Print

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

[Scoops Novel]

But then that head of state will steal the Infinite Improbability Drive, and is that the sort of behaviour we really want?

Now you've got it. Kingfisher, i said uunitentional Troll, and as the person who started the discussion that would be me, though admittedly it was less then clear.

[Culise]

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

Though Chinese authoritarianism is presumably not, in your opinion, authoritarianism "done well"?

Yes, it is not done well.

I'm a little curious what "done well" is even supposed to mean.  It seems that if you're adopting an ideal condition in the case of autocracy and less than ideal condition in the case of democracy, the former will obviously always outweigh the latter.  Rather, it seems more realistic to consider real-life phenomena and conditions which are less than ideal, because people themselves are not always ideal for the job. 

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.  I posit this on the very simple idea of what would happen if Queen Elizabeth or, in the future, King Charles (*shudder*), were to actually exercise their powers and dissolve the democratic government - that is, it would go over about as well as a lead balloon.  An authoritarian government that does not govern is no longer authoritarian nor, really, a government at all; its powers have largely been co-opted by the democratic institutions of the Parliament, and as such, it is largely a symbolic notion of higher loyalty rather than a government in and of itself. 

[Owlbread]

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.

[kingfisher1112]

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.

It's 95% democracy, 5% ' Authoritarian'. Nobody really cares about how democracy is supposedly being ruined by someone with no power. Keep screaming AUTHORITARIAN! It doesn't matter. They do not matter. You have a democracy. A republic is not the only form of democracy.

[Descan]

Has there been a global match-up of political freedoms of countries compared to each other?

I think compared to the U.S., the traditional bastion of freedom, the U.K. is looking pretty hot lately.

[kingfisher1112]

Has there been a global match-up of political freedoms of countries compared to each other?

I think compared to the U.S., the traditional bastion of freedom, the U.K. is looking pretty hot lately.

I would imagine European countries like Switzerland and Sweden being high. But then again, how does one measure political freedom.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Oh yeah, and Descan. You asked earlier in the thread whether I was against gay marriage or not. The answer is no, I am quite the supporter. Just wanted to clear that up.

[Descan]

Yeah, I caught that. Sorry, I jumbled up what you'd said.

Anyway, I could imagine those two being high. I think India is getting up there, they just have a bit of distribution issues and corruption. Canada should be lowered. (We've had issues with Robo-calling in a few elections, telling voters wrong information about elections, such as sending them to wrong locations and the wrong date for the election. Plus the attack ads, the conservatives revel in them.)

But I am curious about some of the third world countries and how they're shaping up. Probably not on par with places where democracy is cultural, but I'd like to see how much they've improved (or not, as it may be) over the last few decades.

ANYWAY. You Aussie boys got anything happening in your neck of the woods?

[Owlbread]

It's 95% democracy, 5% ' Authoritarian'. Nobody really cares about how democracy is supposedly being ruined by someone with no power. Keep screaming AUTHORITARIAN! It doesn't matter. They do not matter. You have a democracy. A republic is not the only form of democracy.

I'm screaming "authoritarian" so people understand fully what they're defending.

[kingfisher1112]

ANYWAY. You Aussie boys got anything happening in your neck of the woods?

Well, now that you ask...
We have no more towed artillery pieces, they are merging field batteries with mortars. Which is stupid, quite frankly. Towed stuff is great for defence, and it is the Australian Defence Force. So there is that.
And also in my state, WA, Farmers are unhappy with the emergency money that they are handing out. I heard that 10 farmers committed suicide, which is pretty awful.

[Reelya]

It's 95% democracy, 5% ' Authoritarian'. Nobody really cares about how democracy is supposedly being ruined by someone with no power. Keep screaming AUTHORITARIAN! It doesn't matter. They do not matter. You have a democracy. A republic is not the only form of democracy.

I'm screaming "authoritarian" so people understand fully what they're defending.

A constitutional Monarchy like the Commonwealth is no more authoritarian than any Republic. The Monarch has no power to enact anything, politics-wise. The main issue is that they're a drain on taxes, but i think even England makes them pay taxes now, so the only issue is hereditary property - but even America has issues with hereditary wealth. So that's not such a difference as you'd imagine. The top 14 royals have about $1 billion net worth, out of about $10 trillion net worth of everyone in the UK, so they don't really own all that much of England.

Australia's head of state is "The Queen", but she makes no decisions, has no power, and doesn't even get the authority to appoint her own representative, the Governor General. That position is voted on by the Australian parliament. The only issue we have is the taxpayer paying for security when royal head of state comes for a state visit. But we have that exact same issue when the American president, or any other country leader visits, so it's not really "special".

So there's nothing especially authoritarian about have Queen 'Liz as our head of state.

[kingfisher1112]

It's 95% democracy, 5% ' Authoritarian'. Nobody really cares about how democracy is supposedly being ruined by someone with no power. Keep screaming AUTHORITARIAN! It doesn't matter. They do not matter. You have a democracy. A republic is not the only form of democracy.

I'm screaming "authoritarian" so people understand fully what they're defending.

A constitutional Monarchy like the Commonwealth is no more authoritarian than any Republic. The Monarch has no power to enact anything, politics-wise. The main issue is that they're a drain on taxes.

Except that the crown contributes millions towards the UK's government through their lands, and tourism revenue.

[Owlbread]

A constitutional Monarchy like the Commonwealth is no more authoritarian than any Republic. The Monarch has no power to enact anything, politics-wise. The main issue is that they're a drain on taxes.

Australia's head of state is "The Queen", but she makes no decisions, has no power, and doesn't even get the authority to appoint her own representative - the Governor General. That position is voted on by the Australian parliament.

I'm going to say this until my face turns blue - the principle of having the person who becomes Head of State and the Church of England being decided by god and not the common people because they can't be trusted to vote in the right people is authoritarian, regardless of the "official" power the Monarch has.

[kingfisher1112]

A constitutional Monarchy like the Commonwealth is no more authoritarian than any Republic. The Monarch has no power to enact anything, politics-wise. The main issue is that they're a drain on taxes.

Australia's head of state is "The Queen", but she makes no decisions, has no power, and doesn't even get the authority to appoint her own representative - the Governor General. That position is voted on by the Australian parliament.

I'm going to say this until my face turns blue - the principle of having the person who becomes Head of State and the Church of England being decided by god and not the common people because they can't be trusted to vote in the right people is authoritarian, regardless of the "official" power the Monarch has.

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.

[Descan]

Except isn't the prime minster ('round here at least he's our version of a president, at least in power) elected?

And except the house of lords, your government at large either elected directly or appointed by elected people? If you want something to rail against because of not reflecting the peoples will, go after the lords! They actually -have- power, don't they?

It's like someone against deforestation yelling at a bloke cutting down a tree in his yard, but ignoring clear cutting of rainforests or old-growth.

[Owlbread]

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 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.

The thing is - if someone has a gun, carries it on their belt but never fires it, do they still have a gun? The same argument is applied for authority. The Queen's authority is the gun on her belt that is never fired. Does the gun exist? It certainly does. Think on this - if I have kids, they will grow up like I did knowing they can never become Head of State. Ever. God had other plans.