Time to get rid of the Monarchy?

[Zardnaar]

What's wrong with being ruled by a group inbred German degenerates?

NZs near the top of the world in terms of democracy and human rights. Constitutional monarchy with proportional representation.

Has advantages over El Presidente and other systems.

 

[Samson]

that doesn't mean a thing when they still get more money than average Joe from their dad.
In a capitalistic society there will ALWAYS be a "sliver spoon" children who are born better off than others.
That is just fact of capitalism.

There is a big difference between having more money and getting to make the rules.

 

[sherbz]

In a nut shell this is why the monarchy should be abolished. And yes - that includes the aristocracy and gentry. It is completely unacceptable that the land and wealth of the United Kingdom is concentrated to such a degree in the hands of a single family and institution. And they draw their income from it and are exceedingly wealthy because of it.

 

[Samson]

In a nut shell this is why the monarchy should be abolished. And yes - that includes the aristocracy and gentry. It is completely unacceptable that the land and wealth of the United Kingdom is concentrated to such a degree in the hands of a single family and institution. And they draw their income from it and are exceedingly wealthy because of it.

I wonder how they define "new money". I guess this is the source, and they do not say.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

There is a big difference between having more money and getting to make the rules.

In a capitalistic society when the lines are often blurred... yeah I don't see it.

and this isn't first time the talks of abolishing monarch was brought up... it didn't happen before and it won't happen now. If you want to abolish it you need to "reset" all of British society and how many politicians are daring enough to do that?

 

[Samson]

and this isn't first time the talks of abolishing monarch was brought up... it didn't happen before and it won't happen now. If you want to abolish it you need to "reset" all of British society and how many politicians are daring enough to do that?

It did happen before, but only for 11 years.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Ah, yes; the Lord Protector.

Hardly an un-aristocratic title.

Germans replaced the Kaiser with Hitler
Russians replaced the Tsar with Stalin
French replaced the King Louis's with the Napoleons.

I rather think that with old Oliver our ancestors got lucky.

And I don't assume it will necessarily happen again.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

It did happen before, but only for 11 years.

yeah long LONG time ago... and what failure that was... Heck SPAIN had more recent experience as republic than Britian.
and that wasn't a proper republic but pseudo-dictatorship like monarchy in all but name.

 

[sherbz]

and this isn't first time the talks of abolishing monarch was brought up... it didn't happen before and it won't happen now. If you want to abolish it you need to "reset" all of British society and how many politicians are daring enough to do that?

I think if you speak to most republicans, myself included, we accept that a complete wholesale ripping out of society is not on the cards. Nor is it desireable. But addressing the issue of the nobility and landed gentry is relatively easy to sort out. The nobility hold huge freeholdings across the UK. So the proposal would be to nationalise all of them and pass their ownership to either local authorities or the state. And not compensate the previous owners (lord or lady such and such of such and such) for any of it. They can keep their houses and their property. But all land and freeholdings are removed. The monarchy can still exist in its current residences. Paid for and maintained by the state. But the crown estate should also pass over to the state (which includes most of Oxford & regent street, a large part of central oxford and various other places). The maintenance paid to the royal family would also be limited to the direct line of succession.

Despite the royal family still holding a majority level of support, i think most people in the UK would actually agree with these proposals.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

which is why I think if any of European monarchs would be abolished it would be Spain before Britain.

 

[Snorrius]

So one morally bad institution should not be abolished because there also exist other morally bad institutions.

First one should prove that slavery is inherently morally bad. While there are some aspects of slavery which we tend to estimate as negative, slavery as institution had its place and solved many societal problems of its time. For example, it is an acceptable alternative for state welfare for society which deem welfare to be ethically bad. There is another advantage: legal slavery make slavery and associated problems explicit, while in so-called modern free societies an allegedly "free" (wo)man is treated as state slave de-facto while poor guy/girl thinks s/he is free. For example, many modern state obligate parents to allow their children be indoctrinated in state schools. Also if parents do not conform to numerous rules, imposed by the state, it can take their children away. It is very similar to slave breeding, but unlike slavery where this system is open, in modern state this slave system is sugar-coated and a regular citizen is often harbours delusion that he is free. So, on the contrary, we might conclude that slavery is in some aspects is more sincere and honest about some unpleasant sides of reality.

And as your starting point on slavery being inherently morally wrong is not proven, your following arguments are not necessarily correct as well.

 

[Verbose]

In a capitalistic society when the lines are often blurred... yeah I don't see it.

The British problem is that the British aristocracy turned out to be great at capitalism already in the 18th c. So where he aristos elsewhere lost their properties, and heads at times, like France – or found themselves gradually reduced to relative penury, having to take up various salaried professional careers to make a living, like any damn middle-classer, like fx Germany – the British aristos sort of kept on trucking. And they largely still do. Six or seven families own the majority of the land in Scotland etc. The UK might be due some kind of revolution after all.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

First one should prove that slavery is inherently morally bad. While there are some aspects of slavery which we tend to estimate as negative, slavery as institution had its place and solved many societal problems of its time. For example, it is an acceptable alternative for state welfare for society which deem welfare to be ethically bad. There is another advantage: legal slavery make slavery and associated problems explicit, while in so-called modern free societies an allegedly "free" (wo)man is treated as state slave de-facto while poor guy/girl thinks s/he is free. For example, many modern state obligate parents to allow their children be indoctrinated in state schools. Also if parents do not conform to numerous rules, imposed by the state, it can take their children away. It is very similar to slave breeding, but unlike slavery where this system is open, in modern state this slave system is sugar-coated and a regular citizen is often harbours delusion that he is free. So, on the contrary, we might conclude that slavery is in some aspects is more sincere and honest about some unpleasant sides of reality.

And as your starting point on slavery being inherently morally wrong is not proven, your following arguments are not necessarily correct as well.

I kinda wonder if we should put morality in any political decision making... after all in 1940's homosexuals were seen as morally wrong and ought to be banned in society. Try doing it now.

The British problem is that the British aristocracy turned out to be great at capitalism already

yeah that's fine in capitalistic society. Owning a land is a fine thing in capitalistic society. Unless you want communist revolution... that won't happen.

 

[Gorbles]

First one should prove that slavery is inherently morally bad.

Wow, only eleven pages in and we're arguing the moral merits of slavery to defend the British monarchy

 

[Snorrius]

Wow, only eleven pages in and we're arguing the moral merits of slavery to defend the British monarchy

It is more about showing bad analogies and unproved premises taken as granted .

 

[gangleri2001]

Among the countries of the Anglosphere, I find it surprising that Australia and New Zealand still have the British monarch as head of state (for some weird reason I don't find it so surprising in Canada's case, don't ask me why). Something tells me that they should have become republics somewhen between 1980 and 2010 and that now they are something like 20-ish (or is it 20ish? What's the spelling here?) years ago.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

It is more about showing bad analogies and unproved premises taken as granted .

yeah false equivalence logical fallacy is what that was.

 

[really]

If Charles III wants to make his mark on history, other than by being the last monarch, maybe pushing for a codified constitution, defining the powers of the monarch clearly, introducing transparency and a bit of modernisation at the same time (maybe electoral system, lords reform, how to leave/devolution, established church?) might be the way to go.

I don't think the UK is there yet though, maybe Charles having a row with Truss over fracking or something might bring it to a head.

 

[sherbz]

If Charles III wants to make his mark on history, other than by being the last monarch, maybe pushing for a codified constitution, defining the powers of the monarch clearly, introducing transparency and a bit of modernisation at the same time (maybe electoral system, lords reform, how to leave/devolution, established church?) might be the way to go.

I don't think the UK is there yet though, maybe Charles having a row with Truss over fracking or something might bring it to a head.

Im not sure thats the best way to go. Im all up for constitutional reform, but im not sure writing it down is the best way of achieving that. The main benefit of having an uncodified constitution is that its easier to change aspects of it. And its easy to reform the lords. We just abolish it

 

[AmazonQueen]

that doesn't mean a thing when they still get more money than average Joe from their dad.
In a capitalistic society there will ALWAYS be a "sliver spoon" children who are born better off than others.
That is just fact of capitalism.

The world is never going to be perfect. That is not an argument against trying to make it less imperfect.
And I'm a socialist, I'm not in favour of capitalist societies.