I had originally posted this as two seperate posts in the Republicanism and Monarchism thread a few months ago, but had been considering posting it as a blog so I could easily keep track of it for future purposes. Following the birth of one of several thousand babies born yesterday which has caused a bit of a fuss, I thought now was the time to do so.
Edit: Following feedback, there will now be a part 2 to this post which will be the more offensive case against them. This first part is more of a defense against the pro-monarch claims.
Before I begin presenting the case, it's important I make a couple of points clear. The reasons I'm about to post aren't what caused me to take a republican stance they merely support the position. The reason I oppose the monarchy is simply that hereditary power and wealth by birth right to a single family is abhorrent to every sensibility I have. The reasons I will include here are primarily arguments against the monarchist position from a British perspective. Finally, whilst I may not quote www.republic.org.uk often, my early education in the subject was informed from that site so many of the arguments could probably be found in a similar form somewhere on that site, therefore it seems only fair I credit them (though I don't entirely agree with all their positions either).
The Tourism Argument
The Claim
One of the most often repeated claims of the benefits of having a British monarchy is that they bring in tourist cash. Were we to get rid of the monarchy the cost to the british tourist industry would be huge.
Response
Really, this claim should be dismissed without any evidence to the contrary. Even if it were true, is "well foreign people think it's kinda funny" a good way to decide on the head of state? Or maybe decisions of who gets to be the head of state should be made on which option gets most money from tourists? These are obvious preposterous positions. Fortunately, they're also based on a complete falsehood.
The Association of Leading Visitor Attractions tracks the number of tourists visiting attractions over time. Their figures for 2012 show (after enough scrolling) that not only do the royals not play a particularly big role in tourism, it might actually be better if they vacated their properties permanently such that we could open them as museums In case you had any concerns of the potential bias in the figures, the president of ALVA is the Duke of York.
The Finances Argument
The Claim
In a similar way to the tourist argument, this claim is that the royals bring in such an income to the country that it could lost billions in lost revenue if we no longer had them. Fortunately many monarchists even wouldn't go that far and simply assert that they don't cost much and perhaps even result in a slight income.
Response
This claim should really be considered as absurd as the tourist one in terms of the pure 'money' argument in that it's absurd to make a decision about who should be head of state on the idea that we might make a bit of cash. As it is the cost of the monarchy has increased almost every year for at least the past 20 years. The civil list cost has officially been locked since 2001 at £7.9million (source) and yet we find that the cost has increased every year between 1991 and 200 until it dropped mildly in 2009 following a £2 million rise the year before (source). They managed to rally themselves though for 2010, dropping again in 2011 by £700,000 to a mere £13.5 million according to the official royal finances. With all this money over the £7.9m though, are they funding themselves?
..no, of course not. The lock on the civil list came after 10 years of huge over payments and the money is taken from the 'civil list reserve' to make up the difference, which is to say the money they didn't need to spend in the 90s (source).
But in 2011 the civil list reserve was running out, so rather than maintaining the "freeze" of finances which had resulted in more money every year a new system has been installed known as the sovereign grant. This grant gives the Queen 15% of the crown estates net revenue which even according to conservative sources bemoaning it isn't more is an increase of £5 million for this year.
But wait, there's more! When you take a lot of the costs in to account we get the official cost of the royals at 62p per head in 2010 (source). This number has obviously increased, but since I can't find more recent data we'll stick with 62p for now. It's important to notice that the official figures refuse to include security which is likely another £100m according to even pro monarch papers in the Briain (source).
The estimated costs in total end up being around £202million in 2010 (source) which makes it roughly 100 times more expensive to maintain than the salary of the Irish president (source) for example. Maintaining an entire family of wealthy elite isn't cheap, and it certainly doesn't bring money in to the country.
The Stability Argument
The Claim
Many of the most developed countries in the world have monarchies. Indeed, many of the most stable in the world too. Without a monarchy, we would lose that stability.
Response
To this claim there is the obvious retort that many countries, including the US, are able to be stable and developed without a monarchy, and the fact that many monarchs around the world are anything but (for example, Saudi Arabia and Thailand). The point is that, it's more likely that stable countries keep their monarchs than that monarchs produce stable countries, not least because of the examples throughout history of countries after the removal of monarchs. Britain won't fall apart if the Windsors are removed from power.
The "They Don't Really Do Anything" Argument
The Claim
They're relatively benign, and they don't really do anything or cause any harm so we don't really have any reason to get rid of them.
Response
It is certainly true that the current monarch doesn't really do that much, but that's no reason at all to leave an unaccountable, unelected head of state. Especially when that unaccountable head of state provides all the authority for parliament. Even more so when that power includes a royal veto which is still used and which has been offered 39 times (source).
On top of that, we're still left with the position of a head of state which is not only undemocratic, but is also the very definition of anti-democratic nepotism!
The Crown Estates Argument
The Claim
This claim typically refers to the idea that taking the lands (and the revenues they generate) from the monarchy is either wrong and/or will be an expensive and protracted process. Sometimes this also includes the idea that taking their property and wealth in general has similar problems.
Response
So, my response to this might be a bit coarse, as it'd be 'why not?'. They've leeched from us for long enough and been well compensated, there's no reason at all the country shouldn't just sieze their stuff and kick them out of their homes and let them live like everyone else. I appreciate though that not everyone is going to share that view, so I'll include a more reasonable reply which is more typical of a republican position.
So in a less terse response, the most important point that needs to be made is that the royal estates are not the property of the queen, and certainly not of the Windsor family. The crown estate was established for the state at a time when the monarch actually funded the affairs of state. At the time this was exchanged from one state branch to another (the government) the funding of the state passed over aswell. This estate belongs to the British state, not to the monarch and absolutely not to one family. The fact that they're now getting 15% of the income from it in a move of political spin from the 'benign' palace shows simply how important it is to get rid of them. There is literally no claim to be made by the Windsor family to the money, so it is in no way theft to not give them all that land and property when they leave.
Now, I wouldn't expect you to take my word for it so how about we use the explanation by the Crown Estate itself to judge:
The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch.
The Government also does not own The Crown Estate. It is managed by an independent organisation - established by statute - headed by a Board (also known as The Crown Estate Commissioners), and the surplus revenue from the estate is paid each year to the Treasury for the benefit of all UK taxpayers.
To explain further, one analogy that could be used is that The Crown Estate is the property equivalent of the Crown jewels - part of the national heritage and held by Her Majesty The Queen as sovereign, but not available for her private use.
This position is affirmed elsewhere on the site with the explicit statement that "No, this [claim that the estate is the queen's property] is misleading." Getting rid of the monarch merely means the Crown Estate continues paying its income to the treasury, and the Windors lose nothing - by virtue of never having it. And yes, that also means the crown jewels belong to the people of Britain, and not the Windsors.
It's also worth noting therefore that the myth that this income makes up for the cost of the monarch and should be considered as a surplus to the taxpayer on behalf of having a monarchy, it outright shattered. It's unsurprisingly believed by some people since Charles especially has spent the past 20 years trying to convince the public otherwise (source), but it is an outright fabrication and a money grab.
Unfortunately though, this claim is far from done. Were I to leave it here, the claims 'What of the duchies!?' would inevitably follow from the more informed monarchists on the site who I imagine would never let me get away so easily. Fortunately I can refer to The Official Site of the British Monarchy which explains with regard to Cornwall at least:
Under the 1337 charter, as confirmed by subsequent legislation, The Prince of Wales does not own the Duchy's capital assets, and is not entitled to the proceeds or profit on their sale, and only receives the annual income which they generate (which is voluntarily subject to income tax).
He is in effect a trustee, and is not entitled to the proceeds of disposals of assets. The Prince must pass on the estate intact, so that it continues to provide an income from its assets for future Dukes of Cornwall.
It's also worth noting that in court the Duchy has also been recognised as a public body. (Source).
There is no legitimate claim by the Windsor's to any of these lands, except those few homes which belong to their personal private estates. The crown lands belong to the state, as they always have, and there would be no theft of property needed to remove them from their current position.
The International Diplomacy Argument
The Claim
According to this claim, the work that the royals put in to international diplomacy is invaluable, securing trade and diplomatic ties.
Response
The first and most obvious point to bring up here is that the vast majority of diplomatic work is done, unsurprisingly, by trained diplomats. Especially unsurprising since the queen actually appoints diplomats to do that work (there were around 2000 diplomats last year -source). Between 1952 and May 2011 the Queen has undertaken 108 state visits (source). That's less than 2 a year! She must be rushed off her feet with all this diplomacy; being given gifts, seeing children dance and shaking people's hands once or twice a year.
Of course though, it isn't just the Queen. According to the official monarch website they do perform 2000 "official engagements" a year total for everything (diplomatic or otherwise, including all UK events) when you take the whole royal family in to account . They're pretty good at partying though, with 70,000 guests a year attending their parties. (Sources).
In addition to their lack of diplomatic work, the work they do actually do could quite easily be done by other people without any particular worry. The head of the state being sent to give a readied and choreographed talk and meeting is going to be regarded as highly whoever that head of state is, provided they don't screw it up (say, by dressing up as a nazi [source] or being generally offensive... [source]) or anything. Can you image the complaints if this claim were true "Oh, the US is only sending their president to shake hands, not a monarch. Obviously they don't care about diplomacy"?
The idea that a royal family is needed for diplomacy is kinda silly, and we're all fortunate they don't do much of it.
The Tradition Argument
The Claim
Britain has traditionally been a monarchy and it would be a great heritage loss. This claim sometimes includes the loss of traditional ceremony associated with the monarchy.
Response
Even at the best of time "it's tradition!" is a bad reason to keep doing something. There's also no reason to chuck out all the traditional ceremony of the guard or the head of state sending letters to people. It's actually hard to think of anything important that would be lost in terms of "tradition", and it's certainly not a reason to keep an undemocratic system in place.
The Hard Working/Charitable Argument
The Claim
Somewhat tied to the diplomats claim, the royals are said to be very hard working individuals. They have hundreds of appointments a year, and also raise considerable money for charity.
Response
Ideally I'd just quote former deputy private secretary to the prince of Wales, Mark Bolland from the documentary "Janet Saves the Monarchy":
"the Windsors are very good at working three days a week, five months of a year and making it look as though they work hard"
and with the sources from the diplomat question be done with this one, but for the sake of completion I'll keep to the same standard as other questions.
So, first, if we're going to judge who should be head of state by how hard someone works, then probably most politicians and certainly every manual labourer in the country is a better choice than any of the royal family. Presumably though, the argument goes that the monarch are also hard working, so deserve their unquestioned, hereditary and anti-democratic position at the top of class society. It's worth noting that an alternative without the baggage would be quite capable (and expected) to work hard.
As I have already somewhat shown though, the work of the royal family on the whole is minimal and even by their own most exaggerated definition, catch all of anything they did definition used by their own sources, at best the entire royal family contributes 5 undefined engagements a day to the UK, which do include parties and attending dinners. Not exactly what I'd call hard working.
As to the charity claim it is true that, of the millions of pounds they're unduly given on behalf of the British tax payers to a single family rather than to helping they people of Britain, they do give some to charity. But what of the work they do? Well, even their own website struggles to come up with anything but lending their name and celebrity status to a charity - something we hardly need the monarchy for.
The Trained From Birth Argument
The Claim
The monarch has been trained from birth to be the head of state and so is the best trained for the job.
Response
I need to start this response with a quick preface. Fortunately, in my experience, this is a position that most monarchists don't actually hold. I wouldn't have even brought it up here if it wasn't used as a reason earlier in this thread and I hadn't heard it before as I think it would have been unfair to suggest this is a common argument of the opposition. It's not a common reason and I'm not trying to strawman the majority of the opposition who will generally attempt more sensible issues, like the others I've addressed in these posts.
Ok, so...yeah. First, and most obviously, we could train anyone from birth to be the head of state if that's really what you value as a job qualification (Britain's Next Tot Monarch?). The idea that someone must be trained from birth, or that it's somehow advantageous is laughable, especially when you consider how many people have been trained for jobs since they were old enough to understand the concept and do remarkably well. For examples see every single other job on the planet. Inventors and decent politicians for instance don't need to be trained from birth to fill the role. Many other countries in fact do quite well with a head of state who is someone who has actually been judged to be a good fit for the position, rather than just hoping that telling them from birth to be good at it is sufficient. There is no other job in the world this argument would be accepted for, it is utterly ridiculous.
And of course, you still have to explain Philip.
The President Blair/Cameron Argument
The Claim
If we get rid of the monarchy we'll have a US style president who runs the country and it'll be political and short sighted. A neutral monarch who doesn't have to worry about being held accountable at elections can focus on being the head of state to a far greater capacity than an elected president.
Response
There is no reason (nor suggestion that I'm aware of) that the replacement head of state need be a political figure. We already have the speaker of the house as a neutral political figure, there is no reason at all that we shouldn't be able to establish something similar. Additionally there's no reason that the president needs to be head of parliament or to expand the powers of the head of state beyond a ceremonial role, ensuring that parliament acts only within constitutional boundaries and representing the UK when necessary.
The 'Popular' Argument
The Claim
The majority of people like the Queen and/or the monarchy so they should be kept in place. This claim also exists as 97% (I may be slightly off on the number, I can't actually find a source for it) of people voted for pro-monarch parties in the last general election.
Response
The second part of the claim is less common (but I did hear it yesterday from a senior member of the BritishMonarchSociety) but far easier to deal with so I'll start there and then move on to the more comon, and more sensible variant. The fact that most people in the last general election voted for one of a small number of candidates standing who had a chance to win is not representative of the number of people who support the monarch. Pro-republican numbers always poll significantly higher than 3%, it is simply the case that there is currently no alternative to vote for, save for the Green Party in this regard.
As to the majority supporting the monarch, it's worth noting that it depends significantly on where you ask and which question. Support for the monarch is highest amongst the elderly, where it reaches up to 88% according to the most pro-monarch trending recent poll I could find and that poll shows that overall 13% support a republic and 7% presumably didn't mind. At first glance then, it does look like this claim has merit, but there is more to be mentioned.
First, that poll is taken with the context of the royal baby, and support traditionally rises everytime we have one of these affairs or another. There are also vast differences across the UK in their support of the monarchy, when the older generation is unfortunately no longer with us, and especially with Charles who is almost a case for a republic in his own right, those numbers will drop. The support in Scotland is traditionally lower also.
Second though, the list of claims I have shown alone will show that most people's support is based on an long term misinformation campaign which has even managed to convince people that the monarchy doesn't cost money (or costs very little) which is demonstrably false already, but would be significantly clearer had the monarch not demanded the right to immunity from the freedom of information act and immunity to real accounting such as security costs, event costs and the public lands which are used to fund them which would massively increase the cost. The fact that so many of these claims are believed, it's no wonder they have support; they're money printing masters of diplomacy who are loved by all and far better than any politician to believe these claims!
It's also worth noting though, that this post is illegal under British law. No, seriously, I'm not allowed to advocate for the replacement of my head of state - it is illegal under several acts of treason which still apply today which apply a life sentence. It wasn't until 2003 that it was finally judged to be in breach of the human rights act to punish peaceful means of protestation, though the law still remains should that act be repealed - something which is advocated by senior members of the current government! This case had to be brought by one of the largest newspapers in the UK because they had wanted to advocate for a republic, is it any wonder there is so little widespread opposition? Anything which causes alarm to the sovereign is still punishable by life in prison, though fortunately not death as it would have just 15 years ago.
The Ceremonial Argument
The Claim
The role of the monachy is basically just ceremonial and so there is no reason to remove them.
Response
The ceremonial only role of the monarchy is overstated, and often refers to little more than their laziness, covered earlier. To describe the royal family as still ceremonial is to ignore the real impacts they do have. For instance, as I write this I am 'a subject of her majesty', replace 'her majesty' with 'President Obama' or whoever your personal head of state is if you fail to see why that's offensive. The princess story may seem quaint to the outsider, but perhaps not so much as a reality.
It's also worth noting, you're considered owing duty to the crown (and so liable for treason) if you have a British passport, so there is yet another case where the monarchy isn't just for show - I am forced to be labeled a traitor if I wish to leave the country legally for any reason. I become liable for treason laws if I dislike the monarchy by having a British passport, because it is issued in the monarchs 'protection'.
As I have already mentioned in the 'They Don't Really Do Anything' section, they also have a dangerous veto which they can use against any law they feel will imapact them. Privy Council exists as a mechanism to get around parliamentary scrutiny, which one member resigned from citing it was being used in a way which "borders on conspiracy". This council is of course in addition to the weekly visits in which the Queen is consulted by the Prime Minister on legislation whereby she may warn him against proposals. We will, of course, never know which legislation has been warned against.
In addition, the monarch still holds the power to choose a Prime Minister or to dissovle parliament. These are real things she can elect to do. 'But she'll never use those powers!' will come a chorus no doubt, as if leaving such power as a ceremonial role to never be used were in any way a sensible course of affairs.
While I don't have a particular side to take in this argument, I couldn't help but notice that in your argument against "They don't really do anything", you said
On top of that, we're still left with the position of a head of state which is not only undemocratic, but is also the very definition of anti-democratic nepotism!
You're making the assumption here that if something is un-democratic, it is inherently wrong or bad. Democracy is not necessarily the best system of governance out there, it's merely one of many. Sometimes it works well, sometimes it doesn't. That basically goes for every other system of governance out there.
That's actually a good point, I have merely assumed that the head of a state would be a role best filled in an elected fashion or at least a more representative position (as I cover later in the post, regarding the 'The President' claim) but I haven't necessarily made the case for my additional complaint at the end of that particular response.
I think the response does still rebut the claim it's associated with though at least, but I may need to figure out how to ammend that slightly, or perhaps set out the democratic/representative issue as a seperate point.
well, i agree that monarchy is completly unnecessary and ads little value to the country. however, they dont really harm anyone. you also forgot one important argument: most of the people want to keep the monarchy
so, i agree, monarchy is silly. but when the majority of people wants to be silly, let them be
On July 24 2013 07:33 Paljas wrote: well, i agree that monarchy is completly unnecessary and ads little value to the country. however, they dont really harm anyone. you also forgot one important argument: most of the people want to keep the monarchy
so, i agree, monarchy is silly. but when the majority of people wants to be silly, let them be
I think I've shown that the institution does have harmful sides, but you're absolutely right that I've missed that 'most people want them' claim. That's a really important claim to have missed, so I'll add a proper response to that tomorrow as I'm going to sleep shortly - but it won't be "well, majority rules isn't always right!" or anything, so thanks for pointing that out.
Anyone else who can thinks I've missed a claim, I'll try to add them tomorrow too if you can tell me what I've missed.
On July 24 2013 07:33 Paljas wrote: well, i agree that monarchy is completly unnecessary and ads little value to the country. however, they dont really harm anyone. you also forgot one important argument: most of the people want to keep the monarchy
so, i agree, monarchy is silly. but when the majority of people wants to be silly, let them be
On July 24 2013 07:33 Paljas wrote: well, i agree that monarchy is completly unnecessary and ads little value to the country. however, they dont really harm anyone. you also forgot one important argument: most of the people want to keep the monarchy
so, i agree, monarchy is silly. but when the majority of people wants to be silly, let them be
The first link has a sample size of 1000, and they were surveyed by phone so I think the results are an extremely dubious representation. The guardian info was taken at a time when there were 2 major royals events within a few months of each other, so that could also be misrepresentative.
About the finances argument, I was hoping you might add some information as to how much money the royal family earns. Because I was just reading some information from Wikipedia on the "Crown Estate", where they say that (Link):
"In modern times, the profits surrendered from the Crown Estate have exceeded the Civil List and Grants-in-Aid. For example, the Crown Estate produced £200 million for the Treasury in the financial year 2007–8, whereas reported parliamentary funding for the monarch was £40 million during the same period."
Also generally I think you make a good argument that the Queen really shouldn't have that veto power. Thus I agree that they shouldn't have that power anymore (and any other undemocratic ones) and that the royal family should become a cosmetic tourist attraction .
I'm not personally invested one way or the other, but some of the arguments you make
Doing something for the sake of tradition isn't "bad". Just because the benefits tradition are not something that is easily quantifiable and evaluated doesn't make tradition superficial or irrelevant, let alone bad. Many traditions are awkward and impractical, but will be broken or abandoned only when there is a pressing need to do so. There's no pressing need to depose British monarchy, nor any convenience in having a democratically elect head of state.
I think you're missing a lot of nuances to the issue that motivate a lot of your countrymen to support the monarchy. I don't think you're going to convince the people who think differently to change their views by sidestepping topics like tradition, culture and image. These things have inherent value to people and significantly influence their opinions.
The royal family owns huge plots of land whose rent is voluntarily contributed to the state. Overall, this income is far greater than their expenditures. So unless you steal all of their land there is nothing to gain by removing the monarchy.
I want to preface my response by saying that I don't care for monarchies, I think it's stupid, but I want to say why I think the british monarchy probably makes sense from an economic and purely rational standpoint
On July 24 2013 07:10 Iyerbeth wrote: Really, this claim should be dismissed without any evidence to the contrary. Even if it were true, is "well foreign people think it's kinda funny" a good way to decide on the head of state?
If it can give you money, yes. And the head of state that doesn't have the functions of a head of state means that it doesn't matter. It's a title slapped on a person with a title.
The Association of Leading Visitor Attractions tracks the number of tourists visiting attractions over time. Their figures for 2012 show (after enough scrolling) that not only do the royals not play a particularly big role in tourism, it might actually be better if they vacated their properties permanently such that we could open them as museums In case you had any concerns of the potential bias in the figures, the president of ALVA is the Duke of York.
As a social sciences person (boooo!) I have to say that your method for determining that is dubious at best and fucking insane at worst, pardon my French. Show me a study that shows a causal link between attractions visited and reason for the trip and maybe I'll agree, but the fact is, you don't need to be going to the stuff that specifically has to do with royalty. I don't have the figures so pardon my weak argument, but I can affirm with reasonable certainty that less people would visit the british museum if they weren't so interested in its big ole mascot.
Reducing tourism to "attractions visited" is an incredibly severe misunderstanding and the scale of the economical ramifications of tourism. People haul ass over and spend money on shit.
This claim should really be considered as absurd as the tourist one in terms of the pure 'money' argument in that it's absurd to make a decision about who should be head of state on the idea that we might make a bit of cash.
If a placeholder non-political position can bring in money, why not slap the title on. Same thing.
As it is the cost of the monarchy has increased almost every year for at least the past 20 years.
Doesn't the royal family pay for itself with its massive hereditary bank which is in large part handled by government anyway? Pretty sure they do. Doesn't the royal family lease buildings to governments at incredibly low prices? Yes... yes they do.
Governments pay billions to have the olympics happen in their countries to get some visibility. The british royalty does a fine job reminding everybody that your country exists.
Even more so when that power includes a royal veto which is still used and which has been offered 39 times (source).
Offered.
So, my response to this might be a bit coarse, as it'd be 'why not?'. They've leeched from us for long enough and been well compensated
That's theft, fraud, and all kinds of other insanely illegal bullshit. Any government who does that to its citizens should be bitchslapped. You don't take shit from your people, not even when you're angry with them.
The first and most obvious point to bring up here is that the vast majority of diplomatic work is done, unsurprisingly, by trained diplomats.
As a Canadian our head of state (sort of) is the Governor General. When done properly, it can actually be very useful to have different people doing those things. A lot of stuff is done by the Governor General here, when it would otherwise be done by Stephen Harper, our PM, who presumably has better shit to do than shake babies and hold hands (bad pun intended).
The Tradition Argument
Yes, fuck tradition, I wholeheartedly agree.
The Hard Working/Charitable Argument
I don't care about that and I'm getting lazy.
The Trained From Birth Argument
It's actually pretty disgusting that those people are born with a man-made destiny in mind.
The President Blair/Cameron Argument
Fuck those twats. Also we have the same kind of argument for the Canadian senate which is not elected but they're nominations by the Prime Minister (technically the governor general under the recommendation of the Prime Minister). The idea is that Canadian senators are not elected so they don't have to deal with elections so they have more freedom. In real life they just slack off and don't show up to the parliament while the other chamber does the work.
I just like watching the numbers grow. France maxed out at 18 Louises, Sweden has 16 Carls/Karls/Charleses even though some of them don't exist, the Vatican has 23 Johns. This is literally my primary reason for supporting figurehead monarchies.
We can even have bets on whether George X, Henry X, or Edward X reigns first if at all.
I think the most important reason to keep the monarchy is to remind the UK of its political history. The UK did not merely spring from the General Will of its people in a republican spirit. It developed in a particular manner according to unique political events and according to the character of its people. The monarchy, even in a vestigial state, should serve to remind Parliament and the body politic in general that they did not will themselves into existence and cannot similarly will the nation into whatever it wants. The U.K. evolved peacefully and successfully largely because of the gradual establishment of institutions, where so many other countries tried to simply will themselves into being and failed in various spectacular ways. The monarchy is a testament and a reminder to honor that process..
On July 24 2013 12:41 Jerubaal wrote: I think the most important reason to keep the monarchy is to remind the UK of its political history. The UK did not merely spring from the General Will of its people in a republican spirit. It developed in a particular manner according to unique political events and according to the character of its people. The monarchy, even in a vestigial state, should serve to remind Parliament and the body politic in general that they did not will themselves into existence and cannot similarly will the nation into whatever it wants. The U.K. evolved peacefully and successfully largely because of the gradual establishment of institutions, where so many other countries tried to simply will themselves into being and failed in various spectacular ways. The monarchy is a testament and a reminder to honor that process..
We have better ways to remember things x_x... I think that argument is just very cheesy and it sounds like something I'd hear on a cheap soap.
Where are the arguments where you actually show that abolishing the monarchy would be of a strong benefit to the British people? Seems these are all just counterpoint.
Governments pay billions to have the olympics happen in their countries to get some visibility. The british royalty does a fine job reminding everybody that your country exists.
This. People learn about the Queen in school and follow all the big weddings etc. It's incredible publicity, and we'd be insane to give it up. I'm in China and am having people ask me questions about the new baby prince. Good to be on the radar of our future target market.
Also it's just a ceremonial position, so it doesn't really effect our democracy.
As a yank most of my exposure to the monarchy comes from either mainstream media (and from what I've seen on the web/news these past few days it appears that we still have a lot of closet-royalists on this side of the Atlantic) or from a few famous republican brits a la Morrissey. On second thought, the drama does make for some rather enticing lyrics:
"I've been dreaming of a time when The English are sick to death of Labour And Tories, and spit upon the name of Oliver Cromwell And denounce this royal line that still salute him And will salute him forever"
Out of all the Monarchies present in Western Society the British one is probably the one that shouldn't get abolished because its a great international marketing tool due to the rich history of Britain. Moreover the Monarchy gives a sense of nationalistic pride, proof of Brittania rules the waves(or rather, did in the past). Everybody celebrates Queens day(now Kings day) in The Netherlands. You can't really measure something such as joy, happiness or even just general interest or other such metrics with numbers or quantify them into cash, people like the fairy tales etc. The press is all over the birth of Kate Middleton(and not just in Britain).
You speak of little diplomatic or trade influence but it doesn't just happen formally, all those parties you speak off, (70k guests wasn't it?) while I am sure a lot of it is just people getting drunk there is no way to quantify what informal deals, networking or new relations are established. Bear in mind that some countries in this world value Monarchy highly, being able to only talk with a prince or the Queen can be huge. Who gets invited to royal parties?not only royal family but also fucking rich investors/people/oil barons you name it. It is their chance to get a taste of what money can't buy, royalty.
On the other hand the Monarchy doesn't cost that much relatively speaking, hard money or even land is not the reason people are mad at them getting it, it is the idea behind it. They only get a very small fraction of money and frankly you could pull that away from other stuff easily(hello DoD).
That it is a tradition doesn't mean it should stay one, a valid point however the fact that it is a tradition also means it has a cultural, historical and emotional value to some people, that is NOT an invalid point. You shouldn't keep things for the sake of tradition but if it has a signifcant cultural and historical value for the people then that is a validation of why it should exist. Oh yeah and Elizabeth may be immortal but shes still old as hell, not so healthy for her to travel all the time.
You haven't really expressed any true harms of the Monarchy that are significant enough to offset the benefits. You have only pointed out why some arguments for the Monarchy are potentially flawed. There are lots of things flawed in this world but we do it because the benefits outweighs the costs.
You aren't building a case against Monarchy, you are building a case against arguments for the Monarchy which are two different things(while one is part of the other). You bring rebuttal but little true harms although some of it admittedly is interwoven.
Both of you do realize of course that the reason a tradition is a tradition is that it has worked well enough over such a long period of time as to be deeply ingrained in the consciousness of a people, that's why it is a tradition.
Times do change of course and all that but tradition as Talin said very well is not inherently bad (or inherently good even if it has "worked well" enough long enough to become a tradition).
Anyway most of our lives are ruled almost entirely by tradition and we don't even think about it. We use the word tradition too much, using it when we mean a particular kind of social values or societal opinions. Stop badmouthing tradition just because some things that are tradition are things you do not like! They are not the be-all, end-all of tradition.
As for the Monarchy my case for it is cultural, the British monarchy is part of what makes Britain Britain and makes the British British. And not a small part. The analogy is not wholly apt or comprehensive but the Crown in Britain fulfills the same kind of national political mythology need that the Constitution / Founding Fathers do in the United States.
The Crown is a living symbol of a common heritage and an avenue for the expressing of pride and love of country without having to talk shit on other countries to do so. People like to feel a connection to their ancestors, it's a very human thing to do. Being under the same crown for X hundred years and feeling a living connection to the ancient past because their heroic (of course!) forebears were under the same (or same-ish) institution, people love feeling that. The institution of the British monarchy is a vessel for national unity, stability, and self-confidence in many different ways. These things are not lacking in considerable value to a nation.
EDIT: Also if I were shameless I'd steal everything kipsate wrote and act like I wrote it.
On July 24 2013 07:10 Iyerbeth wrote: The reason I oppose the monarchy is simply that hereditary power and wealth by birth right to a single family is abhorrent to every sensibility I have. The reasons I will include here are primarily arguments against the monarchist position from a British perspective.
Well, while I do see your point, it really is only a British and a short sighted view on things. What makes the royal family so much different from (to keep it British) wealthy families and persons like Mrs. Rowling? You could argue that she earned it, since she worked (which makes her different from the royal family today), but she'll probably pass her wealth on to her children. With money comes a certain power, or at least a better social status. Think about that in the context of the difference between the lower income classes and the upper class when it comes to social insurance, job chances, chances to go through a (possibly) expansive education system and so on and so forth. Her kids would not have done anything to earn the wealth she had, yet you can't possibly deny her the right to inherit her legacy. This example goes for a lot of people, the more money your parents have, the better the chances for their offsprings. Theoretically speaking, this can be transferred to the idea of "which nationality do you have" or re-phrased as "which welfare systems does a state provide", etc. pp. From an outsider's (German) perspective, it'd make a lot more sense to focus only on the political aspects. If you did that, Birdie's argument would come in - why do you think that's so bad compared to a lot of other systems? After following the debates of the Germans whether or not a politician is fit for his/her position, especially our "Bundespräsident / Head of State" I can't help but feel that other systems based on a more 'democratic approach' aren't so much better to be honest. They work somewhat, but all do have faults of their own.
However, I do feel with you. I never understood why people, especially elderly females, are attracted so much to aristocracy. "Bow down peons, my penis works" :/
Both of you do realize of course that the reason a tradition is a tradition is that it has worked well enough over such a long period of time as to be deeply ingrained in the consciousness of a people, that's why it is a tradition.
Despite that, tradition is a bad argument and you should know that. If indeed it works, then make the rational arguments, and don't slap a "it's tradition therefore it's good" sticker on it. If a tradition is good, then it bring up why. There clearly have been bad and good traditions and they shouldn't be immune to criticism because they've passed the test of time. People can be wrong for a long time.
Both of you do realize of course that the reason a tradition is a tradition is that it has worked well enough over such a long period of time as to be deeply ingrained in the consciousness of a people, that's why it is a tradition.
Despite that, tradition is a bad argument and you should know that. If indeed it works, then make the rational arguments, and don't slap a "it's tradition therefore it's good" sticker on it. If a tradition is good, then it bring up why. There clearly have been bad and good traditions and they shouldn't be immune to criticism because they've passed the test of time. People can be wrong for a long time.
Well since that is what I said and you did not quote that part for some reason I am not sure of the cause for your paragraph of chastisement
Thank you to everyone who has replied so far, I really appreciate the feedback.
Written at the end of this reply: I've been working on this post for quite a while and I still want to give a real response to Talin, Djzapz, Kipsate and DeepElemBlues but I don't want to do it half-heartedly and I need a break from the pc so I'm going to go start dinner and stuff so I'll do my best to get another reply up before I go to bed tonight. The biggest thing I've realised is that replies which included something like:
On July 24 2013 14:41 Kipsate wrote: You aren't building a case against Monarchy, you are building a case against arguments for the Monarchy which are two different things(while one is part of the other). You bring rebuttal but little true harms although some of it admittedly is interwoven.
On July 24 2013 14:02 Elegy wrote: Where are the arguments where you actually show that abolishing the monarchy would be of a strong benefit to the British people? Seems these are all just counterpoint.
are quite correct. At best I've negated many of the more common pro-monarch positions, and whilst I do think I've highlighted some issues I can't really said to have made my case as strongly as I would have liked to without also expressing a less defensive position. As a result I'll be compiling a second blog as I get time with a look at some of the harm that the monarchy causes and the benefits of it's removal and I'll consider this the first of a 2 part work.
Before I continue though, I did promise a response to the claim "the majority like them", which I'll also add to the OP.
The 'Popular' Argument
The Claim
The majority of people like the Queen and/or the monarchy so they should be kept in place. This claim also exists as 97% (I may be slightly off on the number, I can't actually find a source for it) of people voted for pro-monarch parties in the last general election.
Response
The second part of the claim is less common (but I did hear it yesterday from a senior member of the BritishMonarchSociety) but far easier to deal with so I'll start there and then move on to the more comon, and more sensible variant. The fact that most people in the last general election voted for one of a small number of candidates standing who had a chance to win is not representative of the number of people who support the monarch. Pro-republican numbers always poll significantly higher than 3%, it is simply the case that there is currently no alternative to vote for, save for the Green Party in this regard.
As to the majority supporting the monarch, it's worth noting that it depends significantly on where you ask and which question. Support for the monarch is highest amongst the elderly, where it reaches up to 88% according to the most pro-monarch trending recent poll I could find and that poll shows that overall 13% support a republic and 7% presumably didn't mind. At first glance then, it does look like this claim has merit, but there is more to be mentioned.
First, that poll is taken with the context of the royal baby, and support traditionally rises everytime we have one of these affairs or another. There are also vast differences across the UK in their support of the monarchy, when the older generation is unfortunately no longer with us, and especially with Charles who is almost a case for a republic in his own right, those numbers will drop. The support in Scotland is traditionally lower also.
Second though, the list of claims I have shown alone will show that most people's support is based on an long term misinformation campaign which has even managed to convince people that the monarchy doesn't cost money (or costs very little) which is demonstrably false already, but would be significantly clearer had the monarch not demanded the right to immunity from the freedom of information act and immunity to real accounting such as security costs, event costs and the public lands which are used to fund them which would massively increase the cost. The fact that so many of these claims are believed, it's no wonder they have support; they're money printing masters of diplomacy who are loved by all and far better than any politician to believe these claims!
It's also worth noting though, that this post is illegal under British law. No, seriously, I'm not allowed to advocate for the replacement of my head of state - it is illegal under several acts of treason which still apply today which apply a life sentence. It wasn't until 2003 that it was finally judged to be in breach of the human rights act to punish peaceful means of protestation, though the law still remains should that act be repealed - something which is advocated by senior members of the current government! This case had to be brought by one of the largest newspapers in the UK because they had wanted to advocate for a republic, is it any wonder there is so little widespread opposition? Anything which causes alarm to the sovereign is still punishable by life in prison, though fortunately not death as it would have just 15 years ago.
Governments pay billions to have the olympics happen in their countries to get some visibility. The british royalty does a fine job reminding everybody that your country exists.
This. People learn about the Queen in school and follow all the big weddings etc. It's incredible publicity, and we'd be insane to give it up. I'm in China and am having people ask me questions about the new baby prince. Good to be on the radar of our future target market.
Also it's just a ceremonial position, so it doesn't really effect our democracy.
I think I've covered the first part in my tourism section, but would you disagree? The ceremonial question does need covering though.
The Ceremonial Argument
The Claim
The role of the monachy is basically just ceremonial and so there is no reason to remove them.
Response
The ceremonial only role of the monarchy is overstated, and often refers to little more than their laziness, covered earlier. To describe the royal family as still ceremonial is to ignore the real impacts they do have. For instance, as I write this I am 'a subject of her majesty', replace 'her majesty' with 'President Obama' or whoever your personal head of state is if you fail to see why that's offensive. The princess story may seem quaint to the outsider, but perhaps not so much as a reality.
It's also worth noting, you're considered owing duty to the crown (and so liable for treason) if you have a British passport, so there is yet another case where the monarchy isn't just for show - I am forced to be labeled a traitor if I wish to leave the country legally for any reason. I become liable for treason laws if I dislike the monarchy by having a British passport, because it is issued in the monarchs 'protection'.
As I have already mentioned in the 'They Don't Really Do Anything' section, they also have a dangerous veto which they can use against any law they feel will imapact them. Privy Council exists as a mechanism to get around parliamentary scrutiny, which one member resigned from citing it was being used in a way which "borders on conspiracy". This council is of course in addition to the weekly visits in which the Queen is consulted by the Prime Minister on legislation whereby she may warn him against proposals. We will, of course, never know which legislation has been warned against.
In addition, the monarch still holds the power to choose a Prime Minister or to dissovle parliament. These are real things she can elect to do. 'But she'll never use those powers!' will come a chorus no doubt, as if leaving such power as a ceremonial role to never be used were in any way a sensible course of affairs.
On July 24 2013 12:41 Jerubaal wrote: I think the most important reason to keep the monarchy is to remind the UK of its political history. The UK did not merely spring from the General Will of its people in a republican spirit. It developed in a particular manner according to unique political events and according to the character of its people. The monarchy, even in a vestigial state, should serve to remind Parliament and the body politic in general that they did not will themselves into existence and cannot similarly will the nation into whatever it wants. The U.K. evolved peacefully and successfully largely because of the gradual establishment of institutions, where so many other countries tried to simply will themselves into being and failed in various spectacular ways. The monarchy is a testament and a reminder to honor that process..
I would absolutely agree that the history of the country is important to remember, and is in a way it's own national treasure. I'm suggesting only that we keep it as history, evict the residents and open up the history of the country to it's people in a way that we have never had before. An opportunity to honour the past and enjoy learning of the history of the country doesn't need an exisiting monarch.
On July 24 2013 08:51 Feartheguru wrote: The royal family owns huge plots of land whose rent is voluntarily contributed to the state. Overall, this income is far greater than their expenditures. So unless you steal all of their land there is nothing to gain by removing the monarchy.
I believe I covered this in the crown estates section. Is there something you think I've missed?
On July 24 2013 08:34 radscorpion9 wrote: About the finances argument, I was hoping you might add some information as to how much money the royal family earns. Because I was just reading some information from Wikipedia on the "Crown Estate", where they say that (Link):
"In modern times, the profits surrendered from the Crown Estate have exceeded the Civil List and Grants-in-Aid. For example, the Crown Estate produced £200 million for the Treasury in the financial year 2007–8, whereas reported parliamentary funding for the monarch was £40 million during the same period."
Also generally I think you make a good argument that the Queen really shouldn't have that veto power. Thus I agree that they shouldn't have that power anymore (and any other undemocratic ones) and that the royal family should become a cosmetic tourist attraction .
The Crown Estates are sections of the country which are used to privately fund the next monarch. When they say the crown estate produced money for the treasury, they're refering to the money which should already belong to the country, were the money not also being siphoned to the monarch, and without a monarch all of the money from those buildings would belong to the state anyway. Unfrotuantely, this is another instance of obfuscation here in that it's impossible to tell which buildings they own and don't own, and they're immune from taxation on sales and purchases they make which would generate millions extra according to the BBC. We have learnt at least a few of the commercial business properties which the Duchy of Cornwall takes a cut from at least. In addition, if you die without a will in a duchy, the prince gets your stuff.
Also, the amount given to the royal family is set to massively increase this year, as the amount of over spending they had been living off to show their pay cuts (which I covered in the financial argument) as we've now moved to the sovereign grant which will have to show a much higher sum given - though it will still hide the true costs of course.
On July 24 2013 07:10 Iyerbeth wrote: The reason I oppose the monarchy is simply that hereditary power and wealth by birth right to a single family is abhorrent to every sensibility I have. The reasons I will include here are primarily arguments against the monarchist position from a British perspective.
Well, while I do see your point, it really is only a British and a short sighted view on things. What makes the royal family so much different from (to keep it British) wealthy families and persons like Mrs. Rowling? You could argue that she earned it, since she worked (which makes her different from the royal family today), but she'll probably pass her wealth on to her children. With money comes a certain power, or at least a better social status. Think about that in the context of the difference between the lower income classes and the upper class when it comes to social insurance, job chances, chances to go through a (possibly) expansive education system and so on and so forth. Her kids would not have done anything to earn the wealth she had, yet you can't possibly deny her the right to inherit her legacy. This example goes for a lot of people, the more money your parents have, the better the chances for their offsprings. Theoretically speaking, this can be transferred to the idea of "which nationality do you have" or re-phrased as "which welfare systems does a state provide", etc. pp. From an outsider's (German) perspective, it'd make a lot more sense to focus only on the political aspects. If you did that, Birdie's argument would come in - why do you think that's so bad compared to a lot of other systems? After following the debates of the Germans whether or not a politician is fit for his/her position, especially our "Bundespräsident / Head of State" I can't help but feel that other systems based on a more 'democratic approach' aren't so much better to be honest. They work somewhat, but all do have faults of their own.
However, I do feel with you. I never understood why people, especially elderly females, are attracted so much to aristocracy. "Bow down peons, my penis works" :/
Well, for the first part I would absolutely support the abolishment of inheritence, but that would require a far longer post than I have time for now to explain in a convincing way but I might actually take up the task when I have some free time as I've enjoyed having something to write about in this thread. I will cover your second part in my now intended second blog on this matter though, as I don't think I've shown clearly enough why it's bad.
As to the final part, I think our society teaches it's daughter too readily to princesses, to look good and not earn their future with the potential that they really do posess. It's only natural that this leads to romantic royal stories, and a hope for a Will and Kate affair. Amusingly, that example betrays the aristocracy further, in their description of Kate as 'common'.
I still want to give a real response to Talin, Djzapz, Kipsate and DeepElemBlues but I don't want to do it half-heartedly and I need a break from the pc so I'm going to go start dinner and stuff so I'll do my best to get a reply up before I go to bed tonight.
As a Canadian, I'm apparently technically subservient to the Queen. Nobody really seems to care much around here, but I've always been bothered by it. On the one hand, Canada extols multiculturalism, peacemaking, personal freedom, and democracy...and yet every Canadian citizen is required to swear an oath of fealty to some woman living across the ocean? Why? What does it achieve? A monarchy is obviously an unjust form of government (setting aside that it's prone to abuse) because it basically accords power to someone for no particular reason. And I don't just mean that the reasons are weak, either; there actually are no reasons beyond "they're next in line." In a nutshell, being the monarch in a nepotistic system is literally just a lottery. It makes no sense to have one from the point of view of rights/responsibilities/rule of law, and it's rather condescending to preach the equality of all persons and yet still require the Queen's official assent on everything, despite her power not deriving from the people or her person.
I feel like a lot of the arguments in favour of the monarchy (which the OP did a lovely job dismantling) are basically arguments of the form "well, it doesn't seem to hurt anyone, and it does give us some economic benefits, so why get rid of it?" To me, this is totally missing the point. But even if we consider that, there are people who have been denied citizenship (in Canada, at least) for refusing to swear to the Queen, even if they are totally okay with every other aspect of the oath/citizenship requirements. While this is certainly Canada's right in light of its own sovereignty, what kind of fucking sense does it make to deny citizenship because someone takes oaths seriously and doesn't want to swear one to someone who literally only has power because of the legacy of a dynasty of imperialism?
What's more, whether or not the British monarchy as it currently exists today is harmful or not does nothing to relieve the notion that according absolute power to someone for no other reason than because their ancestors were royalty (at a time when royalty was actually the general mode of governance) is a completely irrational course of action. There are no actual reasons to prefer nepotism in general to non-nepotism in general, because nepotism separates executive power from ability/support/everything other than parentage. I just can't think of a single good argument as to why anyone would want nepotistic rule to be preserved, even if the monarchs we have right now are fairly benign. The fact is that elevating a random woman who wasn't even born in this continent (i.e. North America) to the status of supreme ruler flies in the face of pretty much everything my nation claims to stand for.
I don't really notice the monarchy much in day to day life, but I don't see any reason why I should be expected to be loyal to the Queen, nor why I should be required to be loyal to her, particularly when I had absolutely no say whatsoever in her coronation.
On July 24 2013 12:41 Jerubaal wrote: I think the most important reason to keep the monarchy is to remind the UK of its political history. The UK did not merely spring from the General Will of its people in a republican spirit. It developed in a particular manner according to unique political events and according to the character of its people. The monarchy, even in a vestigial state, should serve to remind Parliament and the body politic in general that they did not will themselves into existence and cannot similarly will the nation into whatever it wants. The U.K. evolved peacefully and successfully largely because of the gradual establishment of institutions, where so many other countries tried to simply will themselves into being and failed in various spectacular ways. The monarchy is a testament and a reminder to honor that process..
We have better ways to remember things x_x... I think that argument is just very cheesy and it sounds like something I'd hear on a cheap soap.
That's because you're a radical who doesn't believe in institutions, only in your ability to self-create, which only lasts until the next radical comes along to enforce his vision of self-creation.
@lyerbeth- Memory is awful. Strictly speaking, you don't remember anything, you've only been told about it, and you likely wouldn't know or care very much if there wasn't still a monarchy. This blog is living proof that without an institution your "memory" lasts as long as it takes you to think of a scenario more to your liking.
Both of you do realize of course that the reason a tradition is a tradition is that it has worked well enough over such a long period of time as to be deeply ingrained in the consciousness of a people, that's why it is a tradition.
Despite that, tradition is a bad argument and you should know that. If indeed it works, then make the rational arguments, and don't slap a "it's tradition therefore it's good" sticker on it. If a tradition is good, then it bring up why. There clearly have been bad and good traditions and they shouldn't be immune to criticism because they've passed the test of time. People can be wrong for a long time.
Well since that is what I said and you did not quote that part for some reason I am not sure of the cause for your paragraph of chastisement
Well fine then, but when I said "fuck tradition", I was just saying that by itself, it doesn't make much of a case.
On July 24 2013 12:41 Jerubaal wrote: I think the most important reason to keep the monarchy is to remind the UK of its political history. The UK did not merely spring from the General Will of its people in a republican spirit. It developed in a particular manner according to unique political events and according to the character of its people. The monarchy, even in a vestigial state, should serve to remind Parliament and the body politic in general that they did not will themselves into existence and cannot similarly will the nation into whatever it wants. The U.K. evolved peacefully and successfully largely because of the gradual establishment of institutions, where so many other countries tried to simply will themselves into being and failed in various spectacular ways. The monarchy is a testament and a reminder to honor that process..
We have better ways to remember things x_x... I think that argument is just very cheesy and it sounds like something I'd hear on a cheap soap.
That's because you're a radical who doesn't believe in institutions, only in your ability to self-create, which only lasts until the next radical comes along to enforce his vision of self-creation.
Both of you do realize of course that the reason a tradition is a tradition is that it has worked well enough over such a long period of time as to be deeply ingrained in the consciousness of a people, that's why it is a tradition.
Despite that, tradition is a bad argument and you should know that. If indeed it works, then make the rational arguments, and don't slap a "it's tradition therefore it's good" sticker on it. If a tradition is good, then it bring up why. There clearly have been bad and good traditions and they shouldn't be immune to criticism because they've passed the test of time. People can be wrong for a long time.
1. It would be inconvenient as fuck to have to argue something on rational grounds every time somebody brought it up. 2. Not everything can be expressed rationally. 3. Not everyone (and by not everyone, I mean almost everyone) can understand many things, even at a base political level, rationally. 4. There's no such thing as "getting rid of tradition", you just want to remove someone else's traditions in favor of your own.
On July 25 2013 00:04 catplanetcatplanet wrote: read title as my cats against the monarchy
That would be a fantastic movie
So you're stories aren't intentionally humorous, that's just how you see the world? :p
Both of you do realize of course that the reason a tradition is a tradition is that it has worked well enough over such a long period of time as to be deeply ingrained in the consciousness of a people, that's why it is a tradition.
Despite that, tradition is a bad argument and you should know that. If indeed it works, then make the rational arguments, and don't slap a "it's tradition therefore it's good" sticker on it. If a tradition is good, then it bring up why. There clearly have been bad and good traditions and they shouldn't be immune to criticism because they've passed the test of time. People can be wrong for a long time.
1. It would be inconvenient as fuck to have to argue something on rational grounds every time somebody brought it up. 2. Not everything can be expressed rationally. 3. Not everyone (and by not everyone, I mean almost everyone) can understand many things, even at a base political level, rationally. 4. There's no such thing as "getting rid of tradition", you just want to remove someone else's traditions in favor of your own.
Your cheap rhetoric is tedious. People are arguing for what they believe. I don't give much of a crap about tradition, so naturally it doesn't really strike me as a useful argument.
As for saying I'm a radical (sigh...) who doesn't believe in institutions (laughable) and only in my ability to self create (pitiful regurgitation of some philosophy thing you read and did not understand), maybe you should consider that I acknowledge the existence and importance of my history, but I'm not shallow enough that I would need a living reminder of it. I literally happen to teach a university-level class on Canada's political history and I don't need the queen to stand on my shoulder while I teach my students. I and they understand that the current state of affairs is entirely dependent on what happened before.
Self-creation... seriously. What do they teach kids these days x_x
It is not cheap rhetoric. Society is not a rational construct, and humans are not rational beings.
Tradition and custom are almost universally irrational, impractical and inconvenient, but people cling to them and they persist nonetheless. The deeper roots it has, the harder it is to weed out, even if you're actively trying to.
You're the one trying to convince people to change their minds. Your own opinion on tradition shouldn't matter to you. What should matter to you is how people on the other side of the fence (in this case about British monarchy) feel about tradition, and why.
The fact they cling to it is what stands in your way. Saying you don't give a crap about it shows you're refusing to acknowledge it and address it, which is a strong indication that you don't even understand it. That approach will only make your opinion less relevant to people whose opinion you're trying to influence.
On July 25 2013 04:13 Talin wrote: It is not cheap rhetoric. Society is not a rational construct, and humans are not rational beings.
Tradition and custom are almost universally irrational, impractical and inconvenient, but people cling to them and they persist nonetheless. The deeper roots it has, the harder it is to weed out, even if you're actively trying to.
You're the one trying to convince people to change their minds. Your own opinion on tradition shouldn't matter to you. What should matter to you is how people on the other side of the fence (in this case about British monarchy) feel about tradition, and why.
The fact they cling to it is what stands in your way. Saying you don't give a crap about it shows you're refusing to acknowledge it and address it, which is a strong indication that you don't even understand it. That approach will only make your opinion less relevant to people whose opinion you're trying to influence.
If you actually walk back and look at my first post, you'll see that I'm essentially defending the british monarchy from OP with arguments that have value to me. If people want to make arguments from tradition, I personally consider it child's play. That said, I'm a Canadian, I don't care about what the Britons do, nor do they stand in my way when they disagree.
I agree with OP. My country has a monarchy too and I am against it.
Some arguments against his point are that he has not established a reason to get rid of the monarchy, just countered reasons for supporting it. I believe that his argument is sufficient, as the idea of the state elevating one family over another runs counter to our modern values of equality before the law for all, hence as long as the reasons for supporting such injustice are refuted, there is no longer any justification for keeping that injustice.
If one says that private citizens can pass vast amounts of wealth down too, that is true, but that is their free will, it's not coming out of tax money. I don't care how rich they are as long as they are equal before the law, which monarchs clearly are not.
On July 25 2013 04:13 Talin wrote: It is not cheap rhetoric. Society is not a rational construct, and humans are not rational beings.
This is nonsense. Whether or not society in its current incarnation is wholly rational is irrelevant. Everyone in the entire world wants society to become more rational rather than less. Why? Because irrational society is literally senseless; anything and everything can happen in a society that isn't rational. You're conflating the notion that human beings/societies sometimes do irrational things with society/humans being altogether not rational. That's just not true. Human beings are largely very reasonable; we don't do things for random, inconceivable reasons. We do them for reasons that we believe to be logically justified, or else we wouldn't do those things. How do we argue against contemporary human rights abuses (same-sex marriage, ending segregation, freedom of speech, political resistance, etc. etc.)? By saying that these abuses don't make sense. Freedom of speech is defended precisely because the position that some people should have free speech while others don't (i.e. governments vs the public) is totally arbitrary. People pick up on this shit all the time, because people hate stuff that's exposed as being arbitrary, because if people can't depend on their world to generally make sense, then they might as well abandon all hope.
Tradition and custom are almost universally irrational, impractical and inconvenient, but people cling to them and they persist nonetheless. The deeper roots it has, the harder it is to weed out, even if you're actively trying to.
Traditions and customs are in no way "almost universally irrational, impractical, and inconvenient." No. That just isn't true. Traditions and customs have survived precisely because they brought something to culture that helped it (or else nobody would bother having those traditions/customs to start with). Monarchies aren't irrational in concept; the idea behind them is to consolidate power in one ruler who earned their power from something (usually battle or divine mandate) and who had the talent/knowledge/ontological character to wisely govern the baser peasants.
Even though monarchies have always been unjust, they were at least mildly appealing forms of government centuries ago, when the slowness of communication, uneducated populace, logistical difficulties of empire-wide voting, and infusion of religion into politics made things like democracy blasphemous at worst and a practical impossibility to execute on a large scale at best. These aren't great reasons, but at least they're reasons. Nowadays, though, there is no excuse to have a monarchy in a developed Western nation. It's completely, totally, and utterly an infringement on the rights of citizens to free themselves from swearing fealty to a fucking nepotistic ruler. It's one thing to swear allegiance to your nation, but another thing entirely to swear your allegiance to a random person who has no real connection to your or anyone in your nation, but who just happens to have the right alleles.
You're the one trying to convince people to change their minds. Your own opinion on tradition shouldn't matter to you. What should matter to you is how people on the other side of the fence (in this case about British monarchy) feel about tradition, and why.
You can't convince people to drop traditions, because people have a right to hold to those traditions. That said, nobody should be forced to buy into these traditions, even if they're just "ceremonial," or whatever. If we went back to the old days in which only men were allowed to stand for office, and decided that we'd keep the tradition of, I don't know, only using men (in ceremonial capacity) during state ceremonies (even though women would still be permitted to run for office and hold office, etc.) people would have fucking conniptions.
The fact they cling to it is what stands in your way. Saying you don't give a crap about it shows you're refusing to acknowledge it and address it, which is a strong indication that you don't even understand it. That approach will only make your opinion less relevant to people whose opinion you're trying to influence.
It's not my job to show someone why their tradition is patently unjust and an affront to liberty; it's their job to show me why it's in any way fair for me to be expected to swear "to the Queen and her successors" in order to be a citizen of the country I was born in, when no King or Queen was ever born in Canada and has never lived permanently in Canada. I'm a Canadian to the core, and I couldn't give less of a shit about the Queen and her successors.