Print

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

[Descan]

I think you got "former" and "latter" confused. Not only did Culise say the Constitution is more powerful than the monarchy, but... The Constitution has more power than the monarchy.

Though I dislike your choice of words (Considering that the royal family brings in a lot of revenue, they're not really parasites. They're contributors. And people on welfare are taking a lot more from taxation than they're putting in, collectively. Are they "parasites" too?) that would probably go over better than a whole-sale, "We're a republic now" change.

[kingfisher1112]

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.

But still, it removes jobs. Even then, what about the 35,250 navy and 41,900 Air Force members? It still removes jobs that are hard to fill in the civilian sector.

[Owlbread]

I think you got "former" and "latter" confused. Not only did Culise say the Constitution is more powerful than the monarchy, but... The Constitution has more power than the monarchy.

I did get mixed up - I thought I had written US Constitution first. My mistake. But please - what is your opinion of that? Is it superior? In that case shouldn't we adopt that system?

But still, it removes jobs. Even then, what about the 35,250 navy and 41,900 Air Force members? It still removes jobs that are hard to fill in the civilian sector.

I would take the same approach to the Navy and Air Force as I have towards the Army. The jobs are hard to fill in the civilian sector, yes. But there must be jobs for those people that don't involve the abomination that is the military, and it should be our responsibility to create those jobs before any kind of demilitarisation process takes place. It certainly wouldn't happen tomorrow that's for certain.

[Culise]

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 the retention of a Monarchy?

In principle, I would draw an equivalency between the two, and ascribe to neither principle superiority or inferiority.  However, this is solely from a symbolic perspective.  In terms of practical governance, the United States draws its authority from the Constitution, and only through that from consent of the governed.  The fact that this has turned out well is a testament to the ingenuity of the Founding Fathers in implementation of their ideals, as well as their failures in certain, less noble goals.  The United Kingdom does not have a single unitary code of governance in a manner similar to the Constitution, but a far more organic method that has grown from practical customs and precedents over the centuries, along with statutory and common law, developing and evolving with the people it seeks to represent.  Attempting to codify it into a single constitution would be, in my opinion, quite stifling to future political development and growth in the United Kingdom.  Not every model works for every nation, as Bolivarian nations that attempted to transplant the American model locally in the late 18th and early 19th centuries learned to their chagrin, and as America has yet to learn after its repeated attempts throughout the late 19th and most of the 20th centuries. 

Also, all this talk about job preservation: I would argue that the armed forces are not a make-work program or a job agency.  Like bureaucracy, their primary goal should never be to make jobs for people, but to protect, defend, and serve the nation.  I argue that the existence of a military is not necessary, per se (Costa Rica gets by relying on Big Brother America), but it is not mutually exclusive with the principle of "peacekeeping agencies" - rather, militaries stemmed originally from keeping the peace, and throwing out the principles of the armed forces and replacing them with a new institution will either be pointless (as the old people from the former military carry their principles and goals to the new institution) or destructive (as they throw away such things as military tradition and the concept of an apolitical military).  Rather, militaries can and should be reoriented to new peacekeeping roles, especially in an era of asymmetric rather than conventional warfare, but still remain the military. 

[kingfisher1112]

I think you got "former" and "latter" confused. Not only did Culise say the Constitution is more powerful than the monarchy, but... The Constitution has more power than the monarchy.

I did get mixed up - I thought I had written US Constitution first. My mistake. But please - what is your opinion of that? Is it superior? In that case shouldn't we adopt that system?

But still, it removes jobs. Even then, what about the 35,250 navy and 41,900 Air Force members? It still removes jobs that are hard to fill in the civilian sector.

I would take the same approach to the Navy and Air Force as I have towards the Army. The jobs are hard to fill in the civilian sector, yes. But there must be jobs for those people that don't involve the abomination that is the military, and it should be our responsibility to create those jobs before any kind of demilitarisation process takes place. It certainly wouldn't happen tomorrow that's for certain.

Abomination that is the military.
...
Are you serious?
It wouldn't happen, ever. Every country needs an army for self defence at the least.

[Owlbread]

So, to put it more bluntly, you believe that the British system (unwritten constitution, hereditary monarch) works for Britain and the Commonwealth, though the American system wouldn't work because... "it will be stifling to future political development and growth". Can you please explain that in greater detail? Also, would the British system not work better for the Americans if there was a way to move to our system gradually?

Also, all this talk about job preservation: I would argue that the armed forces are not a make-work program or a job agency.  Like bureaucracy, their primary goal should never be to make jobs for people, but to protect, defend, and serve the nation.  I argue that the existence of a military is not necessary, per se (Costa Rica gets by relying on Big Brother America), but it is not mutually exclusive with the principle of "peacekeeping agencies" - rather, militaries stemmed originally from keeping the peace, and throwing out the principles of the armed forces and replacing them with a new institution will either be pointless (as the old people from the former military carry their principles and goals to the new institution) or destructive (as they throw away such things as military tradition and the concept of an apolitical military).  Rather, militaries can and should be reoriented to new peacekeeping roles, especially in an era of asymmetric rather than conventional warfare, but still remain the military.

The nation does not need to be defended, served or protected by the military. The police provide that adequately.

The issue with the old people carrying their principles and goals to the new institution isn't such a problem if it is built in such a way that they wouldn't be able to really change things besides strong lobbying - in which case they'll die off. The apolitical military point is also nonsense - all modern militaries are used as arms of the respective Governments, politically elected. I also find military tradition abhorrent and worth no more than something that is scraped off bootheels.

Abomination that is the military.
...
Are you serious?
It wouldn't happen, ever. Every country needs an army for self defence at the least.

I've already refuted your last point and the other two assertions are meaningless.

[PanH]

Costa Rica has no armed forces since 1949.

[kingfisher1112]

So, to put it more bluntly, you believe that the British system (unwritten constitution, hereditary monarch) works for Britain and the Commonwealth, though the American system wouldn't work because... "it will be stifling to future political development and growth". Can you please explain that in greater detail? Also, would the British system not work better for the Americans if there was a way to move to our system gradually?

Also, all this talk about job preservation: I would argue that the armed forces are not a make-work program or a job agency.  Like bureaucracy, their primary goal should never be to make jobs for people, but to protect, defend, and serve the nation.  I argue that the existence of a military is not necessary, per se (Costa Rica gets by relying on Big Brother America), but it is not mutually exclusive with the principle of "peacekeeping agencies" - rather, militaries stemmed originally from keeping the peace, and throwing out the principles of the armed forces and replacing them with a new institution will either be pointless (as the old people from the former military carry their principles and goals to the new institution) or destructive (as they throw away such things as military tradition and the concept of an apolitical military).  Rather, militaries can and should be reoriented to new peacekeeping roles, especially in an era of asymmetric rather than conventional warfare, but still remain the military.

The nation does not need to be defended, served or protected by the military. The police provide that adequately.

The issue with the old people carrying their principles and goals to the new institution isn't such a problem if it is built in such a way that they wouldn't be able to really change things besides strong lobbying - in which case they'll die off. The apolitical military point is also nonsense - all modern militaries are used as arms of the respective Governments, politically elected. I also find military tradition abhorrent and worth no more than something that is scraped off bootheels.

Abomination that is the military.
...
Are you serious?
It wouldn't happen, ever. Every country needs an army for self defence at the least.

I've already refuted your last point and the other two assertions are meaningless.

Fuck off. Your arguments are worth nothing more than scraped off bootheels. I'm sick of you and your derail. You want to talk about how ' Abhorrent' military tradition is then go make a thread about it.

Costa Rica has no armed forces since 1949.

And?

[Owlbread]

Fuck off. Your arguments are worth nothing more than scraped off bootheels. I'm sick of you and your derail. You want to talk about how ' Abhorrent' military tradition is then go make a thread about it.

And?

I see. I think most of it is relevant to Australia and wider Australasia (if not more so than the UK in relation to Defence Forces and such, considering Australia is looking at expanding its military and it might become a platform for future NATO influence in the Pacific - you're at a crossroads, essentially) but if you feel that strongly then I will leave for the timebeing. It's all good robust debate until someone gets upset, then there's no point in continuing. Somewhere along the line chill was lost - I am at least partly responsible for using emotive language like "parasites" and things to make things more colourful and speaking a bit harshly when I got frustrated. Until next time, gentlemen.

I must say though that I wish this thread was "Oceanian" politics thread so we could include Papua New Guinea.

[penguinofhonor]

Kingfisher, considering your arguments have just been the occasional profanity-filled nitpick, I don't think you have the authority to tell someone else their arguments are worthless.

[kingfisher1112]

Kingfisher, considering your arguments have just been the occasional profanity-filled nitpick, I don't think you have the authority to tell someone else their arguments are worthless.

Profanity filled? Damn was one of the only profanities I used, the swear words only just started to creep in.
And I'm sorry for lashing out like that Owlbread. You just got me really, REALLY pissed off with that military tradition statement. No harm no foul?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Costa Rica has no armed forces since 1949.

And?

And Andorra and Grenada and Kiribati and Liechtenstein and the Marshal Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia and Nauru and Palau and Saint Lucia and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Samoa and the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu and Vatican City. Bonus points to Haiti, Iceland, Mauritius, Monaco, Panama, and Vanuatu for having only limited armed forces.

[Dutchling]

I was under the impression that they have no armed forces because they would be completely useless anyway.

[Owlbread]

Profanity filled? Damn was one of the only profanities I used, the swear words only just started to creep in.
And I'm sorry for lashing out like that Owlbread. You just got me really, REALLY pissed off with that military tradition statement. No harm no foul?

No harm no foul, bro.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[kingfisher1112]

Costa Rica has no armed forces since 1949.

And?

And Andorra and Grenada and Kiribati and Liechtenstein and the Marshal Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia and Nauru and Palau and Saint Lucia and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Samoa and the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu and Vatican City. Bonus points to Haiti, Iceland, Mauritius, Monaco, Panama, and Vanuatu for having only limited armed forces.

Your point?