NationStates

The UK in Exile wrote:

British Prussia wrote:Democracy's even older... By that logic, we must all follow North Korean Communism or Mussolini's fascism because they're newer ideologies.

Except the argument put forward for democracy is rarely "well its exactly how (and who) it was in 1450 and it worked well then".

And tell me who exactly in this thread has put forward that argument for monarchy?

Old Tyrannia wrote:

The UK in Exile wrote:
Except the argument put forward for democracy is rarely "well its exactly how (and who) it was in 1450 and it worked well then".

And tell me who exactly in this thread has put forward that argument for monarchy?

You probably, but I ain't digging back through 33 pages of this shit to find out. you probably dressed it up with the words "continuity", "stability", "heritage" or "tradition".

The UK in Exile wrote:

Old Tyrannia wrote:And tell me who exactly in this thread has put forward that argument for monarchy?

You probably, but I ain't digging back through 33 pages of this shit to find out. you probably dressed it up with the words "continuity", "stability", "heritage" or "tradition".

You mean the same way that you dress up your envy with words like "equality", "fairness" and "progress?"

Old Tyrannia wrote:

The UK in Exile wrote:
You probably, but I ain't digging back through 33 pages of this shit to find out. you probably dressed it up with the words "continuity", "stability", "heritage" or "tradition".

You mean the same way that you dress up your envy with words like "equality", "fairness" and "progress?"

I'm happy to admit to a healthy degree of envy. After all, Monarchs have a lot of nice shit I don't.

The UK in Exile wrote:

Old Tyrannia wrote:You mean the same way that you dress up your envy with words like "equality", "fairness" and "progress?"

I'm happy to admit to a healthy degree of envy. After all, Monarchs have a lot of nice shit I don't.

Well, it would appear that we have uncovered the basic difference between monarchists and republicans.

Monarchists believe that loyalty is healthy, and republicans believe that envy is healthy. It all makes perfect sense.

Old Tyrannia wrote:

The UK in Exile wrote:
I'm happy to admit to a healthy degree of envy. After all, Monarchs have a lot of nice shit I don't.

Well, it would appear that we have uncovered the basic difference between monarchists and republicans.

Monarchists believe that loyalty is healthy, and republicans believe that envy is healthy. It all makes perfect sense.

is that a royal we?

Old Tyrannia wrote:Monarchists believe that loyalty is healthy...

Automatic loyalty or earned loyalty?

Immoren wrote:

Old Tyrannia wrote:Monarchists believe that loyalty is healthy...

Automatic loyalty or earned loyalty?

Auto-erotic in this case....

The UK in Exile wrote:

Immoren wrote:
Automatic loyalty or earned loyalty?

Auto-erotic in this case....

Le-lewd! *blushes*

Hell no.

Republika Srpska Party wrote:Hell no.

I assume you're from Serbia. Why you don't want some Karađorđević dude to be your king again?



(because some monarchists there still doesn't understand why people not love these ideas. but I guess every republican is just filthy uneducated peasant for them even dozen more revolutions and executions of king wouldn't help them to understand why 'their' people not adore aristocratic 'rights' )

Republika Srpska Party wrote:Hell no.

I have to admit, when someone who openly supports terrorism and mass murder comes out on the opposite side of the argument, it always makes me feel better about the side I'm on.

Immoren wrote:

Old Tyrannia wrote:Monarchists believe that loyalty is healthy...

Automatic loyalty or earned loyalty?

Loyalty is, at the end of the day, loyalty. Government, no matter how it is selected, rests on the reasoning that the population will automatically be loyal to the State, even if not to the person in power at the time. This is the same in democracy as it is in monarchy.

Old Tyrannia wrote:Well, it would appear that we have uncovered the basic difference between monarchists and republicans.

Monarchists believe that loyalty is healthy, and republicans believe that envy is healthy. It all makes perfect sense.

A generalization. As a loyal, unenvious republican, I must disagree. The most ardent republicans of ages past were very spartan men - the root of republicanism is anger, not envy. Republican sentiment does not arise when monarchs are rich - it's always strongest when the people are suffering.

Old Tyrannia wrote:

Republika Srpska Party wrote:Hell no.

I have to admit, when someone who openly supports terrorism and mass murder comes out on the opposite side of the argument, it always makes me feel better about the side I'm on.

Immoren wrote:
Automatic loyalty or earned loyalty?

Loyalty is, at the end of the day, loyalty. Government, no matter how it is selected, rests on the reasoning that the population will automatically be loyal to the State, even if not to the person in power at the time. This is the same in democracy as it is in monarchy.

well its not is it? you give power to the people to remove goverment and the government has to earn the loyalty of those it serves.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Old Tyrannia wrote:Well, it would appear that we have uncovered the basic difference between monarchists and republicans.

Monarchists believe that loyalty is healthy, and republicans believe that envy is healthy. It all makes perfect sense.

A generalization. As a loyal, unenvious republican, I must disagree. The most ardent republicans of ages past were very spartan men - the root of republicanism is anger, not envy. Republican sentiment does not arise when monarchs are rich - it's always strongest when the people are suffering.

I have to agree with this.

However, I also disagree.
Simply because in a republican states, people still suffer, and with most, not many politicians do not do anything about it.

But as I keep saying, I am neither a Republican or a Monarchist.

The UK in Exile wrote:

Old Tyrannia wrote:I have to admit, when someone who openly supports terrorism and mass murder comes out on the opposite side of the argument, it always makes me feel better about the side I'm on.

Loyalty is, at the end of the day, loyalty. Government, no matter how it is selected, rests on the reasoning that the population will automatically be loyal to the State, even if not to the person in power at the time. This is the same in democracy as it is in monarchy.

well its not is it? you give power to the people to remove goverment and the government has to earn the loyalty of those it serves.

I didn't vote for Cameron. I'm still expected to obey the Government. If I were to refuse to pay my taxes, it wouldn't matter if I claimed I didn't have to because the Coalition Government hasn't "earned my loyalty." If a tea partier refused to pay their taxes, it wouldn't matter if they claimed that Obama hadn't "earned their loyalty." Loyalty to the State is considered automatic whether the Head of State inherited their position or was chosen because 51% of the population decided they were better than the other candidate.

Old Tyrannia wrote:

The UK in Exile wrote:
well its not is it? you give power to the people to remove goverment and the government has to earn the loyalty of those it serves.

I didn't vote for Cameron. I'm still expected to obey the Government. If I were to refuse to pay my taxes, it wouldn't matter if I claimed I didn't have to because the Coalition Government hasn't "earned my loyalty." If a tea partier refused to pay their taxes, it wouldn't matter if they claimed that Obama hadn't "earned their loyalty." Loyalty to the State is considered automatic whether the Head of State inherited their position or was chosen because 51% of the population decided they were better than the other candidate.

paying taxes isn't loyalty. its about the minimum standard for not being actively treacherous.

The UK in Exile wrote:

Old Tyrannia wrote:I didn't vote for Cameron. I'm still expected to obey the Government. If I were to refuse to pay my taxes, it wouldn't matter if I claimed I didn't have to because the Coalition Government hasn't "earned my loyalty." If a tea partier refused to pay their taxes, it wouldn't matter if they claimed that Obama hadn't "earned their loyalty." Loyalty to the State is considered automatic whether the Head of State inherited their position or was chosen because 51% of the population decided they were better than the other candidate.

paying taxes isn't loyalty. its about the minimum standard for not being actively treacherous.

But not being actively treacherous is sort of the definition of loyalty. Unless you're being inactively treacherous, I suppose, though I'm unsure how you'd manage that.

Celritannia wrote:I have to agree with this.

However, I also disagree.
Simply because in a republican states, people still suffer, and with most, not many politicians do not do anything about it.

But as I keep saying, I am neither a Republican or a Monarchist.

I didn't say republican states resolve suffering. I said that republican sentiment is strongest when people suffer. The continuation of suffering under republics doesn't sap republican sentiment.

Old Tyrannia wrote:

The UK in Exile wrote:
paying taxes isn't loyalty. its about the minimum standard for not being actively treacherous.

But not being actively treacherous is sort of the definition of loyalty. Unless you're being inactively treacherous, I suppose, though I'm unsure how you'd manage that.

loyalty - a strong feeling of support or allegiance.

hmmm. nope.

The UK in Exile wrote:

Old Tyrannia wrote:But not being actively treacherous is sort of the definition of loyalty. Unless you're being inactively treacherous, I suppose, though I'm unsure how you'd manage that.

loyalty - a strong feeling of support or allegiance.

hmmm. nope.

Yeah, I am not loyal to the current Government. In fact, I don't think I can be loyal to any government XD.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Celritannia wrote:I have to agree with this.

However, I also disagree.
Simply because in a republican states, people still suffer, and with most, not many politicians do not do anything about it.

But as I keep saying, I am neither a Republican or a Monarchist.

I didn't say republican states resolve suffering. I said that republican sentiment is strongest when people suffer. The continuation of suffering under republics doesn't sap republican sentiment.

Revolutionary sentiment is strongest when people suffer. When people suffer, they want change. That's not rocket science. They also have a tendency to look for scapegoats, which might be the King or might be the Jews, depending on who is most convenient to blame at the time.

Celritannia wrote:

The UK in Exile wrote:
loyalty - a strong feeling of support or allegiance.

hmmm. nope.

Yeah, I am not loyal to the current Government. In fact, I don't think I can be loyal to any government XD.

fair enough, indifference isn't treachery.

The UK in Exile wrote:

Celritannia wrote:

Yeah, I am not loyal to the current Government. In fact, I don't think I can be loyal to any government XD.

fair enough, indifference isn't treachery.

I just don't agree with the concept of the nation-state any more.

Celritannia wrote:

The UK in Exile wrote:
fair enough, indifference isn't treachery.

I just don't agree with the concept of the nation-state any more.

If so, what alternative method of social organisation would you propose?