Poll: What should we do with the Queen?
This poll is closed.
Keep Royal Family 64.29% 9 64.29%
Replace with politician 35.71% 5 35.71%
Total 14 votes 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

British Royal Family Keep or Replace?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-11-2013, 09:32 AM
RE: British Royal Family Keep or Replace?
(28-11-2013 05:39 AM)Caveman Wrote:  I have never claimed it as divine birthright.

I wish we were all born equal. But the reality is that there are jocks in this world who are naturally good at sports. Alas, in school I was the awkward nerd who couldn't kick a ball without falling over. Did I resent the disadvantage I inherited due to no fault of my own? Sure. Is it "fair" that some were born with such gifts that I was not? Maybe. But, suggesting we should use violence to strip away other people's gifts is not right. Arguing that because someone was born into privilege we should haul them away at gunpoint and rob them is, imo, no different than me going out and breaking the legs of all the jocks so that we were all equally lousy at sports.

(28-11-2013 05:39 AM)Caveman Wrote:  Wrong again, she inherited that too, taxfree probably. When you and I die almost half goes to estate tax....

That's the first reciprocal (ie moral) argument you made. Sure, if the royals get special tax breaks because of their bloodline (and not for pragmatic financial reasons), then yes, those must be eliminated and all Brits must be treated equally under the law.

However, I don't know enough about the estate tax to comment. I don't know what (if any) estate tax the royals pay. And, if they don't pay any, I don't know the reason why. Many tax breaks are pragmatic financial decisions because it helps the economy; for example giving a 5 year tax-free status to bio-tech startups, tax-exemption for charities serving the public good, special capital gains income tax rates since it drives investment and creates jobs.

Assuming that the queen gets some break on the estate tax, it's fair to ask for a justification. Is it because of a birthright? That's not fair. Is it done in exchange for her giving away to the state all the profits from her estate anyway? If so, the state is better off. Is it like a 'bio-tech' startup, where the state feels her estate generates a lot of beneficial economic activity? It would be foolish to confiscate, say, Buckingham Palace with an estate tax, converting it into a library, if it meant that London would lose billions in tourist money.

The bottom line, which that video you posted shows, is that Britain benefits enormously from the arrangement, and that if the monarchy ended, it would hurt normal Brits and you would have to work EVEN HARDER for EVEN LESS. Thus, imo, your irrational proposal to end the monarchy, knowing it will make your life worse and the only benefit you derive is not having to see the royals on TV anymore, it doesn't seem to be based on a sense of pragmatism or morality, but more an emotional resentment.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2013, 10:17 AM (This post was last modified: 28-11-2013 11:52 AM by Revenant77x.)
RE: British Royal Family Keep or Replace?
I walked into this thread not caring one way or the other. I'm an American my forefathers fought a war so I wouldn't have to give a fuck about some inbreed German Blue Bloods. However in reading this thread I find the far more convincing argument to be on the Royalist side. Maybe less so for Commonwealth nations but for England itself it would be all loose with no gain to remove the Monarchy. They give back far more than they take in and as far as Symbols go The Queen is probably one of the last things keeping Britain from falling to the back of the pack in world Politics. Anyway as it is not my country I still don't care what you do with them but seems as though it is better to keep them than not.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
28-11-2013, 11:47 AM
RE: British Royal Family Keep or Replace?
I sincerely do not understand how you keep making excuses for them.
The world would be a better place without these state religions.
We're not going to see eye to eye on this one, so I guess I'll give up.
Minor but essential feedback to your last post, 1. I never advocated violence, quite the opposite. 2. Jocks in school make choices, they can choose to be dominant dicks and be worshipped, or they can not.

Aspiring optimist
Eternal Pragmatist.
With the uncanny ability to see all sides in every argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2013, 11:53 AM
RE: British Royal Family Keep or Replace?
They have been marginalised to the point of a Biological museum piece,no ones getting beheaded over tantrums.
A substantial cultural icon for a bygone era. To get rid of the royals would be akin to tearing down the
golden gate bridge because the upkeep was more than a new one.

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2013, 11:58 AM
RE: British Royal Family Keep or Replace?
(28-11-2013 11:47 AM)Caveman Wrote:  1. I never advocated violence, quite the opposite.
(27-11-2013 05:54 AM)Caveman Wrote:  So I'd say: seize their property, give them a couple of tiny abandoned houses with farmland and forget about them.

Well, then.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2013, 01:13 PM
RE: British Royal Family Keep or Replace?
(28-11-2013 11:47 AM)Caveman Wrote:  Jocks in school make choices, they can choose to be dominant dicks and be worshipped, or they can not.

True. If a jock was taunting the weaklings, throwing his superior athleticism in their face, that's one thing. But if the jock simply uses the gifts he inherited, and doesn't put others down for not having those gifts, that's another.

If in Britain life were still like the old days where commoners lived a life of serfdom slaving for royals who treated them like animals, then I'd agree with you. But I've asked you to repeatedly to link to a youtube video or any other evidence where today's royals are lording it over others and demanding they be worshiped. I've never seen it. In fact, my observation is that it's the opposite.

So please, post a video showing when the royal behaved like "dominant dicks" and demanded they "be worshiped". Maybe it will change my mind. But you keep running from this, leading me to believe you're just projecting this evil on them due to some emotional reaction.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2013, 08:34 AM
RE: British Royal Family Keep or Replace?
(28-11-2013 01:13 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(28-11-2013 11:47 AM)Caveman Wrote:  Jocks in school make choices, they can choose to be dominant dicks and be worshipped, or they can not.

True. If a jock was taunting the weaklings, throwing his superior athleticism in their face, that's one thing. But if the jock simply uses the gifts he inherited, and doesn't put others down for not having those gifts, that's another.

If in Britain life were still like the old days where commoners lived a life of serfdom slaving for royals who treated them like animals, then I'd agree with you. But I've asked you to repeatedly to link to a youtube video or any other evidence where today's royals are lording it over others and demanding they be worshiped. I've never seen it. In fact, my observation is that it's the opposite.

So please, post a video showing when the royal behaved like "dominant dicks" and demanded they "be worshiped". Maybe it will change my mind. But you keep running from this, leading me to believe you're just projecting this evil on them due to some emotional reaction.

Your comparison makes absolutely no sense. Athletic physique is something that requires hard work and dedication. You don't get that by default by sitting on your throne.
Don't make assumptions, I'm not running from anything. I respond to certain parts of your answers as you only respond to certain parts of mine. (Also I didn't see your request, must have skimmed over it).
In the end: power by birthright is wrong.

Aspiring optimist
Eternal Pragmatist.
With the uncanny ability to see all sides in every argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2013, 10:47 AM
RE: British Royal Family Keep or Replace?
(29-11-2013 08:34 AM)Caveman Wrote:  In the end: power by birthright is wrong.

Hold on. I am the one arguing that point. That all men are equal and none should have special powers or privileges because of birth.

You are the one arguing that special powers are an inherited birthright! You're just arguing it's the non-royals who are given the special powers (such as to "seize [royal's] property") and that royals and non-royals should be treated differently in the eyes of the law (since obviously you don't feel that royals should be allowed to seize commoner's property).

I despise as much as you do the ancient system of birthrights and royals who were above the law and could should "off with his head" whenever a commoner talked back. You think that because you favor reversing the roles that means you're somehow different. But, in my book, you're not. You're still saying royals and non-royals are unequal and have different rights and powers; all you've done is switch roles.

IMO, my position REALLY is the modern one that gets rid of birthrights and special powers and just says "we're all equal", whether you're a "royal" or a "commoner". I'm fine with stripping the queen of her inherited powers, like to declare war and dissolve parliament. The only thing I'm pushing back against is your call that royals should not have the same legal rights and protections as everyone else.

(29-11-2013 08:34 AM)Caveman Wrote:  Your comparison makes absolutely no sense. Athletic physique is something that requires hard work and dedication. You don't get that by default by sitting on your throne.

Wow, so you're saying there's no "birthright" or genetic factor? If one child is sickly and weak and clumsy, while another is healthy, strapping and strong, the latter got it purely by merit? Are you saying the sick kids, then, have brought it on themselves? Do they deserve what they got? And the jocks, none of them were born with natural gifts? The basketball player got his 2 meter height simply through "hard work"? Nobody is gifted with better coordination and strength than any others?

IMO, that's a fantasy. We're all born with our unique set of advantages and disadvantages, and some have more of it. Thus when I say "all people are equal" I believe that means all should be equal in the eyes of the law and have equal opportunities. I disagree that violence should be used to try to "force equality" by stripping those who were born with certain advantages, be they good looks, athleticism, or money.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2013, 03:06 PM
RE: British Royal Family Keep or Replace?
As an Australian I see this hereditory system as archaic, elitist, and anti the masses.
Politicians can be bad, very bad, but at least they are elected, which is better than just being born with a silver spoon in your mouth.
Prince Philip is particularly repugnant, what with his arrogant racist jokes.

As for helping the economy, this comes across as a bit of a furphy.
Who really wants to see parasites being coached about, except perhaps the locals?

Even Australia's Governor General, representing the Queen, is advocating an Australian Republic. Silly old former P.M Pig Iron Bob set some pathetic guide lines with his ..........'I only saw passing by, but I shall love her till I die" Yuk!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2013, 06:01 PM
RE: British Royal Family Keep or Replace?
The first Argument I want to put forward is that the Monarch gives a sense of constancy and stability to goverment. That's why Japan has the longest running royal family (it's older then Japan's recorded history), whenever there was a dynasty change they kept the imperial family to keep the constancy of a single empire. Also I think there is an advantage to having someone who is trained from birth to be head of a country as oppose to having some random person elected. Just look at Rob Ford (I actually love this guy). Look at Justin Trudeau. And then look at the Rockfellers. Powerful families very often stay powerful because the children grow up understanding the management of huge amounts of money. Imagine a former drama teacher being told he is going to manage 16 billion dollars.

I think the ceremonial aspect is really downplayed in this thread. I think this is probably the most important aspect of the Monarchy. People are ceremonial in nature. Look how prevalent religion has been throughout history and most of that was just ceremonies. Humans are ceremonial creatures. It's why we hold awards night. We like the pomp and circumstance. For instance people we pissed off when Justin Bieber wore overalls when he received an award from the Prime Minister. There was no reason for this other then he seemed to be disrespecting the ceremony.

The ceremonial aspect of the monarchy breeds patriotism. And patriotism is one of the greatest things a country can have. People like to complain about the Patriotism of the United States, but the fact remains that they are the most powerful country in the world. Patriotism is the love of one's country and thus makes people wish to improve and make it better.

Also I dislike the dismissal of tradition. As Chesterton Says in Orthodoxy "Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about"

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: