Monarchy, Yay or Nay?
- Thread starter Arachon
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I heard along the grape vine that Australia will soon be holding a referendum (perhaps) to see if we want to continue being ruled by a monarchy (in spirit if not *really*). Personally, I want to stick with it. I look at the countries that have splintered from their leadership (the US is the obvious one, the smaller nations around the .au region) and I don't see it working so well. We might be a bunch of slack-assed-piss-heads out here, but at least once the governor general has been useful in removing political figures from power.
Besides which, you Danish people have our Mary now, so we kind of have to like Monarchy's just a little bit
. Even if she was a Tasmanian....
Besides which, you Danish people have our Mary now, so we kind of have to like Monarchy's just a little bit
. Even if she was a Tasmanian....
Not all monarchs give a damn about their country. Look at Louis XVI for example.Mephisteus said:
So basically...(and this is just from reading the first post) Monarchy is a family of people who do nothing but look pretty and suck up tax dollars and are above the law? No thanks. the Monarchs can do whatever they want and are totally above the law? Sounds like corruption or human stupidity waiting to happen. Monarchs and their family haven't done anything to deserve their lifestyle either and from the sound of things, they are also totally unnecessary. I could go on, but I won't for now.
Simple answer: Nay.
Simple answer: Nay.
There is always that - what if the monarch is not just? I say it's a price... Any monarch, no matter what, must have it in his best interest to rule the country as best as possible. That is because the welfare of the country is the welfare of the monarch.Arachon said:
Then we can extend, to what you are literally saying - what if he is bat fuck insane? Well, in the case of insane monarchs, we have a problem, but we also has a system. This is the point where the people may take it upon themselves, to exert power, and remove the monarch from power. I believe it was Thomas Hobbes who was a stern defender of monarchy, while at the same time believing that it is any mans right to rebel against the monarch, if need be. In our days, luckily, we will be able to spot an insane person, before he receives the throne as his birthright. An insane son, or daughter, as we won't conform to that horrible anachronistic view that women are less capable than men, would receive treatment, and I imagine we would have some kind of rules, unwritten or not, that right of throne would then transfer to the next son in line. I don't know. But I am still a stern believer in monarchy/olligarcy as it is right now. The people is not fit or able to rule - then why give them power? Will we go to such lengthts for idiology, that we condemn our country to a much less eficient and intelligent running?
Ours are not too bad, but I don't know about their now grown sons... But really, that's because they are not raised to be rulers, but only state-endorsed celebrities.Arachon said:
And that problem was solved. A competent ruler that cares for himself must also care for the country.matrix3509 said:
The revolution was great, and if monarchy today was a reality, then I would hope the people rose to dethrone the idiot-ruler. But then I'd hope that another king or queen was inserted in his place.
Alternately, what if the courts were able to pronounce a ruler unfit for leadership? I realize it brigns politics into the matters again, though...
True, true. It seems that with monarchy it either goes very much right, or ver much wrong. Shame though.matrix3509 said:
Yay.
New Zealand has a monarch. The Queen, the one with the corgis. Her role is only symbolic though, we only really remember about her once a year when she decides it's her birthday.
She and her family serve a cutural purpose more than anything else now, it's nice to remember that a long time ago, my country and so many others were part of that massive thing called the British Empire.
New Zealand has a monarch. The Queen, the one with the corgis. Her role is only symbolic though, we only really remember about her once a year when she decides it's her birthday.
She and her family serve a cutural purpose more than anything else now, it's nice to remember that a long time ago, my country and so many others were part of that massive thing called the British Empire.
Could you explain why a country's welfare == the monarchs welfare? If we assume that the monarch cares for nothing but himself, why would then the state his people is in bother him, as long as he has it well?Longshot said:
But if the monarch is head-of-state, the monarch will have military forces at their disposal, military forces that easily would be able to crush a rebellion.Longshot said:
But you assume that the monarch would more intelligent than others, something that has been disproved by our king, he could not realise the political consequences of calling the Islamic absolute monarchy Brunei a "open country".Longshot said:
Depends, we're not the kings of old, we know about inbreeding and medical technology is advanced beyond 'cut them and bleed them' levels. I'd still bet on the society that breeds leaders and grooms them from day one to be a leader of the people than a society that typically takes the most retarded members of society and puts them into a prime minister position. A society that banks on a groomed leader who doesn't fear being devoted at next election (Unless they fuck up) with a group of the people to counterbalance their ultimate power is a better government.avidabey said:
This one is easy. The better a country is run, the better the monarch will prosper. If he runs his nation so that it is very succesfull economically, the monarch will be more wealthy.Arachon said:
If the monarch is interested in keeping his throne, his must make sure that the country "works". If he neglects something to the point that the country is "broken", he will de desposed off, either by the people, or the people close to him. If a country suffers, the monarch suffers, be that in war, famine, economy, even health.
True, a monarch will not be "on level" with the common man - but any self-serving monarch will have it in his interest to make sure the poeple has no reason to rise against him, and that they have enough to live satisfying lives, that will stimulate the economy that in turn is his personal income. In fact, it would never be truer that monarch = country, than it is today. The classic tyrant, the monarch who keeps his poeple oon the verge of poverty, and executes as he sees fit, could not exist today. Instead, a monarch would be obligated if towards noone else, then to homself to make sure hs country is run efficiently and sufficiently.
I cannot see how that could come to pass in todays world. I honestly don't. Other countries intervening, soldiers/officers refusing to strike out against their families... It just couldn't happen. The classical tyrant is not a possibility, because the western worlds is fundamentally different than the medieval one. I am afraid I fail at offering you a better counterpoint here.Arachon said:
The monarch will not be an omniscient ruler, that possess vast knowledge and insight into all matters. He will have advisors, and he will, contrary to your king, be raised and educated to be a ruler, not a celebrity.Arachon said:
I would not have the Queen of Denmark lead either. She is not trained to it.
The advantage of a onarch contrary to a democracy is not the knowledge of the "ruler". The primeminister can easily be as clever as the monarch I envision. Where the moarch has things going for him, however, is that he does not have to answer to a political process. He is not slowed down by negotioations, especially not some that are based purely on political cooperation between parties, and have no practical value for the states wellbeing. He does not have to decide based upon what the people happen to think is a good idea that day. He can talk to his advisors, and hopefully make the best decission, instead of the most popular one.
a monarch can make hard choices. A monarch can take responsibility.
The existence of the monarchy in the United Kingdom (and to varying extents in the other Commonwealth countries) still presents a menace to the proper functioning of democracy in that the crown prerogative, officially and ceremonially exercised by the sovereign but in practice controlled by government, gives the cabinet such overriding executive powers as overturning court rulings or declaring war without parliamentary approval.
Also, the Queen owns all swans, sturgeons, dolphins, porpoises and whales in British inland and territorial waters and is immune from legal prosecution.
Also, the Queen owns all swans, sturgeons, dolphins, porpoises and whales in British inland and territorial waters and is immune from legal prosecution.
When the Queen of England declares war on the french, we might worry, but as it stands nobody cares. I've heard that they cost 37 million a year to the taxpayer, maybe when we kill off the military spending, the social security debt of several billions and the other shit English pay for, I'd still happily pay my pound for the royal family, because I'd rather pay for them than the chavwhore down the road because atleast we can pimp them out to the public, unlike saggyboob chav.oktalist said:
I have found a flaw in your argument and all it needed was 7 keystrokes and a brain.Seabriscut said:
I believe to the government should be as democratic as possible. Having one asshole in charge with no connection to the people (s)he's governing sound's like a recipe for disaster. Saying you support monarchy is such a bad idea because that means giving all you power away.