create far more value through public service and other things like tourism. I'm more than happy to let them do their thing, even if for the most part they embarass the UK (Prince Philip and the Chinese in Hong Kong, Prince Harry and the pot smoking etc.), in other ways they are extremely beneficial providing a focus for national heritage and identity and even in some cases, a few role models. Let's not be too tough on them, they're real people and I've done far worse without it being splashed all over the papers.
A lack of national identity or a sense of heritage is something that I believe America really suffers from. Indeed, it's not really something they can grasp and these ties between citizens, especially in a time when society is becoming more closed with cars, personal computers and the internet, I believe are worth hanging on to.
When I was at Oxford I overheard an American tourist in the Bodleian Library say to a librarian "The architecture is beautiful! Is this building pre-war?" and the library politely replied "Madam, this building is Pre-America". Things like the Bodleian Library, The Royal Family, the British sense of humour and chicken vindaloo all add up (although in an unquantifiable way) to formulate an answer to the question "What does it mean to be British?" And I think in removing our monarchy we'd be removing a part of ourselves. I'm sure its a similar case in countries like Denmark.
So the short version.
Autocracy is always bad.
Democracy will always beat autocracy hands down on the grounds of greater freedom.
Modern monarchs such the UK Royal Family are harmless, if not beneficial and should be tolerated.
Feel free to disagree.
Monarchy in any kind of autocratic sense can be at best, a benevolent dictatorship and at worst, tyranny. No arguments in favour of tyranny here, for the most part it is something that people find intuitively wrong.
As for benevolent dictators, hereditary or otherwise, I've seen some people speak up in favour of these. I can really understand this viewpoint but for me, it isn't just enough for a country to prosper. It is a truly great thing when that country prospers as a result of the effort and direction of its citizens. Any dictator, however benevolent, if he is in control of the moral aims and values of any particular society; this amounts to paternalism. I personally don't want a country's goals, moral labour, legislation etc. directed by any particular individual, I want to direct these things myself along with my fellow citizens. Decisions are just inherently better when you make them yourself, human nature tells us this.
So that covers monarchs with any real power.
Then comes the old saying "Do you know how stupid the average person is? Well, half of them are even dumber than that!" As for those who use the counter-argument that the people are stupid and don't know what's good for them, I would respond that that assertion makes no difference. The decisions aren't good because they are the right thing (although I'm not sure how you could define 'the right thing' and which values you'd use); they are good because we, the citizens, made them.
Democracy isn't about making good decisions, democracy is about representation. Anybody who doens't realise that hasn't given it enough thought. What people in the western world value above all else isn't a better climate, or a national healthcare system (although a lot might, I'll come to this), its freedom, or liberty. Democracy is the best form of government because it maximises the freedom of the individual. Any other moral goals, such as a national health service or the war on terror, are pursued because they maximise freedom (e.g. a sick person possesses less positive freedom, as does a country plagued by terrorists).
As for people that think the system is broken somehow and came about by fluke or accident, I think they are failing to be impartial and approaching the debate with the wrong premises. To try to provide ridiculous legislation or events or monarchs as counter-examples is to go about the debate in the wrong way. You need to begin with the premise that the system works and then seek to explain how it works through things like moral values or pragmatism or intuition. In my opinion, and this is quite controversial, countries get the governments they deserve. America deserved George Bush, and what better way to deserve a government than by electing it?
Finally on to puppet monarchs such as the British Royal Family. I'll deal with these by way of example.
My personal opinion on this is that they have been reduced to a laughing stock, the fodder of the British tabloid press, with no legislative influence - indeed, very little influence whatsoever. Technically, they have serious power and authority in government, but if they ever tried to exercise it in any meaningful way they would be immediately deposed in short order, and I think they know this hence they haven't given it a shot for the last century or so.
However, even the diehard pragmatist would struggle to argue against their presence since their benefit to the British taxpayer far outweighs their cost. The cost very little in terms of national budget and they create far more value through public service and other things like tourism. I'm more than happy to let them do their thing, even if for the most part they embarass the UK (Prince Philip and the Chinese in Hong Kong, Prince Harry and the pot smoking etc.), in other ways they are extremely beneficial providing a focus for national heritage and identity and even in some cases, a few role models. Let's not be too tough on them, they're real people and I've done far worse without it being splashed all over the papers.
A lack of national identity or a sense of heritage is something that I believe America really suffers from. Indeed, it's not really something they can grasp and these ties between citizens, especially in a time when society is becoming more closed with cars, personal computers and the internet, I believe are worth hanging on to.
When I was at Oxford I overheard an American tourist in the Bodleian Library say to a librarian "The architecture is beautiful! Is this building pre-war?" and the library politely replied "Madam, this building is Pre-America". Things like the Bodleian Library, The Royal Family, the British sense of humour and chicken vindaloo all add up (although in an unquantifiable way) to formulate an answer to the question "What does it mean to be British?" And I think in removing our monarchy we'd be removing a part of ourselves. I'm sure its a similar case in countries like Denmark.
So the short version.
Autocracy is always bad.
Democracy will always beat autocracy hands down on the grounds of greater freedom.
Modern monarchs such the UK Royal Family are harmless, if not beneficial and should be tolerated.
Feel free to disagree.
Totally agree with Beddo on this one. Although a little off-topic.beddo said:
Regarding peers its a complete shambles. We have peers who have served prison time (Lord Archer). Peers who are in jail (Lord Ahmed) and peers who take bribes in return for legislation, and the whole cash for peerages scandal.
The system is definitely moving in the wrong direction as politicians are increasingly doing more and more to protect their own interests. As for all of the expenses scams, those are just infuriating. Who becomes a politician to subsidise a second home? It instantly shattered my illusions regarding public-service motivated politicians. Apparently they don't exist in the UK anymore.
But I have faith in the system. Labour is on the way out, but I'm not looking forward to the Tories either. Nevertheless the system will work because the most successful politicians are the ones that best serve their constituents, and so they will always win out in the end. I expect big changes are afoot in Britain and in the next two years a lot of unexpected things will happen. Nothing like economic hardship and dishonest politicians to make people really sit up and take notice.
If I could change one thing it would be total transparency. Without transparency there is no accountability. Politicians needs to be made accountable for everything they do in their professional lives. Tony Blair shouldn't be travelling the world making speeches and going on programs like the Daily Show to justify his decision to go to war with Iraq. His real trial should be in front of the British and Iraqi citizens. But unfortunately he'll never get that trial.
In ancient Athens after a politician left office he was immediately put on trial for his actions and decisions taken while he was in office. The jury was the electorate and in some cases politicians were exiled for decades at a time. It might sound extreme but I think this should be brought back. If Bush knew he had a trial coming at the end I definitely reckon he would have played his cards a lot differently.
Politics shouldn't be an attractive job for over ambitious old men (Tony Blair, Sarkozy, Berlusconi) it should be a nightmare with every decision scrutinised and reviewed, only attractive to those one-in-a-million individuals with a heart of gold and a strong sense of civic duty.