As far as their actual powers, they have none beyond the symbolic: The Queen giving the rubber stamp of Royal Assent to every legislative bill is simply done out of tradition, a monarch hasn’t rejected a bill since 1707.[/quote]
true, but the Queen is unelected and has the power (but never uses it) to refuse to accept the results of a General Election, thus is able to reject the will of the people.
ergo, the UK isnt a democracy, and who in their right mind would be happy with that, regardless of how much money they bring in [/quote]
You can pin responsibility onto a monarch. In America, it’s the fault of Bush…even though he’s not president. If a Monarch gets out of hand you can replace them. Of course in America we replace our king every four to eight years, but they get to skip almost all responsibility.[/quote]
nope. we cant replace the monarch, unless we have a revolution
The real value of the monarchy is the cover they provide for the government. Whatever pros or cons one can come up with simply does not compare to the fact that they are a big distraction. The British government is able to get away with all manner of bad or improper behavior because the British are constantly being distracted by media coverage of the royal family.
Everyday on the news there will be several minutes devoted to what the Queen did today along with some bonus piece on the lesser royals that will take up more of the news time. They don’t spend as much time following the Prime Minister or the other Members of Parliament and report on what they are up to.
The relationship of the press to the British government is completely upside down. On the one hand the British have one branch of government that has no real power to affect peoples lives, yet it monopolizes the news cycle. On the other hand Parliament which has the real power to affect peoples lives gets a pass because the Royals are soaking up much of the attention.
From May 22-25 2014 the EU parliamentary elections will take place. I predict that for the next ten months between now and then, the royal baby will eat up a large amount of the news cycle while the real issues of the day will get ignored.
Oh cool! Sorry, Sifu, I gotta Mad Lib this (“Mad Lib”, of course, in the sense of “Crazy Libertarian”).
[troll]
The real value of the PRESIDENCY is the cover they provide for the CORPORATE OLIGARCHY. Whatever pros or cons one can come up with simply does not compare to the fact that they are a big distraction. The AMERICAN OLIGARCHY is able to get away with all manner of bad or improper behavior because the AMERICANS are constantly being distracted by media coverage of the FIRST FAMILY.
Everyday on the news there will be several minutes devoted to what the PRESIDENT did today along with some bonus piece on the PARTISAN PUNDITS that will take up more of the news time. They don’t spend as much time following THE ROCKEFELLERS or the other MEMBERS OF THE OLIGARCHY and report on what they are up to.
The relationship of the press to the AMERICAN government is completely upside down. On the one hand the AMERICANS have one branch of government that has no real power to affect peoples lives, yet it monopolizes the news cycle. On the other hand SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS which have the real power to affect peoples lives gets a pass because the PRESIDENT is soaking up much of the attention.
AROUND JUNE 4, 2014 the BILDERBERG MEETING will take place. I predict that for the next ten months between now and then, the ZIMMERMAN VERDICT will eat up a large amount of the news cycle while the real issues of the day will get ignored.
As far as their actual powers, they have none beyond the symbolic: The Queen giving the rubber stamp of Royal Assent to every legislative bill is simply done out of tradition, a monarch hasn’t rejected a bill since 1707.[/quote]
true, but the Queen is unelected and has the power (but never uses it) to refuse to accept the results of a General Election, thus is able to reject the will of the people.
ergo, the UK isnt a democracy, and who in their right mind would be happy with that, regardless of how much money they bring in [/quote]
You can pin responsibility onto a monarch. In America, it’s the fault of Bush…even though he’s not president. If a Monarch gets out of hand you can replace them. Of course in America we replace our king every four to eight years, but they get to skip almost all responsibility.[/quote]
nope. we cant replace the monarch, unless we have a revolution
[/quote]
I’m glad we established this fact. Oh, yes…America already had one of those. That doesn’t push out the fact that you can still pin responsibility on a monarch than you can an American president.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but arent’ the royal powers significantly limited in the UK?
As in, the American president, through executive order is actually more of a king (or queen) than any royalty in the UK?[/quote]
Absolutely. However, symbolism matters. The Brits acceptance of their status as subjects undergirds a culture accepting of their servitude. So in practice, having a queen is irrelevant until it carries over into the acceptance of the surveillance state, lack of cultural economic movement, etc.[/quote]
Yep.
(Hey Mike, how goes it?)[/quote]
It comes, it goes. I’m enjoying the fight. I run my own law firm right now. Not too bad huh?[/quote]
What type of law do you focus on? Are you licensed only in ID?[/quote]
I run a general practice. It’s generally about 50% criminal 30% family 20% landlord/tenant.
Right now I’m only in Idaho, but when I get enough cash together and if I build enough clients in the states I’m going to get approved in Washington and Montana. I don’t need to take the exam. I just need to pay the state (go figure).
[/quote]
Well, hurry up. I’ve got some work for ya.[/quote]
Come to Missouri or Arizona and I could use a lawyer.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
The real value of the monarchy is the cover they provide for the government. Whatever pros or cons one can come up with simply does not compare to the fact that they are a big distraction. The British government is able to get away with all manner of bad or improper behavior because the British are constantly being distracted by media coverage of the royal family.
Everyday on the news there will be several minutes devoted to what the Queen did today along with some bonus piece on the lesser royals that will take up more of the news time. They don’t spend as much time following the Prime Minister or the other Members of Parliament and report on what they are up to.
The relationship of the press to the British government is completely upside down. On the one hand the British have one branch of government that has no real power to affect peoples lives, yet it monopolizes the news cycle. On the other hand Parliament which has the real power to affect peoples lives gets a pass because the Royals are soaking up much of the attention.
From May 22-25 2014 the EU parliamentary elections will take place. I predict that for the next ten months between now and then, the royal baby will eat up a large amount of the news cycle while the real issues of the day will get ignored. [/quote]
Versus a non-consequential local self-defense case taking up 95% of media time that would be better spent on the continued racking up of scandals and complete ineptitude by the Obama Administration?
Read Hobbes’ Leviathan. Also read Machiavelli’s comparison of monarchy, democracy and oligarchy. Read Cicero’s same comparison. That’s just for starters. You do like reading…right?
Oh, and Xenophon’s The Constitution of Sparta. Recent research shows it wasn’t actually written by him - a mystery began by destruction of the burning of the Library of Alexandria. But in keeping with tradition I will call it Xenophon’s.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Read Hobbes’ Leviathan. Also read Machiavelli’s comparison of monarchy, democracy and oligarchy. Read Cicero’s same comparison. That’s just for starters. You do like reading…right?[/quote]
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Read Hobbes’ Leviathan. Also read Machiavelli’s comparison of monarchy, democracy and oligarchy. Read Cicero’s same comparison. That’s just for starters. You do like reading…right?[/quote]
[quote]Sifu wrote:
The real value of the monarchy is the cover they provide for the government. Whatever pros or cons one can come up with simply does not compare to the fact that they are a big distraction. The British government is able to get away with all manner of bad or improper behavior because the British are constantly being distracted by media coverage of the royal family.
Everyday on the news there will be several minutes devoted to what the Queen did today along with some bonus piece on the lesser royals that will take up more of the news time. They don’t spend as much time following the Prime Minister or the other Members of Parliament and report on what they are up to.
The relationship of the press to the British government is completely upside down. On the one hand the British have one branch of government that has no real power to affect peoples lives, yet it monopolizes the news cycle. On the other hand Parliament which has the real power to affect peoples lives gets a pass because the Royals are soaking up much of the attention.
From May 22-25 2014 the EU parliamentary elections will take place. I predict that for the next ten months between now and then, the royal baby will eat up a large amount of the news cycle while the real issues of the day will get ignored. [/quote]
I think what you underestimate is how easily people are distracted.
Television will do just fine, you do not need royalty.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Read Hobbes’ Leviathan. Also read Machiavelli’s comparison of monarchy, democracy and oligarchy. Read Cicero’s same comparison. That’s just for starters. You do like reading…right?[/quote]
Talking to me?[/quote]
Anyone who’s interested in monarchy. It’s clearly elaborated upon by Polybius:
“According to Polybius, who has the most fully developed version of the cycle, it rotates through the three basic forms of government, democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy and the three degenerate forms of each of these governments ochlocracy, oligarchy, and tyranny. Originally society is in anarchy but the strongest figure emerges and sets up a monarchy. The monarch’s descendants, who because of their family’s power lack virtue, become despots and the monarchy degenerates into a tyranny. Because of the excesses of the ruler the tyranny is overthrown by the leading citizens of the state who set up an aristocracy. They too quickly forget about virtue and the state becomes an oligarchy. These oligarchs are overthrown by the people who set up a democracy. Democracy soon becomes corrupt and degenerates into mob rule, beginning the cycle anew.”
And on it goes. Did I mention we’re currently in the mob rule phase? Obama has games a plenty for the proles amd if he runs out of wheat he just prints more money or borrows it from the friendly Chinese, who just happen to like practicing launchung ICBM missile from subs 30 miles off the coast of Cali. Easy.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Read Hobbes’ Leviathan. Also read Machiavelli’s comparison of monarchy, democracy and oligarchy. Read Cicero’s same comparison. That’s just for starters. You do like reading…right?[/quote]
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Read Hobbes’ Leviathan. Also read Machiavelli’s comparison of monarchy, democracy and oligarchy. Read Cicero’s same comparison. That’s just for starters. You do like reading…right?[/quote]
Talking to me?[/quote]
Anyone who’s interested in monarchy. It’s clearly elaborated upon by Polybius:
“According to Polybius, who has the most fully developed version of the cycle, it rotates through the three basic forms of government, democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy and the three degenerate forms of each of these governments ochlocracy, oligarchy, and tyranny. Originally society is in anarchy but the strongest figure emerges and sets up a monarchy. The monarch’s descendants, who because of their family’s power lack virtue, become despots and the monarchy degenerates into a tyranny. Because of the excesses of the ruler the tyranny is overthrown by the leading citizens of the state who set up an aristocracy. They too quickly forget about virtue and the state becomes an oligarchy. These oligarchs are overthrown by the people who set up a democracy. Democracy soon becomes corrupt and degenerates into mob rule, beginning the cycle anew.”
And on it goes. Did I mention we’re currently in the mob rule phase? Obama has games a plenty for the proles amd if he runs out of wheat he just prints more money or borrows it from the friendly Chinese, who just happen to like practicing launchung ICBM missile from subs 30 miles off the coast of Cali. Easy.[/quote]
Eh, okay. Well read, “Conservative Mind” by Russell Kirk.
There are different forms of monarchy. Such as a constitutional monarchy, which is what the founding fathers were going for (even gave Washington dibs on being King). They wanted a written constitution so that the government couldn’t just do whatever they wanted. That was the important part, of course in any society since Rome freemen had the ability to determine the course of action of their government. Though, I question the ability of our “freemen” to direct themselves, let alone their government.
As a Brit, (though not currently living there) on principal and as a phillosophy I think it is stupid that someone is head of state of the country just by birth.
Yes you can argue an economic benefit however I think the UK would do fine on tourism just based on the castles and the history without actually needing to roll the old bag out for state occasions.
The one area that I see a benefit is that the head of state is not the chief politician. It allows the pomp and circumstance to foment around a someone unimportant and in theory allows the politicians to remain boring grey people who run the country.
The breakdown of the balance between the three branches of the executive in the US with the President increasingly becoming a Mondarch seems to show some sort of need in the populace to follow a leader instead of just living their lives.
In the UK, unfortunately in recent years the politicians have increasingly followed the US model with the PM becoming more like a US president.
Bottom line, there is probably no ideal form of government because as humans we are flawed.
Been crazy busy with work and life, so been avoiding things that drain my time but as Michael says
‘Just when I thought I was out… you pull me back in’
back to the discussion point though, that’s exactly the problem, the Aristocracy just gets replaced with a political class who are raised and groomed for power meaning that your elections end up being between people who are professional polticians instead of people who have the potential to actually be good at the job.
back to the discussion point though, that’s exactly the problem, the Aristocracy just gets replaced with a political class who are raised and groomed for power meaning that your elections end up being between people who are professional polticians instead of people who have the potential to actually be good at the job.[/quote]
YES!
I find it adorable that people still think a specific letter next to a person’s name means they actually care about anything other than maintaining their place among the ruling class.
