The concept of royalty

[paradoxical]

Yesterday morning, the thought occurred to me: why do we still have royalty in the 21st Century? Kings and queens, etc. I know this is largely symbolic, that most countries which still have a royal family are constitutional monarchies, but why have a royal family at all? What purpose do they serve?

Surely no one still believes that these people are chosen by God or have been otherwise endowed with worth far beyond an average person and are deserving of their special privileges. This seems to be implied by the very concept of royalty and I think that is the problem I have with it. It's a holdover from much older times. Isn't it time that we abolished this, once and for all?

[Revolte]

Same reason we have presidents, the FOP and general concentrated/centralized authoritarianism.

The rich like power, the poor have better things to do then overrun them, the middle get into the liberal/conservative debates and try and vote away their problems, including their leaders (maybe not everywhere but that's aside the point).

Really it's just power, people like to control things and they get out of hand (that has to do with all wings and those of us who aren't on the scale). Religion though, has a lot to do with it.

They get those nice fancy crowns too. Crowns are still the best reason to go to Burger King.

[Silas Thorne]

Yes, they should go, but so many people find it hard to let them go. It's all because of fairy tales, fairies, gods, and glossy magazines. It's because of ill-guided nationalism and shiny things. It's all because people have trouble letting go of the past, in various ways. **** royalty!

[Emil Miller]

Yes, they should go, but so many people find it hard to let them go. It's all because of fairy tales, fairies, gods, and glossy magazines. It's because of ill-guided nationalism and shiny things. It's all because people have trouble letting go of the past, in various ways. **** royalty!

To my mind this is pretty much the case but there is something missing from the equation and that is patronage. Titles and other forms of money making dispensations are its raison d'etre for without them there would be no beneficiaries and therefore no need to keep them. The non-recipients of patronage who support the monarchy are, as you have implied, sentimentalists easily led by those who are in receipt of it.

[OrphanPip]

The primary reason the monarch remains the head of state in Canada is because of the political nightmare reforming the constitution would cause. Also, there are benefits to the executive being a person bound by constitutional tradition and legal expectations rather than having the authority of elected office. The Governor General, who holds the authority of the Crown in Canada when the Queen is not on Canadian soil, is essentially a bureaucrat anyway. And with them around the PM doesn't have to spend time handing out medals and cutting ribbons across the country.

[kiki1982]

I don't think anyone believes anymore that a monarch is chosen by God. I think that went out of the window the day Charles I of England was decapitated (or before that anyway). The UK royals maybe still do it for show (I do'nt think many do, but the Windsors have a good marketing department :D), but we don't believe it really. It just gives nice pictures on TV and it is just the kind of marketing you need :D.
As Pip says, you need a head of state to cut ribbons and what-not. What would be the difference with a president? Either you have a silly political election like in France and America (you could also have a show 'election' like in Russia) or you have a vote in parliament like in Germany where being the president is practicaly an Oscar for your political career (provided you are of the right party). In Italy it is the same I think. We might as well not take as examples those so-called 'presidents' in shady countries... (which is most of the world)

Montesquieu was the inventor of the constitutional monarchy to do away with all the abuse and feckless kings from the past. Voltaire was an advocate of an absolute monarch. Provided you have a monarch who is intelligent or otherwise surrounds himself with unbiased and intelligent people (who are difficutl to find), that's a bad idea. Most people are selfish at heart and so such a system only works in a handful of cases. Mind, it would be a better system in countries where an iron fist is necessary like Greece and Italy at the moment and Russia to a certain extent, but most absolute monarchs would start to abuse powers as president-dictators have done and are still doing.
Still, I think the constancy of a monarch, if he is respected, can be beneficial too: the monarch has nothing to lose or gain and provided he/she is willing, he/she can offer constructive criticism or advice. And where necessary he can boost morale amongst certain groups because of the sentimentality (s)he carries with his/her function. Where a prime minister like all politicians just wishes to be popular so as to retain his seat in parliament and not lose his job, a monarch has no such concern. Ok, he might become less popular for some time, but (certainly in this day and age) his role is not going to be abolished over a drop in his popularity for maybe 4 years. If you have a turbulent country, that element of constancy and sentimentality that is the monarch is vital.

Call me sentimental, but countries like my own cannot survive without an element of constancy. The moment the Belgian monarchy is abolished is the moment the country collapses.

[Emil Miller]

I agree that the thought of having a head of state like G.W.Bush for example would only be welcomed by British satirists but for all his idiocy he didn't dress in the regalia of an ancient and outmoded institution: unless you count wearing cowboy boots as being similarly representative, and does it really matter who cuts ribbons and hands out medals ? Back in the days when the railways were opening up the US, they were formally opened by the president of the company concerned so what difference did it make to those who used the facility?

I don't think using Belgium as an example of monarchical continuity applies, because the country and the monarchy only came into being during the 19th century and there have been frequent upheavals between the Flemish and Wallonian sections of the country up until the present day. Although there is no overt support by the French for a break up of Belgium, there is tacit support given in certain parts of the French press and it's unlikely that the monarchy will be able to prevent itself going the way of the Italian royal house and that of Greece, both of which were abolished during the last century.

[Charles Darnay]

I like the idea of the monarchy in Canada. No, they do not have tangible power, but they preserve some consistency in our country's development. The monarchy may be a relic of darker times - but what isn't? A constitutional monarchy also gives structure - unlike the US, who have no idea what they are doing politically (that is, every new leader completely changes their ideological understanding of "republic")

However, I think when Queen Elizabeth II passes, there will be a strong push in Canada (and elsewhere) for the abolishing of the monarchy.

[Sancho]

Yeah, but cowboy boots are comfy, especially those Lucchese’s that Dub-ya wears. Lucchese is an old family business out of El Paso, and say what you will about the Ex-Pres’, dem boots feel good on my dogs. Unless I’m trying to walk on an icy sidewalk; which usually starts as a penguin walk, then goes into a cartoonish windmill of arms and legs, and then winds up with Sancho scooting across the sidewalk on his arse.

As for Charles I, didn’t the English people sort of rethink their decision to relieve him of his noggin? Didn’t they bring his son back from across the channel? “Ah-hem, right so, sorry Chuck, we may have been a little hasty with your head, old chap.”

That said, there does seem to be something (still) in the human psyche that wants or needs someone or something in charge at the top - be it a king, a president, a pope, a god, or whathaveyou.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

That's one thing America does right, no idiotic King or Queen to kowtow to.

[Alexander III]

That's one thing America does right, no idiotic King or Queen to kowtow to.

Yes you get to kowtow to Banks and Corporations instead.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Yes you get to kowtow to Banks and Corporations instead.

Last I checked, we didn't have a bunch of Americans lining the streets, cheering and crying like morons because a couple of corporations were getting married.

You would like royalty, though, Alex. You are royalty, right? :D

[TheFifthElement]

That's one thing America does right, no idiotic King or Queen to kowtow to.

That's assuming a number of things. For example:
1. That America does anything 'right ;) (joking...joking...)
2. that people kowtow to the monarchy
3. that the monarch is an 'idiot' (I think that's a judgement call...depending on the particular monarch and particular alternative...yes, I'm thinking 'W'! Or Berlusconi, thinking about it.)
4. that a president is a better option.

As a Brit suffering under the dictatorship of a constitutional monarchy, given the option I'm not keen on the idea of replacing with a president because:
a) the Prime Minister is bad enough (hasn't been a 'great' one in my lifetime).
b) do we really want more politicians? Because:
b) 1. politicians are all out for themselves (duck houses anyone? Moats?) and cost us a fortune and like to add layer upon layer of more politics (elected Mayors, for example, elected police commissioners, etc).
b) 2. politicians are frequently corrupt - in UK an MP is more likely to go to prison than your ordinary average Joe. That's on account of things like electoral fraud, expenses fraud, and taking a bung from the local news magnate. The cost of investigating all of this probably exceeds that of the monarchy.
c) politicians don't actually answer to their electorate. You can't sack them. They don't answer your calls or messages or make themselves available to their electorate or Parliament. They do, however, answer to the Party whip and generally 'kowtow' to their richest benefactor which is not, in my opinion, the idea of democracy. So our current political system is as more of an oligarchy than a democracy in any event, which is not really much better than an aristocracy, all things considered.

And consider the advantages to a monarchy. For example:
1. They are fantastically attractive to tourists. Let's face it, no one comes to Britain for the weather, but lots of people come to see Buckingham Palace, the changing of the guard and royal weddings. So they are income generating.
2. They protect 'Crown' lands. Lots of people have issues with vast tracts of land being in Crown ownership, but let's face it if they went into public ownership the next Tory govt would sell them at the first available opportunity and our glorious (and shrinking) landscape would be replaced with some soulless shopping centre or industrial estate.
3. They give us all something to have a good grumble about, without having to actually do anything about it.
4. They're funny (Prince Charles especially - anyone see him present the weather? It was great!).
5. When they get married, we all get an extra day off work. Or have a significant anniversary (for example the Queen's diamond jubilee which earns us an extra holiday next week). It's also a great excuse for a party, which makes a lot of people quite happy. It's also an excuse to sell unbelievable tat to the rest of the world which some people actually buy (and some people in this country do too. Goodness knows why).
6. They're the lesser of two evils. At our current cultural 'high' how long would it be until your next president was the winner of 'Britain's Got Talent'? At best we'd end up with Stephen Fry as president. Not that I dislike Stephen Fry, but he is an actor after all. Or his mate Hugh, aka Dr House. Then everyone would have lupus or vascullitis or however the heck you spell it).
7. They wield no actual power. Ergo, they can do little damage.
8. They are less pricey than people think (cost per person - in UK - is roughly £0.60 per year), are accountable for every penny they spend (more so than our MPs, as it turns out), are a significant employer and work, actually, pretty hard. Or at least some of them do anyway (I think the Queen works pretty hard, and remember - the Queen's retirement day is her date with Mr Death). Well, I wouldn't swap anyway. I like the freedom of being able to go out without a cavalcade and armed police. I also dislike shaking people's hands and making polite conversation. Also, as a head of state I think the Queen is fairly cheap all round - do Canada and Australia and all the other states that have the Queen as HoS actually pay towards the upkeep?
9. It makes it really easy to decide what pictures to put on currency and stamps.
10. They make for great TV, especially the dead ones (Tudors, for example).

On balance I'm happy to stick with what we've got :D

[Emil Miller]

That's assuming a number of things. For example:
1. That America does anything 'right ;) (joking...joking...)
2. that people kowtow to the monarchy
3. that the monarch is an 'idiot' (I think that's a judgement call...depending on the particular monarch and particular alternative...yes, I'm thinking 'W'! Or Berlusconi, thinking about it.)
4. that a president is a better option.

As a Brit suffering under the dictatorship of a constitutional monarchy, given the option I'm not keen on the idea of replacing with a president because:
a) the Prime Minister is bad enough (hasn't been a 'great' one in my lifetime).
b) do we really want more politicians? Because:
b) 1. politicians are all out for themselves (duck houses anyone? Moats?) and cost us a fortune and like to add layer upon layer of more politics (elected Mayors, for example, elected police commissioners, etc).
b) 2. politicians are frequently corrupt - in UK an MP is more likely to go to prison than your ordinary average Joe. That's on account of things like electoral fraud, expenses fraud, and taking a bung from the local news magnate. The cost of investigating all of this probably exceeds that of the monarchy.
c) politicians don't actually answer to their electorate. You can't sack them. They don't answer your calls or messages or make themselves available to their electorate or Parliament. They do, however, answer to the Party whip and generally 'kowtow' to their richest benefactor which is not, in my opinion, the idea of democracy. So our current political system is as more of an oligarchy than a democracy in any event, which is not really much better than an aristocracy, all things considered.

And consider the advantages to a monarchy. For example:
1. They are fantastically attractive to tourists. Let's face it, no one comes to Britain for the weather, but lots of people come to see Buckingham Palace, the changing of the guard and royal weddings. So they are income generating.
2. They protect 'Crown' lands. Lots of people have issues with vast tracts of land being in Crown ownership, but let's face it if they went into public ownership the next Tory govt would sell them at the first available opportunity and our glorious (and shrinking) landscape would be replaced with some soulless shopping centre or industrial estate.
3. They give us all something to have a good grumble about, without having to actually do anything about it.
4. They're funny (Prince Charles especially - anyone see him present the weather? It was great!).
5. When they get married, we all get an extra day off work. Or have a significant anniversary (for example the Queen's diamond jubilee which earns us an extra holiday next week). It's also a great excuse for a party, which makes a lot of people quite happy. It's also an excuse to sell unbelievable tat to the rest of the world which some people actually buy (and some people in this country do too. Goodness knows why).
6. They're the lesser of two evils. At our current cultural 'high' how long would it be until your next president was the winner of 'Britain's Got Talent'? At best we'd end up with Stephen Fry as president. Not that I dislike Stephen Fry, but he is an actor after all. Or his mate Hugh, aka Dr House. Then everyone would have lupus or vascullitis or however the heck you spell it).
7. They wield no actual power. Ergo, they can do little damage.
8. They are less pricey than people think (cost per person - in UK - is roughly £0.60 per year), are accountable for every penny they spend (more so than our MPs, as it turns out), are a significant employer and work, actually, pretty hard. Or at least some of them do anyway (I think the Queen works pretty hard, and remember - the Queen's retirement day is her date with Mr Death). Well, I wouldn't swap anyway. I like the freedom of being able to go out without a cavalcade and armed police. I also dislike shaking people's hands and making polite conversation. Also, as a head of state I think the Queen is fairly cheap all round - do Canada and Australia and all the other states that have the Queen as HoS actually pay towards the upkeep?
9. It makes it really easy to decide what pictures to put on currency and stamps.
10. They make for great TV, especially the dead ones (Tudors, for example).

On balance I'm happy to stick with what we've got :D


Yes, they should go, but so many people find it hard to let them go. It's all because of fairy tales, fairies, gods, and glossy magazines. It's because of ill-guided nationalism and shiny things. It's all because people have trouble letting go of the past, in various ways. **** royalty!

I think the connection is pretty obvious.

[Alexander III]

Last I checked, we didn't have a bunch of Americans lining the streets, cheering and crying like morons because a couple of corporations were getting married.

You would like royalty, though, Alex. You are royalty, right? :D

1) Never been pro-monarchy, the Italian one ****ed us all over pretty bad, and no one in Italy will ever forgive them for what they did in the war.

2) Yes, you guys line the streets, cheering and crying like morons, because Kim Kardashian or whomever is getting married. The difference is the the royalty in England actually is very beneficial for the country. They are patrons of art and architecture, and unlike every politician out-there, have no interest in lining their pockets and genuinely only care about their country.

3) Thankfully I have no relation with the present house of Savoy.

4) do you even know what kowtow means, and if you do, do you have any idea what the current british monarchy does? because from your last post either the latter or the former betrays a funny amount of ignorance.

[OrphanPip]

do Canada and Australia and all the other states that have the Queen as HoS actually pay towards the upkeep?

We maintain the estates in Canada, which includes 10 Lieutenant-Governor's mansions and Rideau Hall in Ottawa, so that the Queen has somewhere nice to stay when she visits.

I think the GG costs us a few million every year. I imagine the LG's cost the provinces somewhat less because they have less responsibilities. (I looked it up and the GG costs about 40 million a year)

The Dutch royal family is kind enough to gift Canada with tulips every year to decorate Parliament. The Queen never sends us flowers, what's the deal?

[TheFifthElement]

We maintain the estates in Canada, which includes 10 Lieutenant-Governor's mansions and Rideau Hall in Ottawa, so that the Queen has somewhere nice to stay when she visits.

I think the GG costs us a few million every year. I imagine the LG's cost the provinces somewhat less because they have less responsibilities. (I looked it up and the GG costs about 40 million a year)

The Dutch royal family is kind enough to gift Canada with tulips every year to decorate Parliament. The Queen never sends us flowers, what's the deal?

The Queen grants you her divine benevolence for all time, what are flowers compared to that? :D

[stlukesguild]

We have aristocracies for the same reason that we have republics or dictatorships. They are just one among the many possibilities... nearly all of them equally flawed. As George Bernard Shaw noted,

Democracy is a form of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few.

We only need to look to the current state of "democracy" to recognize just how cognizant he was. In another instances, Shaw was quoted suggesting:

Democracy is a device that insures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.

When one recognizes the stupidity of much of our electorate, we again realize that Shaw was right. We get the sort of leaders we deserve. Unfortunately we all suffer for the poor decision-making a portion of the electorate.

[hawthorns]

As others have mentioned, I've been wondering the same thing about the office of US President...ahem...I mean, marionette. Take a look at the resumes our current and former :frown2:

These guys are supposed to debate economic theory at Summits?

What a joke...

[Emil Miller]

This thread is beginning to stray into political territory and could be closed down but, to get back to the original subject, shops and public houses in the UK are awash with flags on account of the Queen's diamond jubilee this coming Sunday
and I'm looking for a suitable bolt hole to escape the BS. It's amazing that even the reds in the BBC are suitably sycophantic for the occasion judging by the coverage on the radio.

[Paulclem]

The problem i have with royalty is that they are there by chance, not by merit, yet they are stuffed down our throats as paragons, when clearly they are not.

I don't mind them being rich, living in castles and being famous. What i mind is that we get this constantly reinforced drivel about how good they all are. Some of them work - except Andrew now that he's been sacked as trading ambassador. (How bad do you have to be to be sacked from a job that was given to you for who you were and not what you do?). So what. Meeting people, socialising and shaking hands is not work as i know it. I don't really even mind that - someone's got to cut the ribbon on stuff as has been said. I just mind having to listen to the fawning droning that is a constant at particular times of year.

There is another thing that annoy me too. having Royalty and the associated aristocracy erodes the meritocracy we could have. How many of them have been bad eggs but protected by the whole caboodle over the years? You don't have to go back very far in history to discover their origins as tribalists with the largest army. I'm King because I won in the brutality stakes. This glittering charade of priviledge.

There - the soapbox has been stowed now.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

1) Never been pro-monarchy, the Italian one ****ed us all over pretty bad, and no one in Italy will ever forgive them for what they did in the war.

2) Yes, you guys line the streets, cheering and crying like morons, because Kim Kardashian or whomever is getting married. The difference is the the royalty in England actually is very beneficial for the country. They are patrons of art and architecture, and unlike every politician out-there, have no interest in lining their pockets and genuinely only care about their country.

3) Thankfully I have no relation with the present house of Savoy.

4) do you even know what kowtow means, and if you do, do you have any idea what the current british monarchy does? because from your last post either the latter or the former betrays a funny amount of ignorance.

If you can't get that I'm joking around, Alex, I don't know hat to tell you. I used a stupid emoticon and everything. Lighten up. Go relax on your little estate for a while, maybe.

[stlukesguild]

The problem i have with royalty is that they are there by chance, not by merit, yet they are stuffed down our throats as paragons, when clearly they are not.

AS if G.W. Bush got there based on merit.

[JBI]

The primary reason the monarch remains the head of state in Canada is because of the political nightmare reforming the constitution would cause. Also, there are benefits to the executive being a person bound by constitutional tradition and legal expectations rather than having the authority of elected office. The Governor General, who holds the authority of the Crown in Canada when the Queen is not on Canadian soil, is essentially a bureaucrat anyway. And with them around the PM doesn't have to spend time handing out medals and cutting ribbons across the country.

I'm not going to lie, I am first in line to fire the Queen. Screw her. We can have a head of state without having him/her represent the Queen. IT actually would not be as much paperwork as people thing.


We maintain the estates in Canada, which includes 10 Lieutenant-Governor's mansions and Rideau Hall in Ottawa, so that the Queen has somewhere nice to stay when she visits.

I think the GG costs us a few million every year. I imagine the LG's cost the provinces somewhat less because they have less responsibilities. (I looked it up and the GG costs about 40 million a year)

The Dutch royal family is kind enough to gift Canada with tulips every year to decorate Parliament. The Queen never sends us flowers, what's the deal?

Well, we liberated the Dutch, we only died for the Queen, twice.


The problem i have with royalty is that they are there by chance, not by merit, yet they are stuffed down our throats as paragons, when clearly they are not.

AS if G.W. Bush got there based on merit.

Well, To an extent American names and Anglo-Canadian names share the same attribute as obsessed with aristocratic lineage. Take all the jrs and thirds and whatnot appended onto so many people's names. You would think that people would abandon such notions, but Faulkner teaches us, above anything else, that all is family.

[paradoxical]

I'm not going to lie, I am first in line to fire the Queen. Screw her. We can have a head of state without having him/her represent the Queen. IT actually would not be as much paperwork as people thing.

Yes. I think that in many ways the parliamentary system in the UK is superior to what we have in the US. But surely the Queen is not necessary.

[Paulclem]

The problem i have with royalty is that they are there by chance, not by merit, yet they are stuffed down our throats as paragons, when clearly they are not.

AS if G.W. Bush got there based on merit.

Agreed. But his tenure is limited.

[Scheherazade]

~

R e m i n d e r

Discussion of current politics is not allowed on this Forum.

More importantly, please refrain from personalising your comments.

I am sure the Queen would be broken hearted if anyone received infraction points during this discussion.

~

[Alexander III]

If you can't get that I'm joking around, Alex, I don't know hat to tell you. I used a stupid emoticon and everything. Lighten up. Go relax on your little estate for a while, maybe.

I figured but I wanted to answer anyway.


We have aristocracies for the same reason that we have republics or dictatorships. They are just one among the many possibilities... nearly all of them equally flawed. As George Bernard Shaw noted,

Democracy is a form of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few.

We only need to look to the current state of "democracy" to recognize just how cognizant he was. In another instances, Shaw was quoted suggesting:

Democracy is a device that insures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.

When one recognizes the stupidity of much of our electorate, we again realize that Shaw was right. We get the sort of leaders we deserve. Unfortunately we all suffer for the poor decision-making a portion of the electorate.

Ahhh, I won't go into a whole rant as I have done that on several threads devoted to debunking the myth of the amazingness of democracy. But to add another quote which I have always loved - well I can't find it right now, but to paraphrase it is "democracy is little more than choosing what color your king's uniform will be, the king shall go to war, and the masses shall think it their war, not his war, because the blood on his sleeve is set against the backdrop of the color of their choice." The quote is from Pirandello. A great deal of Italy's finest writers were fascist supporters - D'Annunzio, Pirandello and Ungharetti - not because fascism was so great but because they were desperate for anything which was not that hypocritic and grotesque system of democracy in the gilded age - that fascism seemed like the better option. When a democracy reaches levels of oppression which can no longer be tolerated, how can we blame populations for hoping for freedom with a nazi or fascist or Communist.

[OrphanPip]

I'm not going to lie, I am first in line to fire the Queen. Screw her. We can have a head of state without having him/her represent the Queen. IT actually would not be as much paperwork as people thing.


Constitutional amendments have poor political records in Canada though. The nightmare of getting 10 provincial governments and the federal government to agree on the terms has never worked out great. The repatriation killed Trudeau's Liberals and pushed the PQ towards a referendum. Mulroney's Meech Lake was a complete failure that resulted in the creation of the Bloc Quebecois and the destruction of the Prog. Cons.

No politician in Canada will touch the constitution unless they're damn sure they have the political clout to pull it off.

[Emil Miller]

Constitutional amendments have poor political records in Canada though. The nightmare of getting 10 provincial governments and the federal government to agree on the terms has never worked out great. The repatriation killed Trudeau's Liberals and pushed the PQ towards a referendum. Mulroney's Meech Lake was a complete failure that resulted in the creation of the Bloc Quebecois and the destruction of the Prog. Cons.

No politician in Canada will touch the constitution unless they're damn sure they have the political clout to pull it off.

Once again this thread has strayed into politics. What seems strange is that while the Australians are, and have been for some time, openly discussing ditching the monarchy and declaring themselves a full blown republic, Canada still timidly clings to the UK, which is itself in a state of dissolution, or is it a case being ... "so far from God, so close to the United States?"

[kiki1982]

The Dutch royal family is even more accountable than the British, I think. Queen Beatrix gets the use of her palace Soesdijk for free, and gets a 'salary' for her work, but like all normal employees has to account for her expenses. She gets her security for free, though, on official visits.

The rest, apart from the heir apparent, has no salary and works regular jobs. They get paid per job/acte de présence.

On Belgium: the Flemish would like to let everyone believe that Belgium was put together by the British, but it has in fact been in existence since the middle ages. French-speaking and Flemish-speaking provinces were part of the same empire, even ruled by the same lords in some cases (like West-Flanders and Tournai I believe, or Brabant) and moved from owner to owner together with the Dutch until the Spanish-Dutch religious wars of the reformation practically determined that Belgium was to be Catholic and the Netherlands protestant. In 1789 or therebouts the provinces of virtually West-Belgium (Felmish and French-speaking parts!) tried to become independent because they were dissatisfied with the Austrian tendency to centralise, but were so hapless and couldn't agree on anything so that in the end they were taken by Austria again. That haplessness is still a major part of Belgian politics.
The Flemish movement started in the nineteenth century to re-establish the Dutch language which had been declining certainly in the higher classes (started way before the independence in 1830 but enhanced because of the well-founded fear by the South that a Dutch-speaking North would make an invasion by the Dutch after the revolution easier; the Dutch king was making plans for this as he was anxious to preserve the resources in the South; it never happened). The Flemish nationalists still dwell on the idea that the French want to make the Flemish speak French, say that the king doesn't speak their language (which is tosh). They often use the Battle of the Golden Spurs to romanticise this (1302 we are speaking of here!).
The present royal family speak French amongst themselves, indeed. Queen Victoria used to speak German to her husband. Did that make her a bad Queen? In the meantime the second heir aparent goes to a Flemish school. They speak with an accent. They never complain about the eldest member of that family who is Spanish, speaks 5 languages (sometimes in a mish-mash) with an accent (as all polyglots do, they find the right word, not necessarily in the right language because in another it expresses the idea best). If Prince Harry were to marry an Indian or Welsh tomorrow and she had a fat accent, would anyone complain? As long as she was amiable, nice-looking and did her job well, then so what?
The idea that 'Belgium was put together' does not make sense either. The Flemish nationalists want to pump that into our heads because that is what gives the population a feeling that Walloons are different to Flemish and a feeling of separation. I would say we speak different languages, but we are the same. The Walloons are not French and the Flemish not Dutch. The nationalists have been cultivating this divide for about 50 years. At one time that wrath was founded, admittedly, but at some point it went away. They are still cultivating it, though, and f*cking the country up. They forget to clarify that the Flemish themselves willingly started giving up their own language already in the 18th century (!) and that, despite laws stating that Flemish secondary school were allowed they took generations to actually set one up! There are still families in Limburg who raise their children in French... It's like the Welsh blaming the English for Anglicising them although they did it willingly because it was convenient. In fact the Welsh would have more to say against the English than the Flemish against Wallonia The Welsh have taken positive action where the Flemish have dwelled on this chapter and blame the others for their own mistakes.

Rant over :D

I think FifthElement was very right. Do you want more politicians? And if your president is not a political function then what is the difference?
Ok, the king can't be sacked, but an MP or a minister neither. IF you see what some politicians get up to, then I would gladly swap them for a king, even if it is Juan Carlos (who is not that popular at the moment admittedly he could have had more tact...).

[Emil Miller]

Yes. I think that in many ways the parliamentary system in the UK is superior to what we have in the US. But surely the Queen is not necessary.

Necessary to whom? If you are someone who has been granted an OBE or some other order that allows you to obtain certain advantages, or if you benefit from a knighthood or a peerage or are a company that obtains royal patronage allowing you to advertise the fact on your products, then the Queen might be considered a necessity. On the other hand, for people who are excluded from royal patronage there seems to be no need for a monarch other than to open public facilities which, as already stated, practically anybody of note can do.


Incidentally, that's an interesting picture of Battersea power station used in your avatar.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Necessary to whom? If you are someone who has been granted an OBE or some other order that allows you to obtain certain advantages, or if you benefit from a knighthood or a peerage or are a company that obtains royal patronage allowing you to advertise the fact on your products, then the Queen might be considered a necessity. On the other hand, for people who are excluded from royal patronage there seems to be no need for a monarch other than to open public facilities which, as already stated, practically anybody of note can do.


Incidentally, that's an interesting picture of Battersea power station used in your avatar.

It's the cover to a Pink Floyd album. . . .

[Emil Miller]

It's the cover to a Pink Floyd album. . . .

Thanks, I would never have known.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Pffft. And you call yourself British.

[Emil Miller]

Pffft. And you call yourself British.

I only use 'British' on official declarations, and pop groups fall neatly into this thread because, like the monarchy, I regard them as superfluous to requirements; the main difference being that the BS surrounding pop groups is marginally more difficult to avoid than that surrounding the monarchy.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Pink Floyd isn't a pop group. They may have been at one time, but they're now established more as legends. They went far and beyond what any normal rock band ever did.

[stlukesguild]

A great deal of Italy's finest writers were fascist supporters - D'Annunzio, Pirandello and Ungharetti - not because fascism was so great but because they were desperate for anything which was not that hypocritic and grotesque system of democracy in the gilded age - that fascism seemed like the better option. When a democracy reaches levels of oppression which can no longer be tolerated, how can we blame populations for hoping for freedom with a nazi or fascist or Communist.

Ezra Pound also supported the fascists as well. In part because he believed in an agrarian economy as opposed to an economy run by crooked bankers. Considering the current state of banking and their role in the present economic collapse I can't say he was totally off the mark. Of course Pound also believed in a certain notion of elitism... an aristocracy based upon achievement (a meritocracy)... as opposed to one based on wealth or birth. Of course Pound was certain that he would qualify for this meritocracy. He famously felt that any country that was so small or backward as to censor him, didn't deserve art

[Emil Miller]

Pink Floyd isn't a pop group. They may have been at one time, but they're now established more as legends. They went far and beyond what any normal rock band ever did.

They must have made an awful racket.

[Alexander III]

A great deal of Italy's finest writers were fascist supporters - D'Annunzio, Pirandello and Ungharetti - not because fascism was so great but because they were desperate for anything which was not that hypocritic and grotesque system of democracy in the gilded age - that fascism seemed like the better option. When a democracy reaches levels of oppression which can no longer be tolerated, how can we blame populations for hoping for freedom with a nazi or fascist or Communist.

Ezra Pound also supported the fascists as well. In part because he believed in an agrarian economy as opposed to an economy run by crooked bankers. Considering the current state of banking and their role in the present economic collapse I can't say he was totally off the mark. Of course Pound also believed in a certain notion of elitism... an aristocracy based upon achievement (a meritocracy)... as opposed to one based on wealth or birth. Of course Pound was certain that he would qualify for this meritocracy. He famously felt that any country that was so small or backward as to censor him, didn't deserve art

Well in defense of Pound, arrogance and genius often go hand in hand. But yes, the current trend to demonify the Italians and Germans during the that period, is one which aught to be somewhat reevaluated. Im' not saying they were saints, but not enough attention is given on the prior system which created that ****ed up generation. I mean lets face it, if right now everyone believed that the banks were solely controlled by jews, considering how much ruin these banks have brought upon the world, in collusion with their pupett politicians - well is it so surprising that there was a genocide? I mean imagine if all the rage which people right now have, instead of being directed at faceless corporations and large complex entities, were solely directed at "the jews" is a genocide, or at the very least wide-spread antisemitism so hard to understand.

Right now people want something drastic a new, this thirst for change means a Robespiere and Hitler are just as likely as a Washington or a Garibaldi.

I also agree with Pound, that a social hierarchy is necessary. Democracy only works in my opinion, in the greek style, as in democracy amongst the elite, or as they called them in Athens "citizens" - From a point of efficiency, hierarchy is necessary. At all times it must be clear who is above you, who is your equal and who is beneath you. It creates aspiration, as men will want to reach higher and higher, and EARN THE RIGHT to posses a vote, and be considered as worthy. Right now when all men are born with full democratic rights without having never earned them, they have no respect for them - ambition is only calculated in terms of wealth, and (I know everyone thinks their own generations totally unique) but my god do the men of my generation lack ambition, heck worst, they don't give a ****, "let the world burn, what do I care" that is the zeitgeist. Why because, if one is born in a castle, the castle will merely be normal, the castle becomes mundane and dull - if everyone begins with a room, with the castle in view, by God will that castle be deified in their minds. And that is what I believe Democracy is a privilege which must be earned, if every shmuck has it because they were simply born, it looses it's value. It's like having a wife in the 1920's , you can **** other women, beat her, do as you please, and treat her as a maid, and she can't do anything about it - try treating your spouse like that now and she will leave you. And so it must be with democracy, you have to earn her and once you have her, if you slip up, you loose her, otherwise she looses all value.

[OrphanPip]

Once again this thread has strayed into politics. What seems strange is that while the Australians are, and have been for some time, openly discussing ditching the monarchy and declaring themselves a full blown republic, Canada still timidly clings to the UK, which is itself in a state of dissolution, or is it a case being ... "so far from God, so close to the United States?"

Because Canada has different dynamics, and the provinces in Canada are much more powerful than the states in Australia. The federal government has no power to remove the monarch without the agreement of the provinces, and Quebec won't discuss the constitution without finally getting constitutional recognition of their right to self-governance. The other provinces will never give Quebec that concession, so we inevitably fall to bickering amongst ourselves and everyone forgets why we were trying to amend the constitution in the first place.

[Emil Miller]

Because Canada has different dynamics, and the provinces in Canada are much more powerful than the states in Australia. The federal government has no power to remove the monarch without the agreement of the provinces, and Quebec won't discuss the constitution without finally getting constitutional recognition of their right to self-governance. The other provinces will never give Quebec that concession, so we inevitably fall to bickering amongst ourselves and everyone forgets why we were trying to amend the constitution in the first place.

Quebec is always going to be a problem with regard to change but in the event of the monarchy being put out to grass at some future date, which is not altogether fanciful as it become increasingly anachronistic and its patronage less acceptable, some sort of agreement will have to be arrived at.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

They must have made an awful racket.

You've obviously never listened to them. Have you even heard of Pink Floyd? How is it possible to not have?

[Emil Miller]

You've obviously never listened to them. Have you even heard of Pink Floyd? How is it possible to not have?

Because I'm selective in what I listen to, rather than automatically listening to what everyone else has been cajoled into listening to, and that doesn't include a bunch of long haired exhibitionists caterwauling above the strumming of amplified electric guitars with not a recognisable tune within earshot. How do I know how to describe them? Because their silly name is all too reminiscent of thousands of other such groups who are part of the biggest scam in human history. As P.T.Barnum so rightly said: 'There's a sucker born every minute."

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

You've never even listened to them, yet you criticize them. What you described sounds nothing like Pink Floyd. The vast majority of their music is laid back and very mellow, with quite soft, tuneful singing.

{EDIT}

[Paulclem]

So that would be Rock Royalty then.

[stlukesguild]

I also agree with Pound, that a social hierarchy is necessary. Democracy only works in my opinion, in the greek style, as in democracy amongst the elite, or as they called them in Athens "citizens"

Jeffersonian Democracy is what it was originally known as in the US. The idea was that the right to vote... to participate in the process of government... was contingent upon some qualifications and responsibilities. The means of deciding who exactly should be "qualified" were certainly not ideal... barring women, Blacks, the poor, etc... But then again... how logical is it to place the decision-making in the hands of those who are uneducated and largely illiterate?

Unfortunately it was my own home state of Ohio that pushed for the concept of "one man/one vote". The concept sounds noble enough, I'll admit... but just look at the consequences. Plato was right... when you give the masses the right to vote you end up with the masses voting entitlements for themselves... regardless of the cost or consequences. Of course it was the Republican Party back then that supported the "one man/one vote" initiative because they recognized cynically that the ignorant masses could be easily manipulated... as they are today.

[OrphanPip]

Democracy as the Greeks knew it was much more dysfunctional than modern liberal democracy. It collapsed a number of times due to revolutions, and it hardly lead the Athenians to great success, since they lost a bunch of wars, suffered an economic collapse, and then were conquered by an army lead by a 20 something Macedonian.

Let's look at the consequences of wider franchise... Women and African Americans are economically and socially better off than they were before they had a vote.

The selfishness of an electorate, whether it is limited or expansive, is no different. How is a small group of elite likely to rule in the interest of the public at large?

The problem with American democracy is the money that is allowed into the politics. The elections should be funded by tax payers (with small personal donation caps, and a certain amount of money provided per vote garnered), so that the politicians are accountable foremost to their electorate rather than corporations or lobbyist.

It's simply not true that the poor are out there voting themselves entitlements, since they hardly vote at all. How often do issues effecting the poor really dominate political discourse?

[kiki1982]

But that's just the problem. Then you are back at the early system where you had to earn a certain amount of money to be elligible for voting. This time you are not cutting them out, but they cut themselves out. Those who do vote, though, and those who are elected by them do not feel the responsibility to care for those that did not, because, after all, they have the option to vote so they shouldn't complain.
The poor and uneducated are not interested unless some promises are made that really change their personal lives. If such promises become a priority then we are no longer ruling the nation for its interest, but we are practically ruling the nation to please it and to keep our seat. Certainly if you pay your members of parliament, you get such a culture. And that doesn't do a nation any good whatsoever.

If you can't please the poor and educated, they don't vote.

The only thing you can do is force them to vote (as in Belgium is the case), but then you get protest votes. People who are dissatisfied with the possibilities and say, 'What the heck, I'll vote for the equivalent of the BNP.' And that paralyses the system when they and their counterparts start to have almost 50% of the seats in parliament.

The right to vote for every citizen is probably still a better thing than risk the few who have the power to do good and are intelligent enough to have it to do bad. You are right that the poor and the Black Americans are better off now than a few decades back.

[Emil Miller]

It's a pity that some of the most interesting threads keep veering towards politics and subsequent closure. I suppose that any discussion concerning royalty will at some point collide with the political system of which it is part but on the subject of democracy/elitism both are valid according to one's point of view. There is currently a discussion going on in the UK about whether convicted criminals should have the right to vote. This is something that has been foisted on EU members by the human rights lawyers in Strasbourg. This follows similar behaviour in the US but with one major difference: the citizens in the US will have a vote on whether to implement the legislation, unlike the UK where virtually everything is decided by a parliamentary elite without recourse to the people. This highlights the dichotomy that exists between an elite and the masses because, while the masses are usually manipulated by an educated elite, for all their ignorance they know instinctively when such a proposal is wrong and should be allowed to vote on such issues.
In 2009 the Swiss, who have system of voting by referendum, were asked if mosques should be allowed to build minarets. The measure was decisively defeated to the chagrin of elitist liberals who wanted to foist the structures on the general population. In my view, Switzerland is the only true democracy in Europe and possibly the world. Government by plebiscite or referendum may give voice to the uncultured masses but looking at the state the USA and Europe is in now, it's obvious that the educated elite is clueless as to how to deal with a crisis of their own making.

[JuniperWoolf]

I've always thought of royalty as sort of like a nation's jewelry now that they have so little power. The nation pays for fine materials to make the family look impressive, and then they show them off to the world. They're displayed as a symbol of wealth and prosperity, and they're also something pretty and splendid to look at. Like... a faberge egg that you'd keep in the sitting room for when company comes over.

[Alexander III]

it hardly lead the Athenians to great success, since they lost a bunch of wars, suffered an economic collapse, and then were conquered by an army lead by a 20 something Macedonian.


As opposed to all the wars we are winning right now, and our amazing economy - but on the bright side at least there is no napoleon or Alexander, in fact there is no one at all.


Let's look at the consequences of wider franchise... Women and African Americans are economically and socially better off than they were before they had a vote.

You making this about something that it is not. I don't give a damn about women, race and all that hoopla. All I believe is in education - the educated those who have proven that they are capable and deserving to participate in state discourse - those are the ones who should have a vote. If you earn it, it does not matter what color or gender or hairstyle or car you have - You shall point out that blacks and women begin on average at a disadvantage, so it is unfair to have a meritocracy- because not everyone has the same opportunities to get educated. So instead of raising the bar and making people work harder and aspire you would have us lower the bar so everyone can do it?



The selfishness of an electorate, whether it is limited or expansive, is no different. How is a small group of elite likely to rule in the interest of the public at large?

So what you are saying is, if we were to replace the current American Senate with a bunch of random people, everything would still be the same. I shall show you a blunt example about the power of education. When the Iraq war broke out there were 2 opinions. A) Woo we fight for freedom, gove the Iraqi's democracies, save them from evil, save the world from Sadam's weapons of mass destruction. B) There are no weapons of mass distraction, this is all bull**** and fear mongering so that the americans can steal all the oil, they have never and will never give a **** about the iraqui people. Now how many people on this forum believed A instead of B. And yet A in america was supported by a clear majority of the poor and uneducated, the plebeians - why? because they are easily manipulated. I am not saying the wealthier and better educated are not manipulatable, but it is harder.


The problem with American democracy is the money that is allowed into the politics. The elections should be funded by tax payers (with small personal donation caps, and a certain amount of money provided per vote garnered), so that the politicians are accountable foremost to their electorate rather than corporations or lobbyist.


As an Italian I found this whole "election and and parties funded by the tax payers" to be adorable. Now I could write a 30 page essay on why such a system as it exists in Italy is horrible, but just google it. Go to google, type in Italy political party scandals and frauds and stealing.



It's simply not true that the poor are out there voting themselves entitlements, since they hardly vote at all. How often do issues effecting the poor really dominate political discourse?

Bull****.Last time I checked the uneducated and poor of Carolina voted themselves a big entitlement. The poor and uneducated have always hated faggots and they amended their constitution to make gay marriage against the constitution. Do you think this is what the educated want? or just the plebeians...

[Alexander III]

I also agree with Pound, that a social hierarchy is necessary. Democracy only works in my opinion, in the greek style, as in democracy amongst the elite, or as they called them in Athens "citizens"

Jeffersonian Democracy is what it was originally known as in the US. The idea was that the right to vote... to participate in the process of government... was contingent upon some qualifications and responsibilities. The means of deciding who exactly should be "qualified" were certainly not ideal... barring women, Blacks, the poor, etc... But then again... how logical is it to place the decision-making in the hands of those who are uneducated and largely illiterate?

Unfortunately it was my own home state of Ohio that pushed for the concept of "one man/one vote". The concept sounds noble enough, I'll admit... but just look at the consequences. Plato was right... when you give the masses the right to vote you end up with the masses voting entitlements for themselves... regardless of the cost or consequences. Of course it was the Republican Party back then that supported the "one man/one vote" initiative because they recognized cynically that the ignorant masses could be easily manipulated... as they are today.

Were your political vies like this before, or are they now starting to shift due to the recent disgusting spectacle that has become politics. Have you seen the Dictator, there is a pretty dam fine speech at the end by Sash Baron Cohen which outlays how freedom has gone from gold to gild -

[OrphanPip]

As opposed to all the wars we are winning right now, and our amazing economy - but on the bright side at least there is no napoleon or Alexander, in fact there is no one at all.

But the obvious point is that there is no reason to think that a restricted democracy like that of Athens would be more effective. Athenian democracy was neither effective nor a model of particularly sound governance. Representative democracies have faired better.



You making this about something that it is not. I don't give a damn about women, race and all that hoopla. All I believe is in education - the educated those who have proven that they are capable and deserving to participate in state discourse - those are the ones who should have a vote. If you earn it, it does not matter what color or gender or hairstyle or car you have - You shall point out that blacks and women begin on average at a disadvantage, so it is unfair to have a meritocracy- because not everyone has the same opportunities to get educated. So instead of raising the bar and making people work harder and aspire you would have us lower the bar so everyone can do it?

No, it is unfair to have a meritocracy because a meritocracy is not in line with the principles of liberal democracy. The point should be that those effected by a decision should have a say in that decision. Moreover, I favour greater democratization, in that I would not support the rights of people from one part of a nation to impose decisions on other parts. I believe in strong constitutionalism limiting the reach of majority vote, because I believe strongly not only in the justice of that system, but in the practical superiority of liberalism for reaching more effective results.

Moreover, that was in response to Stlukes statement that widening franchise has gotten us somehow to a worst place, but in reality those that franchise has been widened to have benefited a great deal. So, for who has it gotten worst? Women and blacks are better off than before, even the rich are better off than before? Who is suffering, the middle class primarily, but that is due to the marginalization of labour interests in the US, the loss of a voice not the franchise of new voices.



So what you are saying is, if we were to replace the current American Senate with a bunch of random people, everything would still be the same. I shall show you a blunt example about the power of education. When the Iraq war broke out there were 2 opinions. A) Woo we fight for freedom, gove the Iraqi's democracies, save them from evil, save the world from Sadam's weapons of mass destruction. B) There are no weapons of mass distraction, this is all bull**** and fear mongering so that the americans can steal all the oil, they have never and will never give a **** about the iraqui people. Now how many people on this forum believed A instead of B. And yet A in america was supported by a clear majority of the poor and uneducated, the plebeians - why? because they are easily manipulated. I am not saying the wealthier and better educated are not manipulatable, but it is harder.

Yet, the Republican party is overwhelmingly voted for by upper middle class white people and the rich. So, exactly how is it the poor and uneducated who pushed that through?



As an Italian I found this whole "election and and parties funded by the tax payers" to be adorable. Now I could write a 30 page essay on why such a system as it exists in Italy is horrible, but just google it. Go to google, type in Italy political party scandals and frauds and stealing.

We have the system in Canada and it works well. Italian political fraud is due to the problems of Italian society, not the system. Maybe you suck at writing laws properly.



Bull****.Last time I checked the uneducated and poor of Carolina voted themselves a big entitlement. The poor and uneducated have always hated faggots and they amended their constitution to make gay marriage against the constitution. Do you think this is what the educated want? or just the plebeians...

Yet the trend is towards liberalism, the majority of Americans now favour gay rights. Moreover, I'd question whether it is the poor and uneducated who voted it through. I think you'd benefit from taking a closer look at the demographics of Mormons and Evangelical Christians, they aren't poor and uneducated. The actual demographic data shows higher opposition in urban centres, lower in rural, and a generational gap with more old people for the ban. If I were to apply your logic to an issue I disagree with, like banning gay marriage, I could say that men are less worthy of voting, since women are about 10% more likely to support gay rights. Exactly, how that counts as an entitlement to poor people is beyond me anyway. Besides, are gay people not poor people too. It's shocking, but sometimes they're even black.

The problem with all this discussion of the effectiveness of democracy is the usual distraction, coming from an elitist perspective, that the problem is the electorate. Those that, presumably, have different views from yourself so they are they must be ignorant or gullible or uneducated. But who is best suited and most knowledgeable about what is best for themselves? Do you really think you have a greater capacity to vote on issues to the benefit of a truck driver than a truck driver does? And let's not pretend any of the so-called "educated" electorate actually knows **** all about the majority of the issues government decides on. Exactly how much of the population has the economic education to actually have a nuanced understanding of economic policy? How many have public health education? How many are experts on urban planning and development? And how many actually have a combination of all those specialized fields of knowledge? Don't ****ing kid yourself, you or me or Stlukes are no better suited to making the best political decisions than the local janitor.

The issue is not who is able to vote, the problem is the civil society, the culture of politics and the attitude of people towards those politics. Civil society is increasingly degraded in the West as community groups are marginalized, politicians become less accountable to the population they serve, and capital becomes increasingly the most dominant source of political power. The gains of the new social movements and the earlier labour and suffragette movements are being quickly eroded by a society that cannot or will not organize to be involved in the politics of the nation.

The goal of a democracy she be the full participation of all members not simply in voting (which is what we have) but the full participation of all members in dialogue and debate over the major issues (which we should have, but don't because of a number of social forces), so that all perspectives are heard and a compromise decision is made that perpetuates the cohesion and prosperity of the nation-state. Instead, what we have is an overwhelming influence from the moneyed classes, and a problem of apathy amongst the poor and marginalized.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

When it comes to American politics, it's about money. The politicians are run by whoever pays them. A candidate for senate (who didn't get elected, surprise surprise), said it best (and I don't know what "SPRING" is):

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m09yxgmsSC1rq2zyfo1_1280.jpg

[Charles Darnay]

http://i.imgur.com/wvrde.jpg

Shhhhhh...she's on to us

[stlukesguild]

No, it is unfair to have a meritocracy because a meritocracy is not in line with the principles of liberal democracy.

You do realize just how surreal that statement sounds? It's unfair to have a "meritocracy"... in other words... it's unfair to have a system of government based upon ability and merit? How does that make any sense? We don't run our economy, our universities, our arts, our sports... or anything else based upon some sad notion of Egalitarianism. Can we really afford to allow those who are unable or unwilling to put forth the effort needed to reach a certain minimal competency to continue to make decisions as important as how the nation should be run? We are seeing the results right now.

Moreover, I favour greater democratization, in that I would not support the rights of people from one part of a nation to impose decisions on other parts.

By that logic the Southern American states would probably still be enforcing the racist Jim Crow laws... if not slavery.

Moreover, that was in response to Stlukes statement that widening franchise has gotten us somehow to a worst place, but in reality those that franchise has been widened to have benefited a great deal. So, for who has it gotten worst? Women and blacks are better off than before, even the rich are better off than before?

Correlation equals proof? From what I recall of Modern American history it was not the votes of the masses that changed laws concerning equal rights for women or Blacks... or other minorities. These changes were often imposed against popular opinion by an educated government.

Yet the trend is towards liberalism, the majority of Americans now favour gay rights. Moreover, I'd question whether it is the poor and uneducated who voted it through. I think you'd benefit from taking a closer look at the demographics of Mormons and Evangelical Christians, they aren't poor and uneducated. The actual demographic data shows higher opposition in urban centres, lower in rural, and a generational gap with more old people for the ban. If I were to apply your logic to an issue I disagree with, like banning gay marriage, I could say that men are less worthy of voting, since women are about 10% more likely to support gay rights. Exactly, how that counts as an entitlement to poor people is beyond me anyway. Besides, are gay people not poor people too. It's shocking, but sometimes they're even black.

Any number of "rights" in the US are contingent upon displaying a modicum of understanding and proving a degree of responsibility: driving, owning a gun, participating in the legal system as a juror, to say nothing of the requirements for any number of professions. Yet it is assumed that simply being born on US soil and deemed a "citizen" should afford an individual the right to participate in the process of government decision-making... which often impacts the whole nation. For all your data suggesting that the majority of Americans are in support of "Gay Rights" and "Gay Marriage", anti-Gay laws continue to be pushed through and passed by a majority vote in state after state... largely by an uneducated, working-class voter that can be manipulated into believing that equality for homosexuals will lead to the death of marriage, the active recruiting by gays in our schools, the eventual legalization of incest, bestiality, etc...

[stlukesguild]

I don't know what "SPRING"

Like the "Prague Spring" and the "Arab Spring" of last year the suggestion is that the 99% of the US population who are no longer being serviced by the US government need a similar revolution. Of course the corporations are good at assuring that the media (which they control) paint any protester as "Terrorists", "Communists", "Socialists", "Fascists", "Anarchists", "Spoiled Punks and Thugs", etc...

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I don't know what "SPRING"

Like the "Prague Spring" and the "Arab Spring" of last year the suggestion is that the 99% of the US population who are no longer being serviced by the US government need a similar revolution. Of course the corporations are good at assuring that the media (which they control) paint any protester as "Terrorists", "Communists", "Socialists", "Fascists", "Anarchists", "Spoiled Punks and Thugs", etc...

True, and agree with this sentiment. Nothing is really going to change unless something really big happens.

I don't know if the media would do that, though. Fox News would, of course. Still, it's clear to me that most of the news corporations are controlled by the government. The Occupy Wallstreet demonstrations went on for about a month (I think) before any major station even reported it. If something really big did happen, on the level of the "springs" you mentioned, I think there's always a wild card in the media that the higher ups don't anticipate, and that's the reporters/anchors themselves, most of whom surely learned about journalistic credibility in school. We see it now from time to time on the news stations--again, principally Fox--where a news reporter gets fed up with the propaganda they're spewing and speaks the truth. Shepard Smith comes to mind. (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-may-10-2012/lord-of-the-rings---the-right-side-of-history)

[OrphanPip]

You do realize just how surreal that statement sounds? It's unfair to have a "meritocracy"... in other words... it's unfair to have a system of government based upon ability and merit? How does that make any sense? We don't run our economy, our universities, our arts, our sports... or anything else based upon some sad notion of Egalitarianism. Can we really afford to allow those who are unable or unwilling to put forth the effort needed to reach a certain minimal competency to continue to make decisions as important as how the nation should be run? We are seeing the results right now.

This is quite simply a false analogy, voting rights are not comparable to skills or ability. Under what standard are we to determine who is "qualified" to be allowed to have a say in how their lives are run? It is a direct affront to the principles of liberalism to say that vast swaths of the population are not capable of making decisions in their own interests, to do so is to argue that large portions of the population are simply not rational beings. Even if we wanted to use the loose subjectivity involved in determining who exactly has the esoteric qualities that make them qualified for voting rights, how much are you really willing to argue that other people are most qualified to know what is best for you without consulting your opinion?



By that logic the Southern American states would probably still be enforcing the racist Jim Crow laws... if not slavery.

No, that does not follow from my statement at all. Saying that people in the USA should have a greater say in how the USA is run than people in Germany seems like a straightforward statement. However, when we apply it to regions it somehow becomes incoherent? Just because a population at large might have more reasonable opinions than certain sectors, does not mean that this applies in general to all situations. It doesn't mean that those who are most effected by a regional decision should not have a greater say in how those decisions are made.



Correlation equals proof? From what I recall of Modern American history it was not the votes of the masses that changed laws concerning equal rights for women or Blacks... or other minorities. These changes were often imposed against popular opinion by an educated government.

No, but I only needed to demonstrate the opposite, that widening franchise worsened conditions for those who got it, to disprove your statement. Oh, and don't be so obtuse as to act as if the votes of women and blacks have no influence on civil rights legislation. You are just muddying waters by trying to bring in issues of constitutionality, which are undoubtedly an important aspect of liberal democracy, to somehow demonstrate that widened franchise is bad.



Any number of "rights" in the US are contingent upon displaying a modicum of understanding and proving a degree of responsibility: driving, owning a gun, participating in the legal system as a juror, to say nothing of the requirements for any number of professions. Yet it is assumed that simply being born on US soil and deemed a "citizen" should afford an individual the right to participate in the process of government decision-making... which often impacts the whole nation. For all your data suggesting that the majority of Americans are in support of "Gay Rights" and "Gay Marriage", anti-Gay laws continue to be pushed through and passed by a majority vote in state after state... largely by an uneducated, working-class voter that can be manipulated into believing that equality for homosexuals will lead to the death of marriage, the active recruiting by gays in our schools, the eventual legalization of incest, bestiality, etc...

Hardly, the rights of voting depend on someone being a rational person capable of making autonomous decisions. Children and the severely mentally handicapped do not vote, and this is a reasonable limit to franchise. The danger of your arguments against franchise are apparent in the flimsy logic of the arguments. Look at how you characterize the people who are against gay marriage. If we excluded "uneducated" working-class voters, you'd exclude the majority of gay people from being able to vote. Where do we start drawing the line at when people are allowed to vote. How is rationality being measured, by all accounts of the arguments made by you the only people who are rational are those who agree with you.

Let fascism rein in the name of forwarding all politics Stluke approves of!

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Yeah, but sometimes, the majority of people are wrong. It's just a fact.

[OrphanPip]

Yeah, but sometimes, the majority of people are wrong. It's just a fact.

Sure, but democracy is about more than just the decision being made by the majority. It is also a system based in dialogue and the hearing of all sides. Why do you think there are institutionalized systems of oppositions within the major forms of democracy?

The majority is often wrong, but democracy is self-corrective and its tendency towards debate and accommodation makes it more likely to reach better decisions than a non-democratic system most of the time.

Moreover, that is why we have things like constitutionality, to protect against tyranny of the majority.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Agreed.

[hawthorns]

It's pretty easy to fool most people most of the time. That and the fact that 37% of Americans can't even find their own country on a map, let alone know anything about civics/history, scares me everytime I go to the polls. Personally, I don't see what's wrong with requiring some minimum competency for voting priviledges. But as Orphanpip pointed out, the practicalities of its administration and enforcement would be a nightmare. Which wing gets to determine what is truth and what is uneducated, especially for subjective issues? My econ coursework seemed to be founded on pretty solid theory...right up to the part where they all seemed to disagree when political/too many variables were thrown in.

[stlukesguild]

Hardly, the rights of voting depend on someone being a rational person capable of making autonomous decisions. Children and the severely mentally handicapped do not vote, and this is a reasonable limit to franchise.

That and the fact that 37% of Americans can't even find their own country on a map, let alone know anything about civics/history, scares me everytime I go to the polls. Personally, I don't see what's wrong with requiring some minimum competency for voting priviledges.

What I am speaking of is some minimal competency that could be tested in a manner no less "nightmarish" than the requirements for passing the driver's exam. I am equally scared by idiots who cannot find the US on a world map having the right to determine the future of the nation I live in. I'm equally frightened of the 25% who still believe Obama is not a US citizen.

Again, I quite believe G.B. Shaw was on the right track when he suggested that "Democracy is a form of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few." I also suspect that Plato's notion of the cycles of government was on the mark. He theorized that civilizations begin with a Theocracy, move to Aristocracy, and Democracy... which inevitably implodes due to the populace continually voting with an eye solely to their own benefit and ignoring the larger results to the nation as a whole. The ultimate result: Chaos and a return to Theocracy. Considering the current state of American politics... and the American obsession with inserting religion into the equation... regardless of our supposed separation of church and state... I cannot help but think that Plato may have been onto something.

[JuniperWoolf]

That and the fact that 37% of Americans can't even find their own country on a map, let alone know anything about civics/history, scares me everytime I go to the polls.

Is this true? School is a legal requirement in America, isn't it?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I don't know where that percentage comes from. It seems high. What constitutes "American" in that poll? What are the age groups? Though the actual percentage is undoubtedly still quite troubling.

Here's the article discussing the 37% mark (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-shehori/poll-37-of-americans-unab_b_150933.html). I'm still not entirely sure how people were tested. Plus. It looks like people were choosing America just outside of the area on a map--not pointing at somewhere I Asia like most of us probably assume when we hear such claims.

I also found this (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070916163223AACdc1S), which, to me. Just reinforces that most polls are BS that mean nothing.

EDIT: After taking another look at the 37% poll, my suspicions were confirmed, it's a fake article. As it says, it's meant as "satire." This begs the question: should all of us who thought it was legitimate be allowed to vote? :P

[Paulclem]

I knew a woman who joined my GCSE class who didn't know that there were other countries. I found this very surprising, as she wasn't unintelligent and did well with her studies. Certainly it's not a situation you want, but no-one would have said that it didn't qualify her to vote. I put it down to a missing aspect of her education.

Not being able to find something on a map might mean nothing more than an unfamiliarity with maps.

[JuniperWoolf]

^That's weird. In Alberta's grade schools, we had to take world geography every few weeks, no exceptions. We'd learn about a different country or period in history and then we'd be given a stupid map to color so that we have the geographical context in our minds when we're learning. Like when we were learning about WWII we were given the ol' photocopy'd map, and we'd have to color the main players, Germany, the UK, Poland, France whatever, and then ourselves red - we always had to color Canada, and always red. Two weeks later, we'd learn about Brazil, then we'd be given a photocopy of the same world map we colored two weeks ago for WWII, except this time we'd have to color Brazil and then Canada, in red. :sick: It kind of blows my mind that Americans didn't have world geography burned into their brains for twelve solid years.


EDIT: After taking another look at the 37% poll, my suspicions were confirmed, it's a fake article. As it says, it's meant as "satire." This begs the question: should all of us who thought it was legitimate be allowed to vote? :P

Hah! Well then. Here' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62rkSS6Y_7Y)s a good Penn and Teller episode on how statistics lie.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I had to take one geography class in high school. Actually it wasn't even a class, it was just a part of my civics class. That's it, other than occasional stuff in grade school. We always looked at maps, but we barely had to memorize anything. I'll never understand why so many people are surprised when they find out how many people don't know where countries are.

[JuniperWoolf]

Haha, well I've got to say, that fits perfectly with the sterotype the rest of the world believes about the United States, ie. that they're only informed about their own country.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Yeah, but we're not very informed about that, either.

[OrphanPip]

I was in an intro to Canadian politics class at uni once, and one girl responded to the question "What was the last province to join Canada?" with "Nunavut." Which was a bit cringe worthy, but hilarious. Another person in the class thought there were 12 provinces for some bizarre reason. To be fair though, a good portion of the students were not Canadian.

[JuniperWoolf]

I was in an intro to Canadian politics class at uni once, and one girl responded to the question "What was the last province to join Canada?"

Haha, derp. I made the whole class cringe one time when the teacher asked "does anyone in class have family origins in Sweden?" and I yelled out "Yeah! Francois is Swiss!"

:blush:

[The Dilettante]

I fully support royalty provided that I am part of it. ;)

[prendrelemick]

[QUOTE=stlukesguild;1146220
What I am speaking of is some minimal competency that could be tested in a manner no less "nightmarish" than the requirements for passing the driver's exam. I am equally scared by idiots who cannot find the US on a world map having the right to determine the future of the nation I live in. I'm equally frightened of the 25% who still believe Obama is not a US citizen.



You mean the Untermensch (as Hitler called them.)

[Alexander III]

[QUOTE=stlukesguild;1146220
What I am speaking of is some minimal competency that could be tested in a manner no less "nightmarish" than the requirements for passing the driver's exam. I am equally scared by idiots who cannot find the US on a world map having the right to determine the future of the nation I live in. I'm equally frightened of the 25% who still believe Obama is not a US citizen.



You mean the Untermensch (as Hitler called them.)

No he means that large segment of german population which democratically elected Hitler, because they liked what they saw...

[The Dilettante]

[QUOTE=prendrelemick;1146672]

No he means that large segment of german population which democratically elected Hitler, because they liked what they saw...

Quite ironic, in fact. But yes, do not compare us to Hitler for saying that some are not competent enough to vote. The only problem is judging competency, and finding who to be deemed arbiter. This is not really needed at the minor levels we are talking about.

[stlukesguild]

I had to take one geography class in high school. Actually it wasn't even a class, it was just a part of my civics class. That's it, other than occasional stuff in grade school. We always looked at maps, but we barely had to memorize anything. I'll never understand why so many people are surprised when they find out how many people don't know where countries are.

In 5th grade we had a huge unit on Geography. We had to create a poster-sized map of all 7 continents with the countries clearly demarcated, all the capitol cities identified (as well as other major cities, mountain ranges, rivers, etc...). Following each continent we were given a comprehensive exam in which we had to fill in the names of all the countries, capitols, rivers, etc... When we came to North America we had to break the US down into the 50 states and all of their capitols.

You mean the Untermensch (as Hitler called them.)

Hitler completely twisted Nietzsche's concept of the ubermensch.

It in interesting that we fully accept the notion that those holding political office should meet some minimal standard of competency, but not those who would select these individuals.

[Emil Miller]

It in interesting that we fully accept the notion that those holding political office should meet some minimal standard of competency, but not those who would select these individuals.

That's because voters select those individuals to do their thinking for them and that's also where they make their biggest mistake.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I had to take one geography class in high school. Actually it wasn't even a class, it was just a part of my civics class. That's it, other than occasional stuff in grade school. We always looked at maps, but we barely had to memorize anything. I'll never understand why so many people are surprised when they find out how many people don't know where countries are.

In 5th grade we had a huge unit on Geography. We had to create a poster-sized map of all 7 continents with the countries clearly demarcated, all the capitol cities identified (as well as other major cities, mountain ranges, rivers, etc...). Following each continent we were given a comprehensive exam in which we had to fill in the names of all the countries, capitols, rivers, etc... When we came to North America we had to break the US down into the 50 states and all of their capitols.
Yeah, I think we did something similar--probably not nearly as comprehensive--but did it stick with you? I don't remember anything we were made to memorize in grade school.

That's because voters select those individuals to do their thinking for them and that's also where they make their biggest mistake.
How is that making a mistake? What choice do voters have, aside from trying to attain office themselves so they don't have to let someone else do their thinking? I'm not saying I disagree that there is too much dependence on those we elect to make major decisions (though, the only alternative seems to be to let everyone vote on most pieces of legislation, which I don't think is feasible), but it's the system we live in. The only alternative to the mistake of letting someone do the thinking for us would be not to vote at all, which could be seen as a bigger mistake.

[Emil Miller]

Yeah, I think we did something similar--probably not nearly as comprehensive--but did it stick with you? I don't remember anything we were made to memorize in grade school.

How is that making a mistake? What choice do voters have, aside from trying to attain office themselves so they don't have to let someone else do their thinking? I'm not saying I disagree that there is too much dependence on those we elect to make major decisions (though, the only alternative seems to be to let everyone vote on most pieces of legislation, which I don't think is feasible), but it's the system we live in. The only alternative to the mistake of letting someone do the thinking for us would be not to vote at all, which could be seen as a bigger mistake.

I believe in a system where the legislature proposes but the public disposes. There is no reason to prevent (in the case of the US) each state legislating on state affairs subject to public acceptance by referendum, as indeed they already do in certain instances, and national business could be conducted in Washington by plebiscite. That way many of the evils perpetrated by vainglorious and corrupt politicians could have been avoided or, if not, wouldn't have been carried out with impunity. Once a party has a working majority the legislature it can do more or less as it pleases in the face of public opinion. Time and again i have seen governments in the UK ignore the public on major issues affecting everyone despite obvious disapproval in the public at large.
The second biggest mistake the electorate make is to vote for the same party again; in that way they perpetuate what is in effect a parliamentary dictatorship.
To adapt a phrase from the American revolution; No legislation without public representation.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, we usually go back and forth between democrat and republican, especially when the economy is doing bad under a certain party, which is why the republicans should've been able to walk into office next year, but they chose Romney, the idiots. Of course, it doesn't always happen this way--for some reason Bush was elected after we had the greatest economic boom under a democratic president. Anyways, my main point is it goes back and forth in America.

And there're downfalls to having an equal voice among parties, the main being that nothing gets done to the detriment of the public, as we see now where republicans and democrats can't agree on anything.

[OrphanPip]

It in interesting that we fully accept the notion that those holding political office should meet some minimal standard of competency, but not those who would select these individuals.

I don't expect people to demonstrate that they are competent to make decisions about their own life. How is anyone other than an individual more qualified to determine what is best for themselves?

I would not back referenda, as Emil puts forward, because of the limitations the electorate has for being informed on all the decisions the government must take. Perhaps referenda on major bills, like budgets, but in general you see bad results when you micromanage, so to speak, the operation of a state. Legislation should move slowly to give time for oversight, and when possible, it should be incremental.

I'd favour proportional representation with shifting coalitions as an answer to the problem of "parliamentary dictatorship." Yet, I think that term is a bit ridiculous since any government which truly lost the support of a significant amount of the electorate would eventually have to call an election.

I definitely have issues with the Canadian Conservative Party being able to pass all their legislation unopposed for 5 years, because they won a majority of seats with only 37% of the vote. But there is something to be said for the regional concerns that the Parliamentary system can accommodate in Canada.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I'd favour proportional representation with shifting coalitions as an answer to the problem of "parliamentary dictatorship." Yet, I think that term is a bit ridiculous since any government which truly lost the support of a significant amount of the electorate would eventually have to call an election.

And.


I definitely have issues with the Canadian Conservative Party being able to pass all their legislation unopposed for 5 years, because they won a majority of seats with only 37% of the vote. But there is something to be said for the regional concerns that the Parliamentary system can accommodate in Canada.

OK, so I'm tired and it's late, but have you not just contradicted yourself there? Either a minority government can or cannot get away with murder, which is it? Personally I think the term 'parliamentary dictatorship' just about sums up most Western political philosophy.

[Paulclem]

I'll just butt in with this.

We've just had 4 days of Brand Royal being peddled mercilessly on the TV. I don't particularly dislike any of the Royals, but i don't want to read or watch them for any length of time, but, as I don't control the TV, then its been on. (We had the Mother in Law round today who likes the Royals and so it was on all day. Bah).

I inadvertantly clicked on a sun article complainng about the coverage of the "festivities" - (that's the bit where the "people" spend the night on the pavement to catch a glimpse of Herself passing in a car) - and how relentlessly dull the coverage has been. I can vouch for that today at least where it has been a chronology of tedium.

Here's a Mail article criticising it too.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2154424/Diamond-jubilee-BBC-attacked-inane-celebrity-driven-coverage-Queens-Thames-Pageant.html

I'd go further though. Processions, processions of boats, singing, processions of cars, inane interviews with the clearly deluded, marching soldiers, soldiers on horses - it has been dreadful.

Beyond this though is the fawning commentary, the ridiculous promotion and the quite false view that all the country has been celebrating. (There aren't many flags out round here - though I think that probably depends where you are). Not only do we have to have them - I don't think they are going away soon, but they are always on with the commentators constantly repeating the same old crap - doesn't she work hard, hasn't she done well, aren't they all glam, (No - even can tell that). I managed to avoid most of the previous Royal stuff in the past. This one has really got in my face though. Thank goodness for the European cup coming soon - Friday. Now that's something to get the flag out for.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

We've had a lot of coverage over the goings on of the royals here, too. Not round-the-clock, but it has been a top story for a few days, especially the queen waving in her boat. When you had the recent wedding, that was broadcast in full, covered ad nauseum, and people here ate it up. I've never understood why some Americans are so fascinated with the royal family. I guess it's the whole fantasy of being a princess or queen, as I'd say t least 90% of the fascination nd viewership comes from women.

[paradoxical]

I have to admit, the procession on the River Thames did look smashing. And the Queen does seem very personable. I say let her have her day, but I do wish that anarchist group would have been able to break up the Royal Wedding like they had promised. That really did seem like a slap in the face to every one.

I didn't see the part with the soldiers, but that's what ruins every parade in America. No matter the cause, you have to proudly display the police force and the military. Like we're supposed to worship these guys or something.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Thank goodness for the European cup coming soon - Friday. Now that's something to get the flag out for.

Indeed but I don't fancy our chances at all!! Still, it will be fun though.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I didn't see the part with the soldiers, but that's what ruins every parade in America. No matter the cause, you have to proudly display the police force and the military. Like we're supposed to worship these guys or something.

Huh? American soldiers were in the British river parade thing? Well, blame yourselves. I doubt we forced our soldiers into it.

[paradoxical]

Huh? American soldiers were in the British river parade thing? Well, blame yourselves. I doubt we forced our soldiers into it.

Oh, no. Paulclem had mentioned British soldiers were involved. What I meant was that all of the major parades we have in the US – like the 4th of July – are always displays of military strength.

Even Mardi Gras parades, which have **** all to do with patriotism, will always be proceeded by cops on motorcycles, and usually feature marching troops of Marines and Army ROTC with fake guns, etc.

[OrphanPip]

And.



OK, so I'm tired and it's late, but have you not just contradicted yourself there? Either a minority government can or cannot get away with murder, which is it? Personally I think the term 'parliamentary dictatorship' just about sums up most Western political philosophy.

No, I didn't, because the Tories don't have a minority government. They got 37% of the vote, but 53% of the seats in Parliament because of the first past the post system. They have a majority because Canada does not have a proportional system, if they had a coalition it would be a different matter (although in the Canadian tradition formal coalitions are not usually used in minority situations, but informal alliances that might only last for a single bill).

I'd have less issue with it if the Tories had actually received a majority of the vote in order to receive the majority of the political power. Instead we have a bizarre situation where 3 left wing parties, and one centrist party, split the vote just enough to put the only right wing party in the country into power.

Calling it a dictatorship is still silly though, because they still have to listen to the populace. Recently, the Tories tried to put through an internet surveillance bill that was such an affront to personal liberties that the public uproar was sufficient to make them scrap it.