Print

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

[kingfisher1112]

It's the principle of the thing. If Obama got himself declared King Obama I of America, even if that position had no power, there would be a rightful opposition to such a thing.

Monarchy degrades democracy just by existing.

Very true.

So basically they are like the media, except the Royal Family?

"The media" is a very misleading term that collectivises something that isn't really collective.

Yer print, TV and online news would affect politicians more than the Royals.
And hey, they are just influencing politicians. Just like you can. With a letter.

It's the principle of the thing. If Obama got himself declared King Obama I of America, even if that position had no power, there would be a rightful opposition to such a thing.

Monarchy degrades democracy just by existing.

It degrades democracy by affecting democracy in no way?

It does effect democracy. By existing as it does it holds up the mental image of authoritarian hierarchies in the minds of the public. It doesn't even really have to try to degrade democracy. The cultural and intellectual weight of its existence effects democracy without action.

Does it really matter whether it feels like democracy or not? Democracy is a system of government, not some ideal that has to be parroted everywhere. It does not affect your elections, or your actual democratic rights.

[Owlbread]

The other downside to the Monarchy is the fact that it's the epicentre of a whole feudal system in the UK, just reduced down to almost impotency. That's our problem though, not Australia's.

[kingfisher1112]

The other downside to the Monarchy is the fact that it's the epicentre of a whole feudal system in the UK, just reduced down to almost impotency. That's our problem though, not Australia's.

No, in fact the entire monarchical system is your problem, not ours.

[Owlbread]

Yer print, TV and online news would affect politicians more than the Royals.
And hey, they are just influencing politicians. Just like you can. With a letter.

If you honestly think that my letter to a politician on an issue is going to swing his opinion more than the Queen's you've gone clean skite.

No, in fact the entire monarchical system is your problem, not ours.

The fact that she is your Queen means it's your problem. That was a very daft thing to say. Unless of course you were trying to make a comment about it being "my problem" in the sense of me being odd and taking an issue with something that is at odds with the opinions of the majority, as opposed to "your problem" referring to "Britain's problem".

In that case I don't really know what to say, if the majority want something and I don't I suppose I can't really comment then, or rather, I ought not to. If that's your implication.

[kingfisher1112]

Yer print, TV and online news would affect politicians more than the Royals.
And hey, they are just influencing politicians. Just like you can. With a letter.

If you honestly think that my letter to a politician on an issue is going to swing his opinion more than the Queen's you've gone clean skite.

No, in fact the entire monarchical system is your problem, not ours.

The fact that she is your Queen means it's your problem. That was a very daft thing to say. Unless of course you were trying to make a comment about it being "my problem" in the sense of me being odd and taking an issue with something that is at odds with the opinions of the majority, as opposed to "your problem" referring to "Britain's problem".

I meant Your as in ' Your Country', but anyway. The queen has no actual Authority here. She has no deployable influences in my country. To put it crudely, she can't do shit.

And you are the one voting a politician in, yes? Get public support. 80.000 people>The Queen.

[Owlbread]

I meant Your as in ' Your Country', but anyway.

Ah, I see. My apologies for overestimating you.

The queen has no actual Authority here. She has no deployable influences in my country. To put it crudely, she can't do shit.

If she had no authority there would be no point in having a Head of State. I'm repeating myself now.

And you are the one voting a politician in, yes? Get public support. 80.000 people>The Queen.

Are you aware of how difficult it is to get the support of 80 thousand people?

[Dutchling]

So you're saying she should have power but she also shouldn't?

[kingfisher1112]

I meant Your as in ' Your Country', but anyway.

Ah, I see. My apologies for overestimating you.

The queen has no actual Authority here. She has no deployable influences in my country. To put it crudely, she can't do shit.

And you are the one voting a politician in, yes? Get public support. 80.000 people>The Queen.

If she had no authority there would be no point in having a Head of State. I'm repeating myself now.

Exactly, while there is no point in having her, there is no point in keeping her. But there is no point getting rid of her. I mean, Buckingham palace, those guys with the hats, it's all a connection to your past. I mean, would you throw out your day's prized car if it didn't work?

Also, really? Overestimated me? If you're going to start stuff like this, I don't see a point in continuing.

[Owlbread]

So you're saying she should have power but she also shouldn't?

Well, Kingfisher certainly expressed his opinion that democracy doesn't work and that authoritarianism, if done well, is better.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Does it really matter whether it feels like democracy or not? Democracy is a system of government, not some ideal that has to be parroted everywhere. It does not affect your elections, or your actual democratic rights.

I never said anything about it feeling like democracy. I said it effects democracy conceptually. And yes, democracy is an ideal. It needs to be at the forefront of the public consciousness to create a greater whole from the will of the people.

You are right that the monarchy of the UK doesn't effect my elections or rights, but that's because I'm American, not because the monarchy doesn't effect democracy.

[Dutchling]

So you're saying she should have power but she also shouldn't?

Well, Kingfisher certainly expressed his opinion that democracy doesn't work and that authoritarianism, if done well, is better.

Do you see the UK as an authoritarian state opposed to a democratic one?

[Owlbread]

Exactly, while there is no point in having her, there is no point in keeping her. But there is no point getting rid of her. I mean, Buckingham palace, those guys with the hats, it's all a connection to your past. I mean, would you throw out your day's prized car if it didn't work?

Whether or not that past was rosey and pleasant and worth keeping is another story.

Do you see the UK as an authoritarian state opposed to a democratic one?

I see the UK as a generally democratic state with unfortunate autoritarian elements that should be excised like dead flesh.

But yes, to recap, kingfisher has established that authoritarianism (if done well) is preferable to democracy (because it doesn't work) and that there is no sense in having a head of state, although there's no sense in getting rid of them if you've got them, especially if it has historic links.

[kingfisher1112]

Does it really matter whether it feels like democracy or not? Democracy is a system of government, not some ideal that has to be parroted everywhere. It does not affect your elections, or your actual democratic rights.

I never said anything about it feeling like democracy. I said it effects democracy conceptually. And yes, democracy is an ideal. It needs to be at the forefront of the public consciousness to create a greater whole from the will of the people.

You are right that the monarchy of the UK doesn't effect my elections or rights, but that's because I'm American, not because the monarchy doesn't effect democracy.

But it doesn't affect democracy. It's not taking any freedoms with her being " Head Of State' It's a purely symbolic system.
Conceptually? Really? Private corporations affect my democracy. Conceptually. That grass affects my democracy. Conceptually.
Concept does not matter. Execution does.

Exactly, while there is no point in having her, there is no point in keeping her. But there is no point getting rid of her. I mean, Buckingham palace, those guys with the hats, it's all a connection to your past. I mean, would you throw out your day's prized car if it didn't work?

Whether or not that past was rosey and pleasant and worth keeping is another story.

Do you see the UK as an authoritarian state opposed to a democratic one?

I see the UK as a generally democratic state with unfortunate autoritarian elements that should be excised like dead flesh.

But yes, to recap, kingfisher has established that authoritarianism (if done well) is preferable to democracy (because it doesn't work) and that there is no sense in having a head of state, although there's no sense in getting rid of them if you've got them.

...
...
...
Are you even paying attention? There are good Authoritarian systems ( Hitler. Yes, except for all that silly WW2 business he was pretty effective.) Bad ones. ( Stalin) Good democracies ( France) And bad ones. ( African ones) Authoritarianism is really just an ideal you have on a democratic or monarchical or communist society, dictating how people should live their lives.

[Owlbread]

Are you even paying attention? There are good Authoritarian systems ( Hitler. Yes, except for all that silly WW2 business he was pretty effective.) Bad ones. ( Stalin) Good democracies ( France) And bad ones. ( African ones) Authoritarianism is really just an ideal you have on a democratic or monarchical or communist society, dictating how people should live their lives.

But, generally, you support the authoritarian systems if done well, given that you previously used the argument about failed African democracies to justify the existence of the Monarchical system in Australia and the UK.

[kingfisher1112]

Are you even paying attention? There are good Authoritarian systems ( Hitler. Yes, except for all that silly WW2 business he was pretty effective.) Bad ones. ( Stalin) Good democracies ( France) And bad ones. ( African ones) Authoritarianism is really just an ideal you have on a democratic or monarchical or communist society, dictating how people should live their lives.

But, generally, you support the authoritarian systems if done well, given that you previously used the argument about failed African democracies to justify the existence of the Monarchical system in Australia and the UK.

And I said beforehand that Chinese Authoritarianism doesn't work.