British Republicanism

[Alyakia]

You can have too much democracy.

hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[Adaptus]

Yes. That is true. It is also true of Scotland.

Maybe the English can reduce their tax burden by letting the North East go, too?

We can't help ourselves either, because we've been denied the ability to do that. We even built our own Parliament building in the centre of Newcastle, and London still said no.

does this building have a wikipage or something

Yes please! Independence for the NE would be nice. Although it's unrealistic.

And no unfortunately, it doesn't have a Wikipedia page. Although the accounting firm who now operate out of it probably do. But I don't know who they are.

This is the only image I can find of it.

http://www.e-architect.co.uk/images/jpgs/newcastle/government_offices_210.jpg

[The UK in Exile]

Is this still going on, a tiny minority of British traitors, plus a bunch of well intentioned foreigners bitterly arguing that we should throw away a system that has stood the test of time, keeping us free of dictators, divine right of autocrats etc., just so we can replace it with one of a selection of systems of questionable merit, or even worse, with a totally new and untested system, in the hope that it will all work out somehow...

We should replace an hereditary monarch who is used to being primarily decorative, in a genteel and tourist friendly way, with some brand of elected monarch, who by virtue of being elected is guaranteed to be a two faced lying hypocrite hell bent on accumulating more power, and who isn't genteel or tourist friendly at all.

That we should throw away a two chamber system that more or less works, in favour of some imported system thats proven not to work, and indeed seems to have been designed not to work.

These people whine that our system isn't 'democratic' enough while holding up alternatives that have too much democracy in the wrong place and too little in the right place.

These people whine that we have an official state church, headed by the monarch, and demand we should opt for a different system, that every single day clearly demonstrates that it takes more notice of religion in politics than our system, that we throw away a system that tends to keep religion out of our day to day politics.

There are problems with our system, but those problems are not based around the system itself, but the changing nature of the modern professional political animal, and simply replacing Lizzy with El Presidente, wont fix that, rather it will only make it worse.

It doesn't matter HOW MANY complex layers of votes, caucuses, primaries, electoral colleges, alternate votes, proportional votes or whatever, we have in your new republican paradise, if the politicians are still corrupt corporate puppets who would sell their own grannies to a glue factory for a 0.5% increase in their poll share, for a place in a system where there are so many competing layers of 'democracy' that the system stops functioning.

There are places on this fucked up planet where people expect, and indeed demand the right to elect their towns head cop, based off corporate funded campaigns, rather than just giving the job to a good policeman.

Places where the public prosecutors tilt the scales of justice to win campaign donations so they can afford to run for their office again, instead of having impartial professional public employees, who know something about criminal law.

These same places then calmly select their national leaders via a system thats less democratic than the method of choosing the town dog catcher.

You can have too much democracy.

You offer us an unspecified system, that most of us don't want, that offers no real benefits, and has substantial setup costs, and which will inevitably leave us in danger of having LESS freedom.

That's what your offering us, more cost, more danger, less freedom.

And you seem shocked and outraged when we say no.

its not even an arguement about democracy. its about representative government

it is amusing how many on this thread like to equate republican with traitor.

[Eviliatopia]

Do you seriously think that there is any chance under a bipartisan system that France will ever become a free market consitituional monarchy paradise?

If not extreme then very much a minority. And let's be honest, extreme party is just a codeword for minority party half the time.

Free Market Paradise? One day hopefully!
On the other hand, I doubt the CM will resurrect. That is sad.

And yes, I am a radical: my ideas would change the french society.
But I'm not to confuse with an extremist, because i don't advocate total government nor extreme coercion to change the said society.
People always confuse radicalism and extremism.

[Alyakia]

Do you seriously think that there is any chance under a bipartisan system that France will ever become a free market consitituional monarchy paradise?

If not extreme then very much a minority. And let's be honest, extreme party is just a codeword for minority party half the time.

Free Market Paradise? One day hopefully!
On the other hand, I doubt the CM will resurrect. That is sad.

And yes, I am a radical: my ideas would change the french society.
But I'm not to confuse with an extremist, because i don't advocate total government nor extreme coercion to change the said society.
People always confuse radicalism and extremism.

Radical, extreme. Either way, you're going to get completely fucked by the bipartisan system you seem to like so much.

[Alyakia]

it is amusing how many on this thread like to equate republican with traitor.

correctly. but shhhhhhhhhh.

[Eviliatopia]

Radical, extreme. Either way, you're going to get completely fucked by the bipartisan system you seem to like so much.

Did i say i wanted it in my country? No, the people are way too crazy.
That would be Authoritarian Socialists against Fascists.

[Chinese Regions]

Is this still going on, a tiny minority of British traitors

If we are traitors then we are proud of it.

[Aesthetica]

Is this still going on, a tiny minority of British traitors, plus a bunch of well intentioned foreigners bitterly arguing that we should throw away a system that has stood the test of time, keeping us free of dictators, divine right of autocrats etc., just so we can replace it with one of a selection of systems of questionable merit, or even worse, with a totally new and untested system, in the hope that it will all work out somehow...

We should replace an hereditary monarch who is used to being primarily decorative, in a genteel and tourist friendly way, with some brand of elected monarch, who by virtue of being elected is guaranteed to be a two faced lying hypocrite hell bent on accumulating more power, and who isn't genteel or tourist friendly at all.

That we should throw away a two chamber system that more or less works, in favour of some imported system thats proven not to work, and indeed seems to have been designed not to work.

These people whine that our system isn't 'democratic' enough while holding up alternatives that have too much democracy in the wrong place and too little in the right place.

These people whine that we have an official state church, headed by the monarch, and demand we should opt for a different system, that every single day clearly demonstrates that it takes more notice of religion in politics than our system, that we throw away a system that tends to keep religion out of our day to day politics.

There are problems with our system, but those problems are not based around the system itself, but the changing nature of the modern professional political animal, and simply replacing Lizzy with El Presidente, wont fix that, rather it will only make it worse.

It doesn't matter HOW MANY complex layers of votes, caucuses, primaries, electoral colleges, alternate votes, proportional votes or whatever, we have in your new republican paradise, if the politicians are still corrupt corporate puppets who would sell their own grannies to a glue factory for a 0.5% increase in their poll share, for a place in a system where there are so many competing layers of 'democracy' that the system stops functioning.

There are places on this fucked up planet where people expect, and indeed demand the right to elect their towns head cop, based off corporate funded campaigns, rather than just giving the job to a good policeman.

Places where the public prosecutors tilt the scales of justice to win campaign donations so they can afford to run for their office again, instead of having impartial professional public employees, who know something about criminal law.

These same places then calmly select their national leaders via a system thats less democratic than the method of choosing the town dog catcher.

You can have too much democracy.

You offer us an unspecified system, that most of us don't want, that offers no real benefits, and has substantial setup costs, and which will inevitably leave us in danger of having LESS freedom.

That's what your offering us, more cost, more danger, less freedom.

And you seem shocked and outraged when we say no.

its not even an arguement about democracy. its about representative government

it is amusing how many on this thread like to equate republican with traitor.

When you equate replacing a ceremonial figurehead with a power hungry corrupt corporate puppet, simply for the ability to say El Presidente rather than King or Queen, giving us more cost, more danger of tyranny, and less freedom and 'representation' thats hardly patriotic is it.

If you want better 'representation' maybe you'd do better coming up with a system to stop the existing body of elected buffoons being so removed from the wishes of the people...

"Fixed term parliaments", "party whips", "first past the post", "honorary directorships", "hereditary voting patterns", "spin doctors", "election winning unsustainable tax bribes for the top 5% funded by massive cuts in public services for the 95%".

We have bigger problems than some unelected horsefaced germanic old trout in a spiky metal hat waving at American and Japanese tourists with digital camcorders...

Fix what is broken, not break what is not.

[The UK in Exile]

its not even an arguement about democracy. its about representative government

it is amusing how many on this thread like to equate republican with traitor.

When you equate replacing a ceremonial figurehead with a power hungry corrupt corporate puppet, simply for the ability to say El Presidente rather than King or Queen, giving us more cost, more danger of tyranny, and less freedom and 'representation' thats hardly patriotic is it.

ah, patriotism, the virtue of the vicious. love of ones country over one's countrymen. since the queen is the state, i must hate the state right?

my country! right or wrong!

forgetting of course "if it be wrong set it right."

[Aesthetica]

When you equate replacing a ceremonial figurehead with a power hungry corrupt corporate puppet, simply for the ability to say El Presidente rather than King or Queen, giving us more cost, more danger of tyranny, and less freedom and 'representation' thats hardly patriotic is it.

ah, patriotism, the virtue of the vicious. love of ones country over one's countrymen. since the queen is the state, i must hate the state right?

my country! right or wrong!

forgetting of course "if it be wrong set it right."

Forgetting that you are the one advocating doing your country harm by replacing a decorative figurehead with little or no real power, with a corrupt potential dictator...

That's whats unpatriotic... the "Fuck my country, I want a Presidente no matter the cost and no matter the harm " attitude.

It would be just as unpatriotic to suggest replacing an elected house with a quango of corporate ceo's. It's not about being a monarchist, it's about deliberately seeking to harm the country and its people.

[The UK in Exile]

ah, patriotism, the virtue of the vicious. love of ones country over one's countrymen. since the queen is the state, i must hate the state right?

my country! right or wrong!

forgetting of course "if it be wrong set it right."

Forgetting that you are the one advocating doing your country harm by replacing a decorative figurehead with little or no real power, with a corrupt potential dictator...

That's whats unpatriotic... the "Fuck my country, I want a Presidente no matter the cost and no matter the harm " attitude.

It would be just as unpatriotic to suggest replacing an elected house with a quango of corporate ceo's. It's not about being a monarchist, it's about deliberately seeking to harm the country and its people.

in your opinion, because in your opinion, people can't select decent leaders. the fact you hold it fervently does not change the truth that its a belief based on relatively little substance.

[Adaptus]

It would be just as unpatriotic to suggest replacing an elected house with a quango of corporate ceo's. It's not about being a monarchist, it's about deliberately seeking to harm the country and its people.

Nobody in this thread as far as I have seen has advocated plutocracy. So I'm not sure where you are getting that from.

[Tagmatium]

It would be just as unpatriotic to suggest replacing an elected house with a quango of corporate ceo's. It's not about being a monarchist, it's about deliberately seeking to harm the country and its people.

But you consider that getting rid of the monarchy would be deliberate harm to the country, painting republicans as nothing but pernicious traitors, scheming to bring down your beloved Britannia.

Which is ridiculous.

[Farnhamia]

When you equate replacing a ceremonial figurehead with a power hungry corrupt corporate puppet, simply for the ability to say El Presidente rather than King or Queen, giving us more cost, more danger of tyranny, and less freedom and 'representation' thats hardly patriotic is it.

ah, patriotism, the virtue of the vicious. love of ones country over one's countrymen. since the queen is the state, i must hate the state right?

my country! right or wrong!

forgetting of course "if it be wrong set it right."

"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." Courtesy of Carl Schurz, American statesman.

[Keronians]

The justification of essentially bankrupting an 80 year old woman would be?

i can think of some pretty terrible 80 year olds and some pretty terrible women. and a terrible 86 year old woman. there are plenty of reasons not to bankrupt someone but "they're old and female" isn't that good.

Alright, so think of them.

The question still stands, and I'm awaiting a justification for bankrupting an old woman.

Why? Well, for one, she can't really go get an awesome new job since she's 86 years old!

[Nadkor]

You ask a lot and I can but try.

I'm asking you to do nothing more than back up your assertions.

We'll start with nderstanding what a democracy is.

We understand what a democracy is, we don't need dictionary definitions. This is not to say that dictionary definitions do not have a place, as we shall see, but one isn't necessary here.

Now, my claim is rather big, in that democracy, as we can see, is not just related to selection of the government.

No, that has been pretty much everybody else's claim. Your claim was not that "democracy is not just related to selection of the government", your claim was that "how democratic a country is is dependent on how the government functions" (emphasis added).

So, to see the difference, let's turn to the dictionary definitions you appear to love so much.

Related, in this context, is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as being "Connected or having relation to something else."

Dependant, in this context, is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as being "Something subordinately attached or belonging to something else; a subordinate part, appurtenance, dependency"

You claimed that democracy is subordinately attached to how the government functions. This, at its logical conclusion, is a statement that the single controlling and defining factor in democracy is how the government functions. This is a very different argument to one that simply states that democracy is related to more than only the selection of government.

Therefore, if I said that only how a government functions is connected to democracy, I was wrong.

You did. Well, you said that how democratic a country is is "dependent" on how the government functions, which is the same thing.

However, to argue that it has no bearing on how democratic a country is wrong as well, if not more so.

Nobody has argued as much, but nice try.

Nobody is claiming that how a government functions has no bearing on how democratic a country is.

Again: your previous contention was that constitutional monarchy in some way causes a state to be more democratic. This requires that some inherent property of constitutional monarchy is the factor that causes these countries to be more democratic, rather than, as listed for example, "the method of electing/appointing the legislature and executive and other bodies of local and national government (as well as the things Yoot mentioned, i.e. "class system, wealth distribution, land distribution, broader kinda 'feel' to a country etc. etc.")"

You are yet to demonstrate any kind of causation related to the claim you made. You are yet to even begin to show how those other factors couldn't provide causation, either individually or collectively. Successful accomplishment of both parts is necessary for your argument to have any value.

Therfore one can be justified in arguing that this is causation, provided one can provide evidence that being a constitutional monarchy affects how the government functions.

Unfortunately, your "therefore" doesn't apply when all preceding points are shown to be nonsense.

Now I say that class and whatnot are of lesser importance because they come further down the definition.

What definition?

Would you care to comment on the argument that, all other things being equal, a country with an elected head of state is inherently more democratic than the same country with an hereditary head of state

Please give us an example of this.

Er...the hypothetical situation where the Queen is replaced by an elected President assuming the powers of the Crown and everything else stays the same? The argument is that the country would be more democratic. Comments?

NB: I am neither condemning nor condoning this argument

I will argue that the hereditary system is more democratic.

Okay, maybe I was wrong about not needing a dictionary definition of "democracy". Please acquaint yourself with one.

Because while in the republic anybody can become the Head of State with luck, in the second there are two electorates. One where a part of the population can only have a chance of becoming Head of State

I wasn't aware that the King or Queen was elected by and from among the nobility. Maybe you have us confused with the Holy Roman Empire?

and the other where they can all hope to, with luck, be the Head of Government.

How and why is that more democratic than one where they can all hope to, with luck and ability, be either head of government or head of state?

[Aesthetica]

It would be just as unpatriotic to suggest replacing an elected house with a quango of corporate ceo's. It's not about being a monarchist, it's about deliberately seeking to harm the country and its people.

Nobody in this thread as far as I have seen has advocated plutocracy. So I'm not sure where you are getting that from.

It's just an illustrative example, to counter the strawman argument presented by the republican-without-a-cause crew.

They propose something harmful to the country for the sake of a discredited ideology, and wonder that they are not hailed at patriots.

This insane myth that electing a head of state is automatically a wonderful idea that will enhance every bodies lives...

"Oh you have no evidence that people can't choose good leaders"

People today seldom get the chance to choose their leaders, they simply get to choose which of the two offered candidates they get oppressed by, in accordance with the PR campaign funded by the corporate puppet masters...

"Ohh he's got a nice smile, his suit looks cleaner, and he got a good write up in the 'Daily Splurge', lets vote for the purple party..."


I find this obsession with "republics" strange.

I'm half Irish, not half 'plastic paddy' or half orangeman either, half genuine wild Irish from Eire...

My maternal Great Grandfather was a member of the IRA, the original IRA, the ones who fought with second hand bolt action rifles, who fought running battles in the streets against the Black & Tans, in the Easter Uprising in 1916. His name is carved on a memorial, one of the "Martyrs of the Republic".

His wife, was from Liverpool, from a mixed Irish/English family. But because her surname was not Irish, and she wasn't born in Ireland, my mother's family were regarded as 'anglos', second class citizens, reviled by their neighbours. The Grand daughter of a Martyr of the Republic, treated like shit because her grandma had an English maiden name. Even worse, my mother's family were not Catholic, but atheist.

That's why my mother fled from Dublin, a week after her 18th birthday, young, female, single and not Catholic, she was quite genuinely in danger of being sentenced to life imprisonment in a Magdalene Laundry for being "a soul in peril".

The Republic was going to change everything, freedom, liberty, equality, a fucking paradise, but it didn't happen, the place stayed a superstitious sectarian shithole, and my maternal Great Grandfather died for nothing...

Republics... What is the big deal? How is sending old Lizzy and her spawn to the scaffold going to cure corrupt politicians, corporate bribery, or lazy slobs who vote the way their grandparents did in every single election regardless of how crap the party has become.

"Republicanism" is not some magic bullet that will cure all our social and political ills, it never was, and never will be, change for change's sake is counter productive, you should only change if there are clear benefits.

So far not one of the Republicans here has shown any, other than "Hey we can have an elected asshat sneering at us from his limo".

[The UK in Exile]

i can think of some pretty terrible 80 year olds and some pretty terrible women. and a terrible 86 year old woman. there are plenty of reasons not to bankrupt someone but "they're old and female" isn't that good.

Alright, so think of them.

The question still stands, and I'm awaiting a justification for bankrupting an old woman.

Why? Well, for one, she can't really go get an awesome new job since she's 86 years old!

most republicans don't advocate it.

[Nadkor]

This is correlation not causation and if Nadkor were here I'd hope that she would give you the same treatment that I got, from her for doing that. (Took far too many posts to get nowhere, that did.)

New Zealand, Australia and Scandinavia can be habitually found at the top, or near the top, of almost all such rankings. The Netherlands and Canada are also high achievers.

As a matter of fact, all of these countries speak Germanic languages.

As Nadkor almost said: correlation is not causation.

What...I...are you undermining yourself on purpose?

[Nadkor]

i can think of some pretty terrible 80 year olds and some pretty terrible women. and a terrible 86 year old woman. there are plenty of reasons not to bankrupt someone but "they're old and female" isn't that good.

Alright, so think of them.

The question still stands, and I'm awaiting a justification for bankrupting an old woman.

Why? Well, for one, she can't really go get an awesome new job since she's 86 years old!

Who is advocating bankrupting the Queen? Where is this being advocated? If it was being done, and I have strong doubts, was it meant facetiously, satirically, or even just as an outright joke? What standing within the republican movement do the people who advocate bankrupting the Queen have, if they exist at all?

Are you basing this all on your continued insistence on being entirely ignorant of the ownership of the Crown Estates even when the actual factual and legal position has been outlined to you on several occasions?

[Keronians]

Alright, so think of them.

The question still stands, and I'm awaiting a justification for bankrupting an old woman.

Why? Well, for one, she can't really go get an awesome new job since she's 86 years old!

most republicans don't advocate it.

Someone did in this thread. I'm asking them why.

I know most republicans probably don't advocate nationalising the Crown's estates.

[Nadkor]

most republicans don't advocate it.

Someone did in this thread. I'm asking them why.

I know most republicans probably don't advocate nationalising the Crown's estates.

AAAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHH

Do you ignore reality on purpose, or are you just not capable of paying any attention to it?

[The UK in Exile]

most republicans don't advocate it.

Someone did in this thread. I'm asking them why.

I know most republicans probably don't advocate nationalising the Crown's estates.

you mis-understand abolishing the monarchy and nationalizing the crown estates could occur after the monarch dies, they wouldn't be bankrupt.

[Adaptus]

"Republicanism" is not some magic bullet that will cure all our social and political ills, it never was, and never will be, change for change's sake is counter productive, you should only change if there are clear benefits.

So far not one of the Republicans here has shown any, other than "Hey we can have an elected asshat sneering at us from his limo".

I have to admit that a lot of Republicans are republicans for the wrong reason. However.

What many people seem to miss is that Republicanism, is not about replacing a King/Queen with a President. There's a lot more to it then that.

What you're describing is Cromwellian Republicanism, in which the head of state was replaced with a new one. Which was not really republicanism.

Real Republicanism replaces a political system that is based on Hereditary, Aristocratic, and Traditional mechanisms, with Democratic Meritocratic and Logical mechanisms. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, but Republicans believe the latter is better for modern government.

Personally, I'm a Republic purist, and to me, that means replacing our system with a Platonic Republic, or rather one that represents Platonic mechanisms.

But for you, it might be something different.

I really find it sad that Republicanism these days is bundled down to getting rid of a monarchy and replacing it. That's not a Republic. That's just a small part of a wider picture.