Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kingfisher1112]

Authoritarian implies Authority. It's not Authoritarian if the damn " Authority" have no authority. They have no power. They will most likely never affect your life in any way. Your personal freedoms is not being eroded by a damn figurehead.

If figureheads didn't affect people's lives there would be no sense in having them at all. The Queen also has fairly sizeable amounts of authority for an unelected world leader (as I have explained), she just prefers not to act on it out of self preservation.

Don't worry Descan, I rail against the Lords far more than I do the Queen. I'm just going after her right now because of the semi-relevance to Australia, one of the more republican members of the Old Imperial Boys' Club. But generally the Queen has more power than the Lords, all they can really do is slow laws down. The Queen would never act on that power though.

Why are you getting so antsy about people " Defending " " Authoritarianism"?

[Descan]

Okay, so as to not straw-man your point, I won't list the cons to having the Queen as-is.

But here are the pros.

Revenue: Neverminding crown-lands, which if you went republic and seized all royal lands you would control all the revenue from, the tourism connected to the royal family is 1.7 BILLION pounds. Annually. You would be getting rid of that by getting rid of the queen, and no, without an actual royal living in the castles, they wouldn't nearly bring in so many tourists. You never hear much about Frances castles being tourist havens, do you?

Yes, it is only 0.2 percent of your imports, but still. A pretty penny all it's own.

International regard: People think the queen is nice. Basically it, but reputation is good. A friendly face does wonders. Might go away once you get a King, but still, just talking 'bout Lizzy here.

Internal Politics: Power. Having a focus for personality allows gives people a good outlet for patriotism, so it doesn't get bound up in someone who actually -has- power, and can do terrible things with that power, safe with the support of the people. Cult of personality, yeah. Also leaves the people with power relatively safe from tabloids. The tabloids focus on the royal family, and the ministers can do things without worrying for their reputation as much as they otherwise likely would, since it's less likely to be considered "juicy" enough to get published. Worrying about their reputation would lead them to do things that look good, but don't actually -do- anything. I'm sure it's a problem there, but it's much worse in the U.S. and to a lesser extent, Canada. (We still have the queen, but she's not like, central or anything. Prime Minister acts more like a head of state than as a head of government here)

The queen serves as a lightning rod, basically. She sucks up all the patriotism, leaving it safe (patriotism is radioactive, man), brings in more money than the royal family sucks up, and relieves a lot of ire the Brits might otherwise face internationally.

Those are your pros. What are your cons?

[Culise]

I would argue, for instance, that the parliamentary monarchy on the Westminster model (which has been brought up by you) is no longer significantly authoritarian, and has not been since the times of Victoria or Edward VII.

But you admit it is still authoritarian.

Only insofar as the American or French presidential models of democracy are authoritarian for vesting significant powers in a single individual, the President.  If one redefines authoritarian such that it extends to the theoretical exercise of authority, the Westminster model does indeed have authoritarian elements.  However, in this circumstances, it rapidly loses much of its practical meaning and relevance to political theory in our particular context that we seem to be discussing in this thread and as most people generally understand the dichotomy between "democratic" and "authoritarian", insofar as it no longer describes the principles of determining governance but rather the implementation of governance in a practical matter. 

The argument you make that the queen does not act on her authority out of self-preservation is actually a critical notional component in the lack of "authoritarian" power.  Though she is vested with certain theoretical powers, in practice she is entirely unable to act on these powers.  As such, and as a practical matter, these powers may as well not exist.  A power that cannot be exercised and cannot be used is not a power at all.  For instance, give the old Soviet Constitutions a read.  People notionally get a wide range of political, social, and even economic rights, but exercise of these rights in practice was always highly restricted; one does not often call the Soviet states democratic except in a very broad interpretation of the term, or in contrast to the extremely authoritarian, absolutist model of Tsarist Russia.  The opposite holds here; though, notionally, the queen may have authoritarian powers, she cannot exercise these powers in practice, and thus, is not representative of an authoritarian system of governance. 

[Descan]

Ohh! Good point.

Calling the queen Authoritarian is like calling North Korea a democracy.

I mean, they DO hold elections! And it's even in their name!

Nevermind that it's a farce, and the elections don't DO anything. It's the principle of the matter!

Same with the queen!

[Owlbread]

Okay, so as to not straw-man your point, I won't list the cons to having the Queen as-is.

But here are the pros.

Revenue: Neverminding crown-lands, which if you went republic and seized all royal lands you would control all the revenue from, the tourism connected to the royal family is 1.7 BILLION pounds. Annually. You would be getting rid of that by getting rid of the queen, and no, without an actual royal living in the castles, they wouldn't nearly bring in so many tourists. You never hear much about Frances castles being tourist havens, do you?

Yes, it is only 0.2 percent of your imports, but still. A pretty penny all it's own.

International regard: People think the queen is nice. Basically it, but reputation is good. A friendly face does wonders. Might go away once you get a King, but still, just talking 'bout Lizzy here.

Internal Politics: Power. Having a focus for personality allows gives people a good outlet for patriotism, so it doesn't get bound up in someone who actually -has- power, and can do terrible things with that power, safe with the support of the people. Cult of personality, yeah. Also leaves the people with power relatively safe from tabloids. The tabloids focus on the royal family, and the ministers can do things without worrying for their reputation as much as they otherwise likely would, since it's less likely to be considered "juicy" enough to get published.

The queen serves as a lightning rod, basically. She sucks up all the patriotism, leaving it safe (patriotism is radioactive, man), brings in more money than the royal family sucks up, and relieves a lot of ire the Brits might otherwise face internationally.

Those are your pros. What are your cons?

I would consider every one of your internal politics pros as cons, including the lightning rod part. They are in fact among my chief reasons for wanting rid of the Queen.

Other cons that I can throw at you are that the Monarchy is not impartial - like everyone else they often have political views and bias, they just tend not to express them. Except for Prince Charles (the next King as things are now), of course, who is generally Conservative leaning and is known for his comments. An elected head of state wouldn't be impartial either, though they would be elected, thereby negating that issue completely.

The international regard means people often admire us, but in my opinion for all the wrong reasons. We should be a modern, forward-thinking country, not a haven for all things quaint. The presence of a Monarchy also reminds us of our Imperialist past - no matter what government is in power, the Queen is always there to remind us that it's still good old Blighty where nothing ever really changes. The desire to relive our glory days is what often drives our international globe trotting and invasions when, to be honest, we shouldn't really have an army at all. In order to modernise ourselves and face the new era in which we will no longer be a superpower, we should cast that past off completely, Monarchy and all.

Beyond MetalSlimeHunt's arguments about the fact that the Monarchy erodes democracy simply by its presence, there's not much I can say on that particular front apart from the whole Authoritarianism thing.

I do, however, have a simple compromise to put to you. An elected King or Queen, no Royal Family but still all the pomp and silliness that the light-headed adore and that, indisputably, lines our pockets. Coronations, Royal Weddings (if they're not married yet), all sorts. They just get voted in, although we would obviously remove the gun from their belt. No power at all.

However, in this circumstances, it rapidly loses much of its practical meaning and relevance to political theory in our particular context that we seem to be discussing in this thread and as most people generally understand the dichotomy between "democratic" and "authoritarian", insofar as it no longer describes the principles of determining governance but rather the implementation of governance in a practical matter. 

I see. The symbolism of governance is irrelevant then to the practical implementation of governance. I shall inform the Republics of the world of this fact and encourage them to remove their heads of state and reinstate their old Royal Families accordingly.

[kingfisher1112]

Okay, so as to not straw-man your point, I won't list the cons to having the Queen as-is.

But here are the pros.

Revenue: Neverminding crown-lands, which if you went republic and seized all royal lands you would control all the revenue from, the tourism connected to the royal family is 1.7 BILLION pounds. Annually. You would be getting rid of that by getting rid of the queen, and no, without an actual royal living in the castles, they wouldn't nearly bring in so many tourists. You never hear much about Frances castles being tourist havens, do you?

Yes, it is only 0.2 percent of your imports, but still. A pretty penny all it's own.

International regard: People think the queen is nice. Basically it, but reputation is good. A friendly face does wonders. Might go away once you get a King, but still, just talking 'bout Lizzy here.

Internal Politics: Power. Having a focus for personality allows gives people a good outlet for patriotism, so it doesn't get bound up in someone who actually -has- power, and can do terrible things with that power, safe with the support of the people. Cult of personality, yeah. Also leaves the people with power relatively safe from tabloids. The tabloids focus on the royal family, and the ministers can do things without worrying for their reputation as much as they otherwise likely would, since it's less likely to be considered "juicy" enough to get published.

The queen serves as a lightning rod, basically. She sucks up all the patriotism, leaving it safe (patriotism is radioactive, man), brings in more money than the royal family sucks up, and relieves a lot of ire the Brits might otherwise face internationally.

Those are your pros. What are your cons?

I would consider everyone of your internal politics pros as cons, including the lightning rod part. They are in fact among my chief reasons for wanting rid of the Queen.

Other cons that I can throw at you are that the Monarchy is not impartial - like everyone else they often have political views and bias, they just tend not to express them. Except for Prince Charles (the next King as things are now), of course, who is generally Conservative leaning and is known for his comments. An elected head of state wouldn't be impartial either, though they would be elected, thereby negating that issue completely.

The international regard means people often admire us, but in my opinion for all the wrong reasons. We should be a modern, forward-thinking country, not a haven for all things quaint. The presence of a Monarchy also reminds us of our Imperialist past - no matter what government is in power, the Queen is always there to remind us that it's still good old Blighty where nothing ever really changes. The desire to relive our glory days is what often drives our international globe trotting and invasions when, to be honest, we shouldn't really have an army at all. In order to modernise ourselves and face the new era in which we will no longer be a superpower, we should cast that past off completely, Monarchy and all.

Beyond MetalSlimeHunt's arguments about the fact that the Monarchy erodes democracy simply by its presence, there's not much I can say on that particular front apart from the whole Authoritarianism thing.

I do, however, have a simple compromise to put to you. An elected King or Queen, no Royal Family but still all the pomp and silliness that the light-headed adore. Coronations, Royal Weddings (if they're not married yet), all sorts. They just get voted in.

Firstly, define ' Forward Thinking'
Next, the UK shouldn't have an army? Really? Every modern country should at least of some semblance of a defence force, to help with U.N operations.

[Descan]

BTW I wasn't saying that the ministers shouldn't have ethical oversight or not have their actions told to the world. But I don't think letting tabloids and such go after them is such a good idea, heh.

[Owlbread]

Firstly, define ' Forward Thinking'
Next, the UK shouldn't have an army? Really? Every modern country should at least of some semblance of a defence force, to help with U.N operations.

'Forward thinking' - we shouldn't be trying to relive our past "glories", instead we should be trying to find a new place for Britain in the 21st century. Right now we don't really fit into our old pre-1945 role anymore, though our politicians do their best. As a result young men are dying.

No, we don't even need a defence force. The role for international representation can be provided by a dedicated Peacekeeping force. How much more beneficial to a war zone is an Army Division where people are tired, hungry and scared and often emotionally devastated after the loss of their loved ones, when compared with a dedicated team of "Peacekeepers" - people trained in recognising and providing rudimentary care for psychological trauma, building and protecting houses and safe zones, policing existing areas to keep civilians safe etc. Compare that with the current standard of so-called "peacekeepers".

[Culise]

However, in this circumstances, it rapidly loses much of its practical meaning and relevance to political theory in our particular context that we seem to be discussing in this thread and as most people generally understand the dichotomy between "democratic" and "authoritarian", insofar as it no longer describes the principles of determining governance but rather the implementation of governance in a practical matter. 

I see. The symbolism of governance is irrelevant then to the practical implementation of governance. I shall inform the Republics of the world of this fact and encourage them to remove their heads of state and reinstate their old Royal Families accordingly.

I'm genuinely unsure of how the latter follows from the former.  Are you implying that republics lack symbolic representation of governance?  If so, then you definitely need to take a look at America.  The Constitution is a far more powerful force in America than the Queen is in the United Kingdom, and practical interpretation of the Constitution blossoms from Second Amendment arguments in Alabama and Vermont right on up to the Supreme Court and Congress. 

[kingfisher1112]

Firstly, define ' Forward Thinking'
Next, the UK shouldn't have an army? Really? Every modern country should at least of some semblance of a defence force, to help with U.N operations.

'Forward thinking' - we shouldn't be trying to relive our past "glories", instead we should be trying to find a new place for Britain in the 21st century. Right now we don't really fit into our old pre-1945 role anymore, though our politicians do their best. As a result young men are dying.

No, we don't even need a defence force. The role for international representation can be provided by a dedicated Peacekeeping force. How much more beneficial to a war zone is an Army Division where people are tired, hungry and scared and often emotionally devastated after the loss of their loved ones, when compared with a dedicated team of "Peacekeepers" - people trained in recognising and providing rudimentary care for psychological trauma, building and protecting houses and safe zones, policing existing areas to keep civilians safe etc. Compare that with the current standard of so-called "peacekeepers".

Army divisions are trained in that sort of thing, and can fulfill those roles, and defend your country if needed.

[Owlbread]

I'm genuinely unsure of how the latter follows from the former.  Are you implying that republics lack symbolic representation of governance?  If so, then you definitely need to take a look at America.  The Constitution is a far more powerful force in America than the Queen is in the United Kingdom, and practical interpretation of the Constitution blossoms from Second Amendment arguments in Alabama and Vermont right on up to the Supreme Court and Congress.

Would you believe, however, that adherence to a constitution like the USA's is superior to the retention of a Monarchy?

Army divisions are trained in that sort of thing, and can fulfill those roles, and defend your country if needed.

Not well enough. Their priorities are securing objectives, not helping people. Military defence is also completely unnecessary. We have no enemies of the kind that would require full military defence besides the ones we make for ourselves.

[Descan]

No. Constitution was written up by the men in power, not voted on by the population. A founding document of a nation should be decided on by the people it's governing.

[Owlbread]

No. Constitution was written up by the men in power, not voted on by the population. A founding document of a nation should be decided on by the people it's governing.

Then in that case would you believe that adherence to a constitution determined by the people it's governing is superior to the retention of a Monarchy? Seeing as the Monarchy and the US Constitution were equated by Culise as symbolic representations of governance, the former being significantly more powerful than the latter.

I also have to think - why is it necessary to have the Queen as the Head of State and not a different position entirely? Why can the Royal Family not simply be that - the Royal Family, still supported like parasites through taxation though they are completely impotent and used for symbolic functions? A Head of State, elected by the people, could thus exist.

[kingfisher1112]

I'm genuinely unsure of how the latter follows from the former.  Are you implying that republics lack symbolic representation of governance?  If so, then you definitely need to take a look at America.  The Constitution is a far more powerful force in America than the Queen is in the United Kingdom, and practical interpretation of the Constitution blossoms from Second Amendment arguments in Alabama and Vermont right on up to the Supreme Court and Congress.

Would you believe, however, that adherence to a constitution like the USA's is superior to the retention of a Monarchy?

Army divisions are trained in that sort of thing, and can fulfill those roles, and defend your country if needed.

Not well enough. Their priorities are securing objectives, not helping people. Military defence is also completely unnecessary. We have no enemies of the kind that would require full military defence besides the ones we make for ourselves.

But getting rid of the military would get rid of 138,500 jobs. Let that sink in for a moment. That is how many people would be jobless and on the street. Consider that.

[Owlbread]

But getting rid of the military would get rid of 138,500 jobs. Let that sink in for a moment. That is how many people would be jobless and on the street. Consider that.

Oh I know that. That's why the military shouldn't be dissolved instantly, rather the troops simply wouldn't be renewed. If people really must be removed from their positions (bureaucrats in the army for instance) then perhaps they could be given a different position with the new peacekeeping force. That would reduce the figure of 138,500 down considerably. If we cut that down to 12,000 jobs being lost, so be it.