speakin gof which any chance i can be a comrade , Ben?
i don’t dislike the monarchy because of a hierarcheal (spelling) settin gin society, i dislike them because they are in that higher position not out of competence or skill etc, but out of a birth right that is to the effect that they are predeterminatly better than everyone else. i don’t not dislike the PM becuase his is the PM, i dislike hime because i think he has the wrong focus, and has sold out on Labour. but thats a whole different arguement.
Alas, my true identity has been discovered thanks to Ben (ur DEFINETLY not on the honours list !)…I now feel the need to comment…this country has at its symbolic head THE QUEEN, if u don’t like it go back to ur other country where u can be a citizen rather than a subject !! Its surely absurd to get rid of everything and anything which gives us the British a true sense of our cultural heritage and a true sense of our historical heritage…in effect our identity. I mean what is it u want the UK to become !!! We have to keep something !
ps: The post on Israel is coming soon !! My secretary hasn’t yet finished typing it.
taking away the royals will not destroy cultural heritage, i hardly call the royal families heritage cultural unless you think state sponsored murder of millions of inocent people ‘cultural’.
what do i want this country to be? i want this country to be a socialist democracy, which as has been proven gives the best society and provides the best resources to improve living standards of all. the royal family are opposed to democracy, otherwise they would have requested to be withdrawn as head of state or requested a refferendum to see if the population wants them as head of state. without an elected president, executive or not, the country is inheirently not a democracy.
finally, why don’t i return to the republic of ireland? because i don’t have to, and currentyl i don’t have a choice, like most people who post i do not have the choice to live in another country as i live with my parents and last time i checked my back account i didn’t have enough money to up sticks and live somewhere else
Murder of millions of innocent ppl…macca u still stoned ?! Listen let by gones be by gones and lets move on. U open ne history book and u’ll find the royal family mentioned in some context, the rise and fall of the British empire, Henry the eighth…the Royal family are part of the United Kingdom almost inherently. Sure they’ve had their good times and their bad times but so has everybody and everything else !! I look around this society and I c its pretty good, we are reasonably free, the mere fact that u can post such comments on this web site is proof in itself that the Royal family is not this hidden dictatorship secretly opposed to democracy…cos if it was u wouldn’t be writing what ur writing !
anyway, the royal family did (probably does, but thats just my opinion) condone the whole sale slaughter of innocent people as well as worthless wars that would have never happened if it wasn’t for imperialistic ideas. but yet again that is another story.
the reason for the monarchy to go, is that we are still being technically oppressed (which means you can’t have you’re pure capitalism ben), it also means that calling britain modern is lying. without a democratically elected president (either executive or non executive) this country is (this bit will suck as i am rewritting this after i crashed) clinging onto it’s archaic bygone days when it was really Great britain. and it surely must be long over due for this country to drag it’s self into the C21.
also do we really want a scandelous, unelected and arcahic family that don’t represent what britain is.
oh yeah anarchist moment, i really want to burn Microsoft to the ground, but thats beside the point
You talk of the monarchy as if it is some power-hungry entity. The monarchy is made is made up of human beings like you and I. It's absolutely ludicrous to suggest that the current monarchy condones slaughter and wars. Every Royal has the choice to denounce his/her title but the monarchy still goes on. In fact, if enough people denounce the throne, then you and I are in the running for becoming King of England. It's just a title and holds no power as it rightly so.
You talk of getting with the 21st century but it seems like you are the one living in the past. See the royal family for what they truly are, a tourism pull, rather than criticising them on things you couldn't possibly know about.
How exactly are we opressed by the monarchy? They have no influence on the government or the economy. Have a look at Lenin and Stalin (your heroes [img]http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img]) unelected dictators, and they didn't even bring any tourists in. The Queen is not a political figure which is why replacing her with a president is not a sensible option. Think of all the waxworks that would have to be removed from Madame Tussauds!
firstly Stalin was about as much a communist as Hitler, he wouldn’t know what communism was if it came up and bit his hand. Lennin didn’t hold elections, as in most countries in a similar time of ‘change-over’, there were things to be done first to stablise the country to allow an election. and as i have said before communism is meant to rely upon democracy as much as capitalism, but as has been shown it usually spawns dictators. (if you want it explained i will do so in the politics forum)
anyway, i’m not living in the past i’m trying to live in a better and more democratic country. surely it would be more democratic to elect our head of state rather than let nature choose him or her for us. as you said every royal has the right to abdicate or drop their title, so why don’t they? they don’t because they like the attention and the money. if it was really that hard a lifestyle, the occasional charity work the vast government aid the choice to delcare whatever tax return you think is resonable, the royals would have quit years ago. the fact still remains that they haven’t and they are clinging onto power till they are removed.
i’m also pretty sure that the next question will be, wouldn’t you stick at it for that much money? no i wouldn’t, i would find it offensive that would be paid tax payers money in such quantities, am unelected and i would have the chance to get out but i am sacrificing my ethics for the sake of a large pay packet.
i’m not sure you understand what president i mean, yes you can have an executive one, but it would much more beneficial to have a non-executive one. they hold the same power as the royal family, but as act in line with the house of lords (i also really don’t like the names “house of lords/commons”, it’s in exactly the same vien of thought, but i’ll leave that for another day), and work as a head of the house of lords, who should all be elected as it disgracful to have the country still being run, to a certain capacity, but unelected peers. in that capacity they still open hospitals as the royals do, but they don’t waste money on pointless world tours and drain away £1.5million a year.
If we're talking politics then I'm sure you'll agree that the Royals do not have any form of power in a political sense. Power, in politics, is at a simplistic level, the ability to get others to do things that they would not otherwise do. According to this definition therefore the Royals do not have any form of power because there is nothing they can get you to do if you don't want to.
My personal opinion, is that they bring in tourism, do lots of charity work, smile and wave, give us a sense of heritage and generally do no harm. £1.5 million is nothing and would be far outweighed by the tourism they bring in. They carry no power therefore it doesn't matter that they are born into their position. It's very different from the House of Lords because they actually have a say in the political decisions of our country. Royalty is also not undemocratic and I'm fairly sure a referendum would actually go in their favour.
Finally macca, if you really hate the Queen, post some weed in a Royal Mail letter box, techinically anything in those things is property of the Queen so you can get her done on drugs' charges [img]http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img]
[This message has been edited by alex (edited 10 January 2002).]
alex, i’m shocked at your disregard for the real royalty, such a waste putting it in a ost box.
i’ve pretty much used all the arguements against the queen by now and so have those against, so errrrrrr yeah kinda over. anyone want to sum it all up?
“It is the fool who says in his heart that a debate is finished after only 20 posts on a UBB forum.” -2002
This debate has been going on for YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS. How naive it would be to assume we had covered it in this humble set of messages. As with all philosophy, no answers will be posted here, only ideas and opinions, and each of us will take from it what we wish and formulate our own philosophies. That’s the beauty of it!
sorry to dampen this whole topic, it was a great read and well i must say that people have dug their trenches rather deep on this one, but if u want a summary macca, i will have to say…you don’t like the royal family, others do…its your choice to not like them…but remember it’s considered treason if you talk out against the queen or even go against the British empire?! (if that exists)
what i am saying is that…you don’t like her, learn to live with it…she’s gonna die sometime!
macca this is about the royals…where does the idealogy of communisium fit in?
aside from the topic heading, i will have to admit that communisium has irs advantages (in a pure form)…however i will say that human nature wouldn’t allow it to prosper that long! so a mixture of communisium and capatialism would be a far better idealogy!
i’m not a pro capatialist, but i believe in the idea of food for the people, jobs for the people and equality!
that socialism in a very simplified form, the state works for the people, and vice-versa, but the state doesn’t run everything, it does run the NHS etc. socialism is the balance, i am more pro-socialism as i realised very quickly after thinking communism was wonderful that it is very impractical, that was about 5 years ago.
dead but stuffed so the public will be fooled in to thinking shes still alive. note how her facial expression is always the same and she moves like someone has a malfunctioning joy stick to control her with
Surely you’re all missing the point?
If the royalty are politically powerless, then they should be removed and replaced with something better (and more democratic).
If the royalty had any political power, then equally they should be replaced.
If they’re good for tourism, then leave them intact but you may as well delete their nominal political powers.
Surely you’re all missing the point?
If the royalty are politically powerless, then they should be removed and replaced with something better (and more democratic).
If the royalty had any political power, then equally they should be replaced.
If they’re good for tourism, then leave them intact but you may as well delete their nominal political powers.
i dont think were missing the point at all. we already have something better than the royal family… the government believe it or not. so why should we get rid of the royal family and replace them with something equal to the government and create all sorts of hideous social and economic problems.
also… the queen does have political power. all laws have to be passed by her before they can be put in to action. i dont know why but thats the way it is. im sure she has other uses than just being grey haired and smiling a lot at the lower classes and patronising them.
im not a fan of the royal family. but i kind of like them being around. were the envy of america cus we have culture. lets keep it that way. even if its just for fun.
, Ben?
but thats another story